Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumDoes Postmodern Theology Risk Becoming What It “Hates?”
Ive been getting ready to head out to speak at the Subverting the Norm conference this past week or so, and in preparing, Ive been talking though my presentations with my wife, Amy. Basically, the conference is a dive into the roiling waters of postmodern theological thought, with the aim of addressing the question of whether such theology can exist within the structure of organized religion. Im a big fan of much of what is being discussed by the forefront thinkers in this area (like Peter Rollins, John Caputo and others), such as critically examining what we believe about God and why. More to the point, perhaps, is the endeavor to free people from the damaging, or at least limiting, religious strictures and conscious constructs that they have built up around God and their faith.
Im no postmodern theology expert, so Ill leave it to the pros to explicate more about whats what in postmodern thought. But for me, the exciting work revolves around supplanting things like binary, propositional truths about God with more inductive, open-ended notions of the Divine that transcend religious doctrine or even our own mental constructs of God. This is both a necessary and a liberating process, I think, that indeed can lead the Church (big C Church, that is) toward something far more reconciling and healing for humanity than the modernist approach to faith weve employed for many decades now, if not some centuries.
Its helpful to look back a little bit at where weve come from in our religious and theological evolution of thought and practice. At the risk of geeking out on something that puts everyone to sleep, Ill try to make this quick and fairly painless. Interestingly, it can be argued that the more fundamentalist strain of Christianity can trace its origins back to the liberal thinking following the Enlightenment that suggested all things faith, God and religious thought included could be explained by rational means. This hyper-rationalism sought to build up rhetorical constructs that made a case for God, so to speak, as well as buttressing the doctrines of the Church.
But it also led to division, power struggles and the kind of other-izing that has opened the gate to religiously-fueled violence in the past. We may be a bit more subtle about it today than they were back during the Salem witch trials or the crusades, but the attempt to hyper-rationalize faith still leaves much human colateral damage in its wake. Just ask one of the millions who claim emotional abuse or neglect when a religious leader or even a family member placed their belief above the humanity of the other.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2013/04/does-postmodern-theology-risk-becoming-what-it-hates/
Im no postmodern theology expert, so Ill leave it to the pros to explicate more about whats what in postmodern thought. But for me, the exciting work revolves around supplanting things like binary, propositional truths about God with more inductive, open-ended notions of the Divine that transcend religious doctrine or even our own mental constructs of God. This is both a necessary and a liberating process, I think, that indeed can lead the Church (big C Church, that is) toward something far more reconciling and healing for humanity than the modernist approach to faith weve employed for many decades now, if not some centuries.
Its helpful to look back a little bit at where weve come from in our religious and theological evolution of thought and practice. At the risk of geeking out on something that puts everyone to sleep, Ill try to make this quick and fairly painless. Interestingly, it can be argued that the more fundamentalist strain of Christianity can trace its origins back to the liberal thinking following the Enlightenment that suggested all things faith, God and religious thought included could be explained by rational means. This hyper-rationalism sought to build up rhetorical constructs that made a case for God, so to speak, as well as buttressing the doctrines of the Church.
But it also led to division, power struggles and the kind of other-izing that has opened the gate to religiously-fueled violence in the past. We may be a bit more subtle about it today than they were back during the Salem witch trials or the crusades, but the attempt to hyper-rationalize faith still leaves much human colateral damage in its wake. Just ask one of the millions who claim emotional abuse or neglect when a religious leader or even a family member placed their belief above the humanity of the other.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2013/04/does-postmodern-theology-risk-becoming-what-it-hates/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1098 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does Postmodern Theology Risk Becoming What It “Hates?” (Original Post)
SecularMotion
Apr 2013
OP
Because he is using terminology which is unfamiliar to me, it's difficult to read this
cbayer
Apr 2013
#1
... A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism, if Hillel could teach him
struggle4progress
Apr 2013
#2
Theories in their death throes often become amazingly complex, viz the theory of
dimbear
Apr 2013
#3
cbayer
(146,218 posts)1. Because he is using terminology which is unfamiliar to me, it's difficult to read this
thoughtfully. It seems that he is speaking to and about the rising group of "nones", who are seeking a more eclectic and open ended way of expressing their spirituality and/or religiosity.
What was your take on this?
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)2. ... A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism, if Hillel could teach him
the whole of the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot. Rabbi Hillel replied, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it" ...
http://www.jewfaq.org/brother.htm
dimbear
(6,271 posts)3. Theories in their death throes often become amazingly complex, viz the theory of
epicycles dreamed up to preserve Ptolemaic astronomy.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)4. Epicycles were not "dreamed up" to save the Ptolemaic System.
Ptolemy included the Greek idea of epicycles in the Almagest. They also were carried over into the Copernican system.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)5. I seem to have the details wrong, but the point is the same. Moribund theories tend to become
more and more elaborate and bound by special vocabularies.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)6. true.. if students think postmodern philosophy is dull.
wait'll they catch a gander at this.