What is Duke Theology?
So, fish don't think about the water they swim in. Post-liberalism wasn't mentioned in any of my classes until last fall, and I don't know that it's been mentioned since. But that hasn't stopped many from imbibing the spirit of the old time Yale religion: although this hasn't forced us to actually think explicitly about the koolaid. We've been here for a while now; it's time to take account of what we've learned. I'd like to hear what my buddies think Duke theology is. In the meantime, I'd like to suggest some things that it is not. To get the conversation going, here are some proposals of what count as Duke heresies.
It's a Duke heresy to believe in:
1. The magisterial authority of God's Word written. This is best explained by noting the two sub-heresies that coalesce on this point: (a) the inerrancy of Scripture (b) the idea that the Bible can be interpreted apart from the community of faith.
2. "Propositional" theology. Dukies suspect propositions, fundamentally, because they have accepted the postmodern critique of metanarratives expressed via timeless, metaphysical systems. Accordingly, they suspect readings of Scripture that import extraneous philosophical language and conceptualities: that is, extraneous to either (a) the Bible (b) Karl Barth [that is, German Idealism] (c) Wittgenstein. And, despite the fact that Jesus said that he is the truth, this all leaves Dukies wary of making "truth claims" that could be thought to stand apart from the story as it is embodied in the community of faith. Problematically, this all leaves Dukies at odds with most of the greatest interpreters of the community's past; still, Dukies are certain that propositions are not fit for theology--even if they have to use propositions to express their disdain.
3. A strong distinction between Gospel and Church, soteriology and ecclesiology. If someone says something like, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved," Dukies can be sure that he is a heretic, even if he is an apostle or an angel from heaven, because he's ignored the church.
4. Justification by Faith Alone, according to the "Lutheran" interpretation.
5. Supercessionism.
6. The invisibility of the Church. And, it should be noted, the rejection of this Protestant hallmark goes far in pushing many Dukies to the Roman Church.
7. Just war theory, even of the most rigorous variety (e.g., the Roman variety); and, more broadly, Christianly philosophical attempts to "justify" the "state," its "order," and its "justice." Appeal is sometimes made to Augustine, but only his negative evaluation of Roman claims to possess justice--never to his correlative positive valuation, based on his innovative theory that a commonwealth is a society of rational beings united by common agreement as to the common objects of their love. Exception: Yoder's middle axioms, grass-roots protesting, etc.
It's really very simple to test whether or not any particular idea is a Duke heresy. Just strike up a conversation with a fellow student about something, casually imply that you think, for example, that the gospel is not ultimately reducible to ecclesiology, and watch what happens. So, what do you all think? What is Duke theology?
It's a Duke heresy to believe in:
1. The magisterial authority of God's Word written. This is best explained by noting the two sub-heresies that coalesce on this point: (a) the inerrancy of Scripture (b) the idea that the Bible can be interpreted apart from the community of faith.
2. "Propositional" theology. Dukies suspect propositions, fundamentally, because they have accepted the postmodern critique of metanarratives expressed via timeless, metaphysical systems. Accordingly, they suspect readings of Scripture that import extraneous philosophical language and conceptualities: that is, extraneous to either (a) the Bible (b) Karl Barth [that is, German Idealism] (c) Wittgenstein. And, despite the fact that Jesus said that he is the truth, this all leaves Dukies wary of making "truth claims" that could be thought to stand apart from the story as it is embodied in the community of faith. Problematically, this all leaves Dukies at odds with most of the greatest interpreters of the community's past; still, Dukies are certain that propositions are not fit for theology--even if they have to use propositions to express their disdain.
3. A strong distinction between Gospel and Church, soteriology and ecclesiology. If someone says something like, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved," Dukies can be sure that he is a heretic, even if he is an apostle or an angel from heaven, because he's ignored the church.
4. Justification by Faith Alone, according to the "Lutheran" interpretation.
5. Supercessionism.
6. The invisibility of the Church. And, it should be noted, the rejection of this Protestant hallmark goes far in pushing many Dukies to the Roman Church.
7. Just war theory, even of the most rigorous variety (e.g., the Roman variety); and, more broadly, Christianly philosophical attempts to "justify" the "state," its "order," and its "justice." Appeal is sometimes made to Augustine, but only his negative evaluation of Roman claims to possess justice--never to his correlative positive valuation, based on his innovative theory that a commonwealth is a society of rational beings united by common agreement as to the common objects of their love. Exception: Yoder's middle axioms, grass-roots protesting, etc.
It's really very simple to test whether or not any particular idea is a Duke heresy. Just strike up a conversation with a fellow student about something, casually imply that you think, for example, that the gospel is not ultimately reducible to ecclesiology, and watch what happens. So, what do you all think? What is Duke theology?
posted by Anonymous at 3:05 PM
76 Comments:
I wonder how much diversity we have. May be I don't have enough conversations to get a proper sense of the table, but I think there is an assumption from most people at Duke that most people either agree with them or disagree with them in a boolean manner on every possible issue. What I mean by that is, there is a sense that at Duke you are either conforted by your longer mindedness or comforted by your beligerence to established opinion, no matter if that opinion is actually held by anyone in practice.
There is a sense that Phil's post is a little to 'postlib,' but i think his gesture is valid. I would say abortion is a duke heresy. I've never heard a pro-abortion (or pro-choice) position from anyone here.
I don't think many people have thought through let alone know lindbeck's critique of "propositional" theology (i am speaking of students here) and, though it could be in some of the coolaid, I don't think its in Wainwright and he was our supposed theology instructor (speaking of third years).
Exclusivism might be another Duke heresy but that may run with your comment on the postmodern critique. Specifically, there is no ecclesial exclusivism, nor any person who speaks of the ultimate supremacy of his her tradition.
Interfaith dialogue is another heresy, unless its with Jewish people (there is a small caveat for Ellen Davis).
Finally, I would like to push the question: is this what we are taught or what our faculty publishes, because I think that those are two different things.
Dear Phil,
I appreciated your description of Duke's theology. I think you have broadly described well what I have received from Duke. There are certainly variants as Matt (and Wilson a little) point out, but overall you have described in words fairly well my own experience here (though I do not fully yet understand everything you say). Given that, it may be that our similar background (AG and Wheaton) provide for a similar experience of Duke. I know that my black friends primary experience of Duke is quite different. The impressions that rise to the surface are different than my own impressions. The two of us may have enough common background to have quite a similar experience of Duke.
At the same time I am reminded of a favorite book of mine edited by a favorite professor of mine at Wheaton, Tim Phillips (who died a couple of years ago of cancer). His co-editor was Dennis Okholm (another Wheaton prof). The book is titled Four views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World. At the very end of the introduction they say:
Theological discussions must sometimes act as thermostats, reversing tendencies which, if allowed to go on too long, will cause us to forget something of our heritage. As we have pointed out, in our culture 'inclusivism' and 'pluralism' are hot words; 'particularism' leaves many cold. Perhaps when--and if--the pendulum swings back toward retrictivism and presumptive superiority, then the thermostat might have to be turned in the other direction, so as, again, not to lose something of our rich Christian heritage.
I think that Duke sets within a particular setting of the thermostat of the Christian theological house. I do not yet know enough about the other rooms in the house to gauge whether the thermostat at Duke needs yet to be turned the other way. But I do know that it has provided a needed corrective for some things I learned at Wheaton and in my upbringing. I also think it offers a corrective for some of the more liberal tendencies within the United Methodist Church. Most likely the Duke thermostat has swung too far in some direction in responding to both of these rooms within the house. Maybe you provide some of those indicators (#3, 4?, 6?, 7) Perhaps not in other areas (#1, 4?, 6?). And some I don’t even know (#5, 2).
I’d love to have a conversation about it tomorrow at Socratic Club. So bring your question, Phil. Its been an absence too long.
I'm going to propose a moratorium on Phil and Craig responding to each other directly in this forum. I'm sure (well, actually, I trust) you guys have a fine relationship in person, but I don't sense it at all from the back-and-forth that's gone on on this blog since I've left you all. Maybe it doesn't bother everybody else, since you see them together in person, but I'm starting to find it a bit wearying. I love you both, and I think you both have great things to say. Let's hear you say those things in response to other people, not to each other. If you want to argue with each other, be creative and try to look like you're arguing with someone else. :)
I trust that my embodied distance from you all will shield me from any negative consequences to my suggestion. :)
Thanks,
Tom
straw man
Mr. Arthur, I'll take you up on your offer.
Just to clarify, mainly in reponse to Wilson's question: I want to tease out the overlap between what the professors teach and what "the average student" picks up while s/he is here. This is clearly problematic at both ends of the pole: (a) take Prof. Huetter. Based on the working definition of Duke theology that I'm trying to get at, I don't think he's a "Duke" theologian. He's a Thomist. Or take Prof. Fulkerson. But in between them there's something common enough shared by a whole bunch of the faculty, across the disciplines, that I think we can intelligently talk about "Duke theology" (b) students from different backgrounds are going to react to Duke theology differently; rather than view this as a hindrance, I think we can actually put this to work to figure out what Duke theology is. Mr. Arthur is right to point out that in many ways I'm still a Pentecostal-Wheaton-Evangelical (and yes, I am a man, white, rich, married, I voted for Bush, etc.) and my list of heresies reflects that. So, let's hear some from people who are different.
Matt, I think your thoughtful remarks at least partially demonstrate what I'm getting at. Baptists who endorse the "heresy" of a fairly strong Gospel/Church distinction are an example of a group of folk that push back on what I take to be an element of Duke theology. On the other hand, your push back against the propisitional heresy shows that, as you say, you're in some ways a postliberal. Which is fine, by the way, I don't want ya'll to think that this is about slamming Duke theology; I want to clarify what it is, and then, if need be, to critique it.
So, last clarification. I overplayed my emphasis on postliberalism in my introduction to the heresies. I'm not so interested in mapping out how Duke is or isn't postliberal, as just figuring out what Duke theology is, with or without reference to the Yale school.
Well, I've really enjoyed all your comments, if ya'll aren't bored yet I'd like to keep hearing from you.
Tom, you're a son of God: Mt. 5.9 :)
Forgot something. I think in general what I mean by Duke theology, to give a positive definition, is: whatever can be taken for granted in Preaching 30, either by the professor or the students.
I will say this. I skipped CH13, CH14, NT, Theology, AMX, and Ethics (did I even go to the same school as you guys?), and each of Phil's descriptions of "Duke heresies" sounded very plausible to me.
But then again, I too came from Wheaton.
Wilson's observation on pro-choice/abortion stuff is really interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Pretty much every bit of "Duke theology" I can think of militates against most pro-choice arguments, so I suppose it shouldn't be so surprising. But, on the other hand, I don't hear Dukies making arguments against abortion, either. Duke Div seems to be fairly silent on the issue (although it's my understanding that Hays addresses it in Moral Vision). Maybe that's because it's a "Republican" issue...
Craig,
I haven't read your essay. And believe it or not, I didn't have you in mind, not in the least bit, when I wrote this post. On that I simply ask you to believe me.
If anyone is interested, what sparked this thought about "Duke heresy" were three or four conversations with various students in the last two weeks. In each case, I said something that created a "what do you mean?" or "do you really think that?" moment, which I think had less to do with genuine disagreement as it had to do with the uncomfortable meeting of two, if you'll pardon the phrase, "language games." One of these conversations, by the way, was with a white, male, rich, Christian college graduate, which I think is interesting.
Please all, let's keep this talk going. Craig, I would really like to hear what you think about the question, "what is Duke theology?" Derek, you've got more to say than "straw man," what do you think? Graham, come on boy, don't fear the prebytery. And if there are any non-white non-male people reading this, I'd love to hear what you think. What is Duke theology?
Duke theology is what evangelicalism would look like if it (evangelicalism) had fought a different set of battles.
Agree or disagree?
Along those lines, evangelicalism has fought the battle over biblical authority. It has not fought the ecclesiological battles inherent in the Anglican debates (mainly because it doesn't care). I would suggest that Duke hasn't really fought the ecclesiological battles, either, although it sure is talking like it's preparing a vast army to tackle that problem. And Duke isn't sure what a biblical authority battle would look like.
The Anglican Communion, as I read it, is facing an ecclesiological battle occasioned by a battle over biblical authority. Hence evangelicalism doesn't give all the necessary resources, and neither does Duke.
It also seems to me that evangelicalism has solved the biblical authority problem by ignoring the ecclesiological problem. That is, by deciding that separating from those who disagree on biblical authority is preferable to remaining tied to them in any meaningful way. Furthermore, deciding the same thing concerning those who, while agreeing in principle on biblical authority, disagree in any significant (or insignificant!) way on what that authoritative text means.
Perhaps the difference between Phil's and Craig's perspectives could be boiled down to this: Is the communion that the Roman Catholic Church has managed to preserve despite wild differences within that communion an accomplishment or a farce?
Sorry if these comments don't seem to have a lot to do with each other. It's late here (11:20pm) and I've had a full day of teaching. :)
Tom Mc., I set this blog aside swearing I would not let it distract me from a pressing deadline for a summary of John Milbank's masterpiece.
But this line: "Duke theology is what evangelicalism would look like if it (evangelicalism) had fought a different set of battles" successfully pulled me away. I have to think about it, but my first reaction is that I can't wait to read your books once you start publishing in earnest. Wow.
My quick reaction is to say, "he may be right. I have never thought about it that way."
It may be helpful to know that this Milbank piece is for a class in Anglican Social Ethics taught by Hauerwas and Wells. We are pretty much putting Milbank, a catholic, in conversation with O'Donovan, an evangelical, with a bone thrown to liberal protestantism for the dog that it is.
I think your summary is most likely astute, clearly provocative, but demanding a lot of unpacking that will take some time.
Phil,
While I probably stand more in the duke theology than you (most?), I certainly do not think it is without problems. I just find your characterization implausible. Other than, on Tom M's account, that "the average Student," might only take in a dumbed-down bastardized version of this theology asymptotically. But that is a pedagogical issue, one worth a seperate discussion.
Yet within this group, of above average students, we need not deal in such flat characterizations. So, with regard to your straw man:
1) Duke theology does not toe the 1950 Chicago inerrancy statement. But I'm not sure you do either. Nor am I sure you think we can rightly interpret the text as individuals. But there is a lot of ground between Chicago and radical indeterminancy apart from an authorized interpretive community. Your own beloved Huetter, as a Catholic, would not believe in individual interpretation - i.e. private judgment.
2) Modern propositional theology is not the same as Thomistic propositional theology. So to say the anti-propositional move rules out Thomas, Nyssan, etc. is a gross overstatement.
3) False dichotomy. Paul said confess and believe, but do you for a moment he thought that was separable from a community, at least as a normative practice.
4) Campbell, see previous thread.
5) You need to define what you/they mean by this. Are you a supercessionist, and if so how?
6) Duke theology is against the invisibility of the Church insofar as it is held over and against the visibility of the Church. Again, Saint Huetter has a dog in that fight as a Catholic. But, I will, once again, go on record as being against ecclesial positivism (Hauerwas). See Hobson's rant "Against Hauerwas" in New Blackfriars on this.
7) You read City of God. Augustine himself thinks the true res publica is the kingdom/church. And Yoder is much more complex on this than you give him credit. Though this is liklely because Hauerwas represents him rather flatly. His (Y's) final anthology is FOR the Nations for crying out loud.
7B) You need to specify how you are using love and justice. There are innumerable configurations that are oppositional or cooperative. Is love the ideal and justice the fallback? Are these inseperable? Are ethics and politics the same, different, inimical?
Derek, you both misunderstand my intention and prove my point. I don't want to argue, right now, the merits of any particular position held by "Duke theology." I first want to find out what those positions are. Based on your rigorous responses to my (partial) list of heresies, I'd say we've got a good start.
Also, to repeat, I'm not necessarily a Duke heretic on all these points. I'm certainly not a Thomist, and while I think Dr. Huetter is definitely one of the saints (as are you and I, by God's grace alone), on his particular church's own grounds I think it's a bit hasty to be saying that sort of thing. Don't you?
On inerrancy no, I don't mean what the Chicago group said, I'm trying to mean what Augustine meant. I really like what Thomas says in ST Iq1 about Scripture and the literal sense. Which brings me to the point: the other day in seminar, Huetter (who is, I confess, very beloved by me, even if he isn't a RC saint) said, without adornment, that the Bible is inerrant. At which point, everyone in the room--except for me, of course--started squirming in their seats, looking at each other, etc.; and so Huetter backed off and said, "okay, infallible," and then went on to reiterate Thomas on the literal sense, and explain that you don't have to believe in 6 day creationism to believe that the Bible is inerrant: you just have to believe that the Bible says exactly what God wants it to say. But the point of all of this, FOR THIS DISCUSSION, is that everyone in the room was extremely uncomfortable with the language of inerrancy, or even infallibility. And that is what made me think about it in terms of a "duke heresy," and that was part of what suggested this post in the first place.
Oh yeah, Derek, read De Civ XIX.24-6, and also V when Augustine talks about Theodosius (and I think Constantine). To be sure, the City of God is the only true res publica, for only there is justice to be found--for only there is right worship to be found. But then Augustine gives his new definition of a commonwealth, and on this ground he says that the Roman state was one, although a very, very wicked one. This is what I think is often over looked in the Hauerwas camp. I can't say for Yoder, because I've barely read any of him.
That I don't read Yoder might not be a full blown Duke heresy, but surely it indicates a "practice" that is sub-Christian, I'd say! (That's a little joke, by the way).
I think we really just need more longer minded people and the church won't be in such a bad place.
I'm curious if anyone would enjoy inviting a few professors to weigh in on this blog? I'd suggest Hueter, Hauerwas, and I think it would be interesting to get the Dean's perspective (since he is the dean after all). I'd be willing to talk to Dean Jones (which means I'll send him an email). Anyone willing to talk to the others (or suggest others)? It might be interesting to get Dean Wells in here as a relatively new-comer. I'd be willing to ask him. Phil, are you up for this kind of engagement?
Tom
P.S. I enjoy all of your references to "Tom" which you mean "McGlothlin," but it makes me feel smart and holy when you say just "Tom."
P.S.S. "Mr. Anderas," please do not call me "Mr. Arthur." "Mr. Arthur" is my father.
P.S.S.S. Derek, I'm more in line with Phil's response than your straw-man would suggest is appropriate. I'll give another anecdotal experience: sitting in Wacker's class this morning as he described all the families of churches in America. Someone asked him what he thinks about so many churches. He said, "I think its good. Lots of niches to express different people's personalities" (or something like that). There was a hushed gasp that went through the classroom. Wacker just said a Duke heresy.
Also, could we stop using the koolaid metaphor. I know Jonestown happened a long time ago, but this is not an example of people falling in line; this is mass-suicide.
The Duke School of modern theology is an ecumenically minded ecclesiocentric emphasis on the 'living out' of Scripture (to use Lash's language) and Sacred Tradition in such a manner as to elude the academic critiques which modernism and postmodernism fling against Christianity, but also to try and live out faithfully what it means to say 'Jesus is Lord,' not as a white or black, male or female American,* but as a Christian.
Strawmen aside, we need to develop caricatures in order to engage in this project. There is no valid reduction of any school, but there is a manner in which a caricature can help us as we move on to reflect upon this moment in theology. I think many of us third years (the majority of this blogs participants) have for a long time realized that a special thing has been going on here, not only with the amazing faculty but with the often times more amazing student body. It is towards a refined articulation of this moment which I believe that Phil is driving at, and those his own blog-rhetoric is often too much to handle, every one should be able to grant him that. My definition is long and insufficient but it is moving towards something. Stanley's cloud looms so large over this place it is hard to shift away from it, but we have to talk about Duke theology not as a euphemism for Stanley but for the water we drink and piss out once we've absorbed its nutrients. For most students, the most formative course at Duke is J Warren Smith's CH 13 and though he trained at Yale, assigns Placher, and is a junior faculty member, his influence should not be undervalued. So please people, constructive accounts, even if they are negative. Forget about Phil if you need to, he won't mind. He doesn't even have internet at home.
*How many international students here have not been formed in some way in America before coming to Duke? I can only think of one. Just curious.
Phil,
To suggest I misunderstand seems to not take responsibility for the tone of your post. Which I think comes off as follows:
1) There is an "orthodoxy" at Duke (irony intended)
2) I am not sure of its positive content
3) But, here are some negations I think it makes
4) I, unlike many (most of you Socratics) hold at least some of these negations
5) Thus, I am against, and/or above the Duke theology
One through three are explicit, whereas four and five are more implicit in your tone, which per usual is somewhat polemical. Not that I mind polemic. It's fine, but own up to it.
If you were really just curious, I think you might better have related the inerrancy anecdote with Huetter's class and asked: 1) if anyone can explain the reaction, 2) if said explanaiton was isolatable to Duke's ethos, or 3) evinced broader ecclesial (Protestant and/or Methodist) trends.
Instead, you use the fish metaphor which suggests you know more about the water than those/we fish. Also the now banned kool-aid metaphor suggests a certain lemming-like ditto-head-ness imperiling their/our souls.
And as always, the language of heresy is what we might call fighting words. In some contexts/voices, that could be taken as a joke. But as someone who is deeply committed too and embroiled in a ecclesial settting in which you are actively (if, perhaps, rightly) calling some/many in your communion/denomination "apostate", that language cannot but have its fullest negative valence.
TOM(S),
Sorry for neglecting other posts. What I take to be the straw man set me off a bit. Again, not that I am a lemming, sheep, etc. But, let's specify and then criticize, rather than (over)generalize and pan.
TOM M - I think the evanvelicalism comment is right. Care to offer a counterfactual history that would result in the Duke Theology being in the mainstream of evangelicalism?
TOM a - I don't deny that their is an orthodoxy of sorts with correlative heresies. For example valorizing the plurality of ecclesial communities in America. I'd say something like a "radical" catholicity is in keeping with the ethos of Duke's orthodoxy. Hence the hush at Wacker's comment.
The question is not if there is a "party line," but what that is and why that is, and subsequently if we think that's good, right, true, etc.
Here's another one:
Duke theology is evangelical theology that has stepped down from battle stations.
Of course, it's genealogically invalid, since Duke theology was never "evangelical" in the American sense of the term. But it might explain why a lot of evangelicals find it so refreshing (at first, at least).
Tom
Tom Mc.,
I have thought several hours about your pithy statement about evangelicals & Duke. How do you account for the hugely important emphasis on catholicity in your evangelicalism? I see its recent intellectual sources in Yoder & Milbank, as well as Newbigin and Lindbeck (I have only read a little of GL). And St. Stanley. But how do you account for it in your pithy comment about evangelicals and their battles? [Hint: you just read something of mine where I discovered my own answer to that]
Craig,
I'm not entirely sure I understand your question (e.g., what do you mean by "your evangelicalism"?). But I'll hazard a response, anyway...
Of course, the emphasis on catholicity at Duke does not come from evangelical sources. Nevertheless, many evangelicals find it attractive. Why? At bottom, I think evangelicalism wants catholicity; it's just chosen to prioritize orthodoxy [i.e., orthodoxy + purity] over catholicity. (That would be the evangelical way of putting it, of course.) What I mean by "evangelicalism wants catholicity" is that the grounding impulse that drives most evangelicals--love for Jesus--gives all the resources necessary for wanting catholicity. This natural tendency has been restrained, though, by the battleground mentality that has come to characterize much of evangelicalism due to the battles it fought earlier in the last century. If that battleground mentality faded away, would an appreciation for catholicity emerge? I think many of the evangelicals at Duke, many of whom are simultaneously tired of the dichotomies that keep the battlefield mentality alive in evangelicalism and appreciative of catholicity (even if only in rhetoric), are walking evidence that it would. And so, in that sense, I think Duke theology is (like) evangelical theology that has stepped down from battle stations.
Now, whether or not that battle-stations mentality should be stepped down from is another question. I think Brian McLaren and John Piper are duking this out (no pun intended) within evangelicalism.
Thanks, Tom Mc.
It seems I understand your pithy statement precisely. And I agree with the thrust of your statement. In my bio at Covenant (http://covenant-communion.com) I describe myself as an evangelical catholic, and describe how I came to be that. I have also grown to think of Wesley as one who found himself in the same position, frustrated in his resistance to the Calvinist turn from catholicity in England.
I appreciate your tip about MacLaren and Piper. I have not read that dialogue, but I have recently returned to MacLaren and delightfully found him articulating the same story, concerns, and prescription that I seem to have adopted here. I just bought what I think is a commentary he wrote on Luke (hoping it is as helpful as the Ched Myers account of Mark).
Craig,
I don't actually know if McLaren and Piper are in any sort of direct back-and-forth; I just know that they are standard-bearers for two very different evangelical constituencies.
Tom
Derek,
As you reflect upon Duke Theology and what it offers you (and me), what do you see as its limitations, etc.? I personally, find it quite refreshing coming from an evangelical background. I have often referred to Duke as Wheaton grown up (literally: everyone is older, piously: we don't fight about silly stuff like dating, and theologically: we're more engaged with critical scholarhip which is to say we're not just blowing it off by laughing at it...though sometimes we do this). On the other hand, I sometimes ask myself about this focus on unity (Wacker's statements are tempting), the focus on the creeds (thus the dialogue coming up with the Emergent Church and Fulkerson), the visible church (thus the dialogue with Dean Wells on the chapel being a church...which you, Derek, had better be at), and the liturgical renewal movement (i.e. we don't sing "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs which I love...because he is my boyfriend). These are just a couple, and I'm being a little sacrastic towards the end there. So again, Derek, what are the areas you're pushing back against at this point? It is our third year and this conversation seems appropriate given our place in the curriculum.
Peace,
Tom
My reservations, corrections, and redirections are:
1) Against Hauerwas's ecclesial positivism. The Church: a) Is not coextensive/synonymous with the Kingdom, b) is both inflected and infected by the world, c) does not consist (only) in the perfect practices (i.e. if we don't get it right the Church becomes unintelligible, invisible, or impossible. (Again, see New Blackfriars for the essay that makes this point quite polemically, though in my estimation, not precisely enough.
2) With Carter, Duke theology is still (very - uber?) white theology
3) Correlative to this, there is lacking some measure of global/catholic investment, involvement, etc.
4) Our going liturgical ethos is ethnocentric, if not racist, and is rather arbitrary and irrational. (E.g. the frequency with which Marva Dawn's REACHING OUT WITHOUT DUMBING DOWN is assigned and quoted approvingly. She's brilliant on most everything else, but this.)
5) Newbigin needs to be featured with the prominence that Yoder, Lindbeck, Childs, etc. are.
6) There needs to me more, and more concrete constructive theology. It's not enough to be the omnidebunkers of idolatry and post/modernism. If rights talk is BAAAAAAAd, how to we deal with race, gender, etc.
Derek,
I particularly like your #4. Turner in Holy Spirit and minsitry labeled this drive atavism. I had not heard this word before so I had to look it up. Its a good word, I think for what ends up happening. At the same time, I don't think that a Dr. Phillips would ever intend atavism while pushing litugrical renewal. I have not yet taken worship, but this will be a point I will heavily push when I am there. I pushed it a couple of weeks ago in Socratic club. I think this ties in with your #2 as well.
Also, talk more about Newbigin. It was a class that I did not take very seriously as far as the work I put into my paper, but is the class in which I read the best book I have read at Duke.
Also, #6 goes over me. I'm missing the reference here but I think it is to Hauerwas.
I like your list.
Tom,
I think you got six right. Even if we reject rights language and liberal claims of "victimage" under the guise of political correctness, multiculturalism, etc., we are still left with the fact that certain persons and classes of persons have been/are on the receiving end of much violence. And the Church is not any better on these counts. So, we need to specify what our distinct politics, rhatoric, liturgics, ethics, etc. are that deal with sin and violence without advert to the nation-state, etc.
In Death class today, Verhey said, "Although this might be a heresy around here, I think we need to keep some rights language." Or something to that effect.
What he was talking about was that there are some minimums that when crossed should jar us as to what identities we are living into. This does not mean that rights language governs us, but that it can help to demarcate when we stray from faithfulness. I thought it was pertinent because he actually used the word heresy.
Matt,
1) I think Carter is hard to plot in this discussion. He is certainly not in t eh Duke/Yale/Postliberal School. That is not to say that he does not have certain affinities with its project. Nor that his employment at Duke does not make him part of the Duke School, it's new leading edge. But in his own words, "That's not what I'm trying to do." But it may be an effect of what he is doing.
2) We need Newbigin. Not Wainwright's muted iteration. He should be just as decisive and provocative as Yoder. You dhould react in one of two wats: 1) Woe is me, I must rethink everything, or 2) This is so dangersous I must resist it with everything. You should not be able to be ambivalent.
Specifically, Newbigin's ecumenical catholicity is the necessary correlative of Yoder's pacifism. And though he does not fully escape the colonial confinements of his English Christianity, he does provide the opening within the postliberal, Barthian, Yale-Duke theology for Carter's project to inhabit it and transform it.
In short, Newbigin is the opening through which I think the Duke School can begin to deal with whiteness and the global dimensions of radical catholicity, and the actual post/imperial conditions of postcoloniality, rather than merely an historical or metaphorical Constantinianism. That is, the postcolonial missional question which Newbigin poses is the un/der-specified moment in Yoder which opens the Duke theology onto Carter's post-whiteness theology.
If anyone wants it, I can make my Newbigin paper available which compares him with Yoder and begins to make the synthetic move sketched here on the way to entering into Carter's project.
Derek,
I will give you a ride to school some day if you give me a copy of your Newbigin paper. Deal?
I did not take G. Wainwright's course, but I read all the books. I echo Derek's claim. I find myself referring to Newbigin all the time. Some of you know I have adopted Carter's positive theology as my own way of thinking about our Christian identity. The heart of that is that we receive our identity in Christ so that we may bring others into that identity as part of the triune God's pentecostalization of creation. Carter hints at that outward thrust that characterizes our mission, but he does not develop it. Newbigin does. Similarly, Milbank speaks of "relational receptivity" as the part of his three-fold ethical framework that outnarrates secular reason, but he does not tell us how to go do that. Newbigin does. Newbigin drives us out of insular cocoons and sectarian intentional communities into the frontier of the unchurched and insists that we incarnate the Christ right there on the edge so that, seeing us do what Carter and Milbank talk about abstractly, they ask the questions for which Christ is the answer. And without Newbigin, ecumenism remains just another word to describe interdenominational experiments in Gospel domestication techniques during the 1970's. (Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt).
Since we are getting close to the record, I would like to keep pushing this by defending liturgical worship.
First of all, Tom A, I bet you would agree completely with Ed Phillips. I, however, do not.
If we see the liturgy as the cultural practice of WASPs and/or wanna be WASP's then that is problematic. Tremendously so. Liturgy is not a means for pomp and procession. Liturgy is a means for entering into the otherness that is the Worship of God. It is not about appropriating WASP practices but appropriating the alien for everyone. Liturgy should be strange. It should be an act that questions all others.
Atavism is a harsh description and, I feel, an uncalled for one for it looks for novelty when as a Church we look for not what is right now, but for the faithful appropriation and articulation of what has been given to us.
Part of this is polemical and part of this is serious, it is up for you to decide.
Matt,
Megadittoes on Turner's understanding.
With regard to Newbigin: Yes, I believe you need Newbigin AND Yoder, though I don't think Wells and Hauerwas agree. In particular, and as I said above, I think Newbigin balances Yoder's sectarian affinities in such a way that you get a different approach to prophetic ministry. I have recently read "The Beloved Community" which I know many have read. Using a broad brush here admittedly, I think Yoder leads you to Clarence Jordan's Koininia Farm, and Newbigin leads you to voter registrations in Mississippi and Wesley-like cell groups among the unchurched poor in Georgia. One is a more monastic impulse, and the other more of the itinerant Assisi/Wesley. [BTW, I would add that is another reason we ought keep Tillich in tension with all this, rather than keeping him out of the ballgame, once you acknowledge where he got it wrong in appropriating Nietzche and add in Barth's critique of him. He similarly thrusts you into culture to engage it].
Desperately trying to continue this thread, I wonder how Duke Theology fits into the strong tension here between the training of pastors and the training of academics? We have spoken briefly on this in the past, but is there a way that all that could be right about Duke theology can be communicated through our curriculum to everyone involved, or are their limitations to the broadness of the resources which form its bases, id est Aristotle, Yoder, Thomas, Barth, Foucault, Wittgenstein, et al
Wilson raises excellent pedagogical concerns. Some thoughts thereon. First, rather than an elective first year course, there ought to be a core course common to all Masters students (MDiv, ThM, MTS) that goes over the Duke theology. Perhaps five primary texts that students will need to know in order to navigate the Div School (Nature of Doctrine, Body Politics, etc.). Second, there is a problem in that there usually are not dedicated academic seminars (i.e. PhD MTS), so the classroom becomes terribly hard to manage. Either we need A/B tracks for most/many courses, we need better policing of prerequisites, or a different pedagogical strategy.
Take Anglican Social Ethics. There are a number of ThD, MTS, ThM, and overachieving MDiv students, as well as a number of students who recently became Anglican and are taking the course as some sort of pastoral catechesis. AND we're reading texts like THEOLOGY AND SOCIAL THEORY. So some students have read all/most of the French and German thinkers Milbank critiques and want, need, and could benefit from that kind of deep engagement. But others don't even know who Nietzsche is, or why Milbank is even doing what he's doing.
The same could be said of Carter's Black Intellectuals course. But, for some reason, I think he's better at navigating that than are Wells and Hauerwas. Or maybe I just feel differently about the two classes for odd reasons of which I am not aware.
So, in summary, there are ways to make sure every student gets it. From the most intellectual to the least. But that would take some radical pedagogical shifts, both in the curriculum as a whole, and in specific delivery thereof.
PS-PHIL, WHERE ARE YOU?!
I think, as dwl points out, there is a manner in which jones et al are trying to "live into the tension" of pedagogy instead of becoming more concrete about what they are doing and what they are trying to do. I think there is a lot of ambiguous talk by faculty about who we (as students) are and where we are going. Most of them only know the ones who are courageous enough to talk to them, and that only represents a small slice of the div school. There is a way that the administration can be satisfied because the people who talk to the faculty (exempli gratia craig and dwl) usually fill up both models (future pastor and future academic) quite neatly.
There are invisible people (i say that quite cheakily) within the school which the admin does not talk to nor know how to teach and maybe if they did, the paradigm would be different. I don't know.
Thursdays and Fridays are bad for me. I will respond this weekend. Check back later for those responses. I have a lot of thought left on this topic.
Ativism take 2.
First, I barely know what atavism is.
Second, I did not say that "liturgy" was atavistic. I agreed with Derek that the "Our going liturgical ethos is ethnocentric, if not racist, and is rather arbitrary and irrational." If I really thought liturgy were atavistic or racist at its essence or core, why would I have gone to morning prayer almost every morning for the last two years learning a liturgy that is esentially the same thing over and over?
Third, I disagree with Matt and Craig on Dr. Turner. Turner always emphasized that the BCP was a good and solid form or structure for various acts of worship. He never expected us to know the exact words but rather the structure behind the words. He made this explict multiple times (I can even play it for you some day if you want me to). His own ability to take pieces of the BCP and use them at will by memory (which is part of his own Holiness tradition's emphasis on memorization) in various places suggests exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. He is appropriating the BCP as needed, not sticking to it rigidly.
Fourth, Wainwright and Phillips have both said at points that one ought to stick with not only the structure or form of the liturgy but the exact words, etc. Wainwritght told me this one day after class as I proposed a slight ammendation on the baptismal liturgy in the UMC hymnal. Phillips, who I have not had in class, makes this clear in his involvement and leadership (he was the chair of the committee) of writing "This Holy Mystery" (The UMC's official "position paper" on communion) when this document reccomends that all UMCs use the communion liturgy directly from the UMC hymnal without varition (though paradoxically enough it does also reccomend that we use litrugies from other Christian churches as well, i.e. the BCP or the Presbyterian Book of Prayer, etc.). I think this emphasis on not only form and structure but also the exact words in an exact order tends toward atavism (by which I do not intend to imply that this is intentional but only that it is an unintended result). I think that there are good reasons why the liturgy is as it is. But I also think there are good reasons for it to be shifted otherwise.
On another note:
I am remembering a lecture that Jones did at our Methodism Class. He suggested that Duke Theology was uniquely Wesleyan theology. By that he meant two things:
First, Duke theologians engage Wesley.
Second, Duke curriculum is broadly catholic.
I do not think that the first of those is generally happening. But I do think that our core curriculum is the kind of curriculum that Wesley would have advocated for and is the kind of stuff that Wesley studied himself. On that account, I think that there is a convergence of post-liberalism and Wesleyan catholic spirit. If post-liberalism is generally a push to a pre-modern way of doing exegesis (which is an over simplification), then the pre-modern that is seeks to follow is Wesley.
King,
I am not clear on what I said about Turner on the BCP with which you are disagreeing. What did I say? Where in the world did I say anything about sticking to a liturgy rigidly (who, me?!?). That doesn't sound like the me I used to know.
I'm not sure I used the word "rote." I don't believe that people who follow the liturgy word for word do it rotely (I certainly would not say Wainwright or Phillips are guilty of rotely going through the liturgy). Only that there is theological rigidity in not allowing any creative engagement with the liturgy by moving things around, dropping things, or changing things. And I think this attitude tends toward atavism.
Craig and Matt, what I was disagreeing with you two on was your interprtation of Turner which I thought implied that he did not critique the liturgical ethos as racist (which was Derek's critique of Duke Theology). My main disagreement is not with you two, but rather with Wainwright's comment to me after class that we ought to stick with the exact wording of the hymnal for baptism (as if that were the equivalent of an ecumencial creed such as Nicea) and Phillips reccomendation in The Holy Mystery that we ought to use the UMC hymanl's communion litrugy with no variation. I think these two suggestions tend toward atavism (though not intentionaly).
Tom
While I do not wish for this to descend into a question of liturgical styles (although I am gunning for the comments record so I would like to maintain some conflict), there is a point where style itself becomes a problem within Liturgy. When we try and become creative with liturgical practices, adapting the baptismal or Eucharistic rites to our own judgments, we cast ourselves above and over what has come before. At a certain level this is what they were doing with This Holy Mystery, but that came with the authority of an ecclesial body, not with the fancy of some pastor.
Liturgical rites may be rigid but they are so in order that we conform to them and we do not conform them to ourselves. The Holy Spirit acts in the moment of Worship, but the Holy Spirit also acts in the history of Worship and it is not atavism or rote repetition to claim that. The urge to be creative is a fundamentally romantic notion only coming out of the early 19th century. Wesley didn't try to be creative, he tried to use what he had. We aren't giving enormous revivals, we live in a different time.
Liturgical rites rigid? That is not at all what I have been taught by Sam Wells, Paul Chilcote, Michael Green, mentors in my churches in the last 25 years, or what I have read all summer during my independent study on planting the missional church. Surely there is a core story we are performing and symbols we are enacting, but rigid language?
I am reading a book right now by Tex Sample, a professor at St. Paul's seminary in Ks. It is all about prophetic ministry to white working class persons. He stresses "indigenous practices," and, in this case, the pastor uses not much more than the words of institution and "an interpretation of the centrality of the Lord's Supper that emphasizes the congregation as the Body of Christ." Similarly, in planting the missional church, it is all about "contextualization," so there are studies in the Anglican Communion like "Liturgical Inculturation in the Anglican Communion." If you do a Eucharist with Sam Wells with a small group of people, you will see that he freely uses movement and words that aren't in the liturgy to dramatize the story in that particular moment with that particular group of persons communing.
I don't doubt there are persons for whom rigidity is an important quality. Seems like another form of "orthodoxy" to me, which, as a reaction to "quality" problems in a growing organism, inevitably stunts the creativity and freedom along the boundary it seeks to protect. Methinks such thinkers take their eye off the ball.
In some ways I am with you craig, but where does contextualisation cease and entertainment begin? And I use entertainment as a negative, I could say engagement but I choose not to. I also choose to end a sentence with a preposition because it is an imperialist edict to tell me that I cannot.
I should probably read Newbiggin since I feel like his work is a given in this dialog at the moment, but nevertheless, context can only work if it draws people out of the context and into the mysterion of the Blessed Liturgy. Liturgical performance is a directional act and the direction is from the people to God, not from the celebrant to the people or from the people to the celebrant to God or from the culture to the people or any other bastardization of worship.
Your personal input into the service should never be evident. Your contribution should never be marked. If your voice is heard, worship ceases its proper direction takes a detour which makes its performance oftentimes incoherent.
Agreed. That is, I agree with the thrust of your last paragraph. However, the reality is that humans are the celebrants and humans are the ones who gather and humans can only conceive of the mysteries with the gift of language. That is where contextualization comes in. Language and symbol are intertwined. The rites aren't magical. They are participation in the mystery by the gathered people such that their participation forms them. This link between participation and language is what demands contextualization.
Perhaps...
I am not saying that it is the precise wording of the liturgy which institutes worship but that, more often than not, fear of that wording or attempts to modernize (and I mean that word in as loaded a way as possible) the liturgy cloak attempts to participate in the mystery. Justification for rites often fall on personal experience and so discussion and deliberation on liturgy reduces into "I like this patter." "Well that's nice, I like this one." Or, "My church really reacts to this style, method, language." The entire discussion has fallen into a MacIntyrian linguistic collapse so that all we can do is pray that it is the Spirit at work. Part of me feels like this does not need to be the case, but the work it would take to bring to liturgical studies what After Virtue did to ethics is beyond any of the current movements or directions.
That being said, one more post to the record and this debate can cease in the same manner that Michael Strahan earned the sacks record with Brett Favre falling down.
I appreciate your concern for subjectivism. Phillips had my "Preaching the Sacraments" class read a book by Chauvet on the Eucharist that was fabulous. Chauvet is a Frenchman, but nonetheless he seems intelligent and worth listening to (note the dangling preposition).
Chauvet emphasizes that the objectivity of the rite as symbology. It is not necessary that all present be there in faith or even understand intellectually what is being symbolized. Rather, it is the faith of the gathered collectively, and the understanding of those gathered collectively, that is important. Hence, anamnesis is a community event, not an individual event. It is the community's faith, and not the babe's faith, that is important at baptism, or in the case of one struggling with doubt or incapable of comprehending the rite because of mental limitations (which is, I guess, why Aggies are allowed to commune).
That, by the way, gives an important twist on Amy Laura Hall's famous question about the Eucharist with the AID's victim, and on questions about wafers with lactose or peanuts in the presence of those who cannot tolerate these. In Chauvet's reading, there is no need for the community to make special arrangements such as an individualistic understanding of the rite might suggest, because the rites are never individualistic, but always community acts. Phillips suggests it is bad theology to make adaptations to the rites for special circumstances such as these.
And by the way, LSU Tigers are indeed #1, and Navy did beat Air Force this weekend, and we just broke the Socratic record!
Symbology? Isn't that what the guy in The Da Vinci Code was a professor of? Maybe we should ask Dan Brown to straighten us all out.
Tom M
Why is it that we use a teensy weensy wafer rather than a whole loaf? Why is it that a drop or two of water is sufficient rather than a river?
What word did patristic preachers use in their mystogogical homilies to teach the neophytes the meaning of the rites of initiation they had just experienced, and especially in explaining the roles played by the water, the milk, the honey, the bread, and the wine?
What happened to Derek in this conversation? Derek, what is it about the liturgical ethos here at Duke that you suggested tended toward racism?
I haven't yet had worship, but so far I have not yet been convinced that "creative" equals "self-centered entertainment." In the same way that there are good theological reasons for certain parts of the liturgy being the way that they are in the form that they are, there are good reasons for moving things around and/or dropping things, etc. I am not sold on the idea that a "common prayer book" is an inherently more theologically solid form of liturgy than not having a common prayer book (though I must admit that the BCP has more room for creative interaction than one might notice at first glance).
Having said all this, I must remind my Socratics that in this setting I will argue for more freedom in liturgy, but probably in another setting (i.e. the local church) I will argue for more commonality. I think this debate is a debate about degrees and not about foundations.
Tom A,
I am with you, esp. in your last sentence.
Re: the BCP - I think you may be missing its real value. Certainly it has benefits that were esp. important in a world of illiterate clergy, which was the reality of 16th c. England. It provided a means of quality control during a period of rapid theological and liturgical change by provided a common form in the vernacular, and, as a result shaped the English language enormously.
However, for us, I think the real benefit is in its Benedictine roots. The Daily Office shapes you, if you do it. It grounds you in an enormous amount of Scripture, reminds you constantly of the great heroes of the church, and also grounds you in liturgical time. But most importantly the Daily Office, in a way similar to but of a lower magnitude perhaps than the Eucharist, forms and reinforces community. As Josh Whitfield said, it is extremely hard to get in a fistfight with a guy at 4:45 when you know you have stand beside him at evensong 15 minutes later. The constant repetition seven days per week of the same words somehow against your will, shapes you. That is true even if you find such rote recitation uninspiring. Because, in spite of what our culture tells us, it is not about our interior feelings. The Daily Office, properly understood, is not at all about helping individuals to a peak spiritual high. Anglicans are typically skeptical of such goals. It is about the community coming together to celebrate the tie that binds - Christ.
I think the fixed content of daily prayer is less important than the fixed habit and skeletal form of that communal office.
Most...comments...ever
Tom A, I really think you have too many expectations in what a class can do.
I feel like are prejudice against rote comes more from Dewey's pedagogical theory than from any where else. This should give us pause we "Creativity" is espoused. Yes, the complete freedom of the Blessed Trinity's perichoresis is infinite, but it does not have to work only in categories which we can perceive. There is creativity in the healthy repetition of the liturgy on a day that has never had the liturgy before.
Tom,
The liturgical elitism cum ethnocentrism, if not racism is this, in nuce. From the actual space of Goodson to twhat is allowed to pass as worship (on the W/R Chapel days) represents a very narrow slice of high church Methodism. This is the de facto, and it seems de jure norm of "good worship." That is the worship they hope all y'all take out into the Methodist hinterlands. That the "Friday service" remains the Friday service, despite efforts to have it included in the official slots reinforces this normativity. (And yes, it is realized that to put it in on W or R would require an abbreviated format. The organizers of the service are more than willing on that count.) And finally, that REACHING OUT WITHOUT DUMBING DOWN is a standard worship text means that Duke pans anything resembling contemporary or experiential (i.e. charismatic, pentecostal worhsip) in favor of that old time religion. And that's not camp meeting, that's Northern European hymnody of a certain classical vintage rendered with excellence. Anything else is deemed craven liturtainment.
Tom, you're an institutional player here. Try to get a contemporary service with drums, participation, and powerpoint in the Chapel in the Spring on W or R.
One of the many hats I wear in my new job is "Chapel Coordinator." All these students have ever seen is "drums, participation, and PowerPoints." I've actually become quite adept at putting lyrics into PowerPoint. :) I wish I could get them beyond that, get them to worship in a fashion that is closer to my tastes, to what I see as the church's historic mode of worship. (Notice whose will wants to exert its force here.)
But I must say, I'm growing and learning something from these teenagers. I'm not sure what yet, but I'm not turned off by PowerPoints quite so much any more...
You're welcome for continuing to expand the thread. :)
Re: Craig
I like the way you talk about the BCP. I think it resonates deeply with my own experience of it. What I'm trying to suggest though, is that there are other things besides the BCP that can accomplish the same exact thing (i.e. the morning and evening prayer service in the UMC hymnal or morning and evening prayer at Isaiah house, etc.) I'm not wanting to say that the BCP doesn't do what you purport it does. I am wanting to say that there are more ways to accomplish similar things than the BCP.
Re: Graham
Have you posted anything in this conversation besides this one post?
Re: Wilson
Wilson, I don't disagree with you on the question of "roteness." I have never said anything in this blog about "rote." I think saying rotely the litrugy from the BCP can be very formative. I have experienced that myself. What I am arguing against is that the BCP is the only acceptable rote thing to say. Those who are aruging against me need to quit using the word "rote" to describe what I am trying to argue against. I rotely particiapte in morning prayer quite often. I think that has vaule. I also have rotely particiapte in pentecostal worship with my hands raised and my eyes closed singing a song over and over and over and over again while thinking about the cute girl two rows ahead of me. Both are formative and can form real Christian dispositions in one.
Re: Derek
I don't think I've ever been more in tune with what you're saying. I'm in agreement 100%. Its take me to my third year to be comfortable saying it here. There is a strong orthodoxy (as Phil has pointed out) that has kept these thoughts in the closet. Also, you might just see some of your last imperative played out this year. I'm working on it. We'll at least be having the conversation.
Re: Tom
I can't believe you just opened the door to praise "powerpoint"! Most of the time I think powerpoint is powerpointless, but I also think there are some potentially very powerful things that can be done with it and Duke hasn't given me any space to explore that. You're own experience about being taught by these kids (though you don't know what you're being taught) is exactly what I was saying above to Craig and Wilson. The question is exactly was you said, "what is being taught"? Check out Ginghamsburg UMC sometime and you'll find a church that is a "mega-church" using power point and bands and creative expression in the form of the UMC Hymnal that is preaching a deep gospel that calls for self-sacrifice and social justice. It is possible as much as we've been told by Duke that the two aren't compatible ("contemporary means self-satisfying entertainment" is the party line around here).
I just came across this in the book we're reading in American Christianity: The Democratization of American Christianity:
"Similarly, a white South Carolinian suggested that revolt was improbably among Episcopalian slaves 'because the coloured leaders in that Church were not permitted to expound the Scriptures, or to exhort, in words of their own; touse extemporary prayer, and to utter at such times, whatever nonesense and profanity might happen to come into their minds...they were accustomed to use NO OTHER WORSHIP [emphasis in the text itself, not mine] than the regular course prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, for the day. Hymns, or Psalms out of hte same book were sung, and a printed sermon read...Nno extemporary address, exhortation, or prayer, was permitted, or used.'"
Food for thought...
Matt,
I have not been to chapel as often this year as previous years. I did like J. Cam's service. I also remember the "contemporary" liturgical service you mention. I enjoyed both (which is code word around here for "there was not truth/gospel in them"). At the same, please remember that I am not suggesting intentionality in anything I have said, only actual results. I think that a side result, though unintended, in the liturgical renwal movement orthodoxy here is a subtle racism and atavism. It is NOT intentional. But I think it is real.
Tom
Re: Tom A
No.
Matt,
You're absolutely right. Solutions are harder to implement than pointing out the problem. But I don't think that a problem is aknowledged. Its still part of the orthodoxy of Duke that a problem doesn't exist.
As for Turner, you ask some good questions. First, I think that this is a matter of context. In the case of a class on Pneumatology, Turner was turning the thermostat in a particular direction against a tendency in discussions about the Spirit to lead to certain conclusions, particularly in a pentecostal setting (and probably a black pentecostal setting).
Second, Turner railed against an orthopraxy in worship. This was almost always aimed at something like requiring speaking in tongues or certain signs of the spirit. I think this critique of orthopraxy could easily swing the other way to a rigid use of liturgy.
Third, Turner always emphasized using the BCP as a structure for the liturgical rite we were exploring. If you remember, our group which did prayer for a missionary used some ideas and form from the BCP but did not follow the BCP at all in its langauge. We tapped into numerous traditions for the langauge of the rite.
Fourth, you raise a good point about the BCP being mostly scripture. I deeply appreciate this about the BCP. But someone chose to say this scripture at this time (while standing, kneeling, or sitting) and this scripture at that time (while chanting antiphanally or whatever by whole verse or half verse, etc.). And they chose this for good reasons. I'm simply saying that there may be good reasons to choose something else. In fact, unless we want to hold a common prayer book for every church, then we have to say that each protestant church has come up with good reasons for each of their prayer books. This Holy Mystery does recognize this. I applaud it for this even while it ironically reccomends using only the approved liturgy of the UMC hymanl.
Fifth, on this last note, I've decided that I am a Protestant. I'm protesting a common liturgy. This is not to say that I won't submit to my own church if they should choose such a route (I do have a healthy respect of spiritual authority), but at this time they do not require it as far as I discern.
Tom
Tom A,
Have you heard the story about the guy who used a bag of Doritos in lieu of wafers/bread in the Eucharist? Is that cool?
What about Budweiser? If I am ministering to the boys out on the Louisiana oil rigs, can I use a cold can of Budweiser in lieu of wine? They think wine is something rich college boys drink. Real men drink beer.
If I say an oil rig worker's version of the words of Institution and we approach the Doritios and Bud in faith, is it a Eucharist?
A bell is ringing deep in the recesses of my memory. Haven't we had this discussion in this forum before (i.e., the one Craig is raising)?
Craig,
Anybody can take a king and make him into a fox.
Tom
To answer your question, I think I've got say that I don't really care personally (I've been trying to care about this one for two years now and its just not coming). But my church probably does, and I'll submit to my church. I don't there's a lot of leeway in my church's covenant for Doritos and beer. But the recommendation for a common liturgy is just that, a reccomendation and not a requirement.
P.S. Every argument can be pushed too far. You've pushed mine too far one way and I am probably guilty of pushing someone elses too far another way.
Don't mean to push you too far, Irenaeus.
Craig,
Upon further reflection, I want to argue for flexibility. But I do not want argue for limitless flexibilty. So I don't want a common litugy, but I don't want a free-for-all either. At the same time, I think that a common liturgy can have many benefits. In the end, I am a man of great contradictions and perplexations.
The Original and Always King,
I am with you. And I like the Doritos/Budweiser boundary.
Craig
Off topic, but related to the original post by Phil.
Another "Duke heresy" I would add is patriotism. I'm not saying that the postliberals at Duke who argue against it are wrong (I basically consider myself one), but the unthinking acceptance of it and the subsequent dismissal of those who disagree is often frustrating.
And maybe the only form of kool-aid that is sipped more voraciously, yet more unthinkingly, than the kool-aid Phil has already described is Duke Divinity race and gender kool-aid. Again, I drink some of it myself, but I hope people realize that every word out of Dr. Carter's mouth on race and Dr. Hall's on gender isn't pure, unadulterated truth. This isn't an indictment on either Dr. Carter or Dr. Hall - simply on those who accept what they say without critically analyzing it first.
Nate Jones,
The trivial truth of eschewing uncritical acceptance of any person or position aside, what are your substantive observations concerning patriotism, race, and/or, gender (i.e. Hauerwas, Carter, Hall)?
Patriotism - I'm a Hauerwasian here. Nonetheless, I still deplore the dismissive attitude often given to those who don't toe the Hauerwasian line.
Gender/Hall - She and I are on the same page here, too. Or, maybe I should say that we're in the same book but a few pages apart. We're 100% on the same page when it comes to the pressure put on young women to conform to some unrealistic (and often downright slutty) physical ideal. But, and I don't know her specific position here, I imagine I'd have a slightly more traditional understanding of gender roles than she does. Nonetheless, she says some really important things that my small differences with her should not gloss over.
Race/Carter - As a Southern History major with a concentration on race, I'm well aware of the historical injustices and the lingering effects that still live with us today. The racial divisions within the church also deeply trouble me - so much so that I spent my summer interning at an intentionally interracial church here in Durham. However, I'm totally unconvinced that Duke theology is "white theology." For one, both "Duke theology" (broadly conceived) and Dr. Carter share a common theological influence - Karl Barth. Moreover, the div school's involvement in several parts of Africa is directly related, in my opinion, to the postliberal message. I could go on, and will if you'd like, but I need to go to class. I'd also like to say that I look forward to the publication of Dr. Carter's book, and will read it soon after it's published.
Nate,
Thanks for the amplification. Three thoughts on race and Duke theology.
1) Claiming Barth as a (determinative) influence is to identify a commonality. But, given that there is much (in my opinion correct) dispute as to how Barthin Hauerwas's Barth is (esp. the Gifford Barth), and that Carter's reading and deployment of Barth are novel, this is as much an identification of contestation as it is consensus.
2) While postliberalism in general, and Duke theology in particular are not necessarily (in the logical sense) white theology, it seems to me more than mere accident. That is, one can be postliberal and actively antiracist (i.e. not white theology), but that is an extension of what we might call the core position more broadly identified as postliberal.
3) With respect to #2, witness the fact that Hauerwas, to date, has not seriously engaged with race and racism, which are issues of immediate import to his regional, national, and denominational context(s). This is not to say that he cannot do so. Nor is it to say that on the grounds of his own position he does not have both reason to, and resources for such an engagement. I argue this point in an essay that will appear in Journal of Religious Ethics sometime next year.
Thus, postliberalism, and the Hauerwasian/Duke iteration thereof, are not necessarily (both in the generic sense and the logical sense) committed to engaging race and racism, which I take to be instances of both violence (ongoing and not just a "legacy") and Constantinianism. In that, they remain white theology. They remained confined by some of the very issues and problematics they seek to overcome. Until the race piece is made a correlatively axiomatic commitment of nonviolence and anti-Constantinianism, it is white theology of a kind.
I, regrettably, didn't think of this way of putting it in the previous post. But, as Audre Lorde so eloquently put it, "unused privilege is a weapon in the hand of our enemy." Transposed to our present discussion we might say, "theology that is not actively, and necessarily anti-racist is 'white theology.'" Thus, certain iterations and performances of the so-called Duke theolgy remain a passive civil religion implicitly underwriting the racialized violences of broader social arrangements by their silence on, among other things, ecclesial segregation, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
I don't have the time right now to give your reply a full response, but I would like to clarify that Hauerwas has written on race - granted it's largely in relation to the non-violence of MLK Jr., but he nonetheless has confronted the issue. I'd also point to a few other places, one (in DISRUPTING TIME, I believe) in which he criticizes the public justification used for the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The real justification for appointing a black man to the Supreme Court is, according to Hauerwas, that we are still a racist country. But that was nothing like the public justification used.
Hauerwas has written about MLK and nonviolence. He has not written about race per se ("Remembering MLK Remembering," new essay in the forthcoming volume with Coles). He's also alluded to it indirectly in serveral places, not never made it the focus of a single published essay ("Why Time Cannot, and Should Not Heal All Wounds" and "Autobiography & Self-Deception"). Therein he goes so far as to suggest the post Civil Rights era amounts to a cold race war (sic). But he does not at all develop this significant observation. He recently gave the Inaugural Will Campbell Lecture at Ole Miss, entitlted "Race, the More that it is About." This is the closest thing to a direct engagement with the issue. Though, on my reading thereof, it does not even begin to exhibit the kind of reckoning his Christologial non-violence requires.
Post a Comment
<< Home