[amc] Re: Fascinating discussion: Nevitt & J. Denny Weaver
- From: Janice Friesen <janicef@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Austin Mennonite Church <amc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:29:55 -0600
Ray and Nevitt,
Thanks for sharing this continued discussion. I am so intrigued. I will
definitely read the article that comes this week and maybe Steve and I will
have to have our own ³Sunday School² discussion in Philadelphia (we will be
there for the Society of Biblical Literature conference).
I thought others might be interested in listening to the monologue that has
been mentioned a few times during our discussions. It is online at :
http://thisamericanlife.org/ Go to the 2005 Archives and look for Godless
America. Julia Sweeney¹s monologue is part two. Just looking for this
reminded me that there are SO many fascinating programs to listen to!
Janice
On 11/13/05 2:37 PM, "Ray Gingerich" <RGingerich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was privileged to read some questions that Nevitt had of Weaver in his first
> lecture on Anabaptist/Mennonite Perspectives on Theology.
>
> I twisted Nevitt's arm (non-violently, of course) and I think he sort of
> agreed that I could send out his questions, reflections, and Weaver's
> response, although, I didn't seem to convince him that y'all would be
> interested in reading it.
>
> Here it is:
>
> ***********************
>
> Dr. Weaver,
>
> I am a member of Austin Mennonite Church, Austin, Texas. Ray Gingerich,
> another member of our church, attended a conference at which you spoke. He
> brought back materials from the conference and has made them available to the
> congregation. Today for Sunday School (a perhaps dated term) we discussed your
> paper "Anabaptist/Mennonite Perspectives on Theology." I have a few comments
> and questions. I of course realize you may be too busy to respond, but the
> exercise of writing you is valuable in itself, since it gives me the
> opportunity to organize my thoughts. (We are going to discuss the other two
> papers on the next two Sundays.)
>
> I should say, perhaps by way of warning, that I am a (very old) graduate
> student in philosophy at the University of Texas. I am trying to complete a
> dissertation on the will to power and Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals.
> I tell you this in the spirit of full disclosure and so that you will be able
> to locate my comments in the philosophical universe. My religious background
> might also help make sense of what follows. I was raised Southern Baptist, I
> attended a Plymouth Brethren church for a number of years, I was a kinship
> leader in a Vineyard Christian Fellowship for quite a while, and eventually my
> family and I joined the Mennonite church, first in Fort Collins, CO, then in
> San Antonio and finally in Austin. We joined the Mennonite Church for two
> reasons (I think): my wife, Darlene, was raised Mennonite, and we are both
> pacifists (or in my own case, a wanna-be pacifist). Again, I present this life
> trajectory so that you have a more organic sense of the ground from which my
> thoughts grow (or moulder).
>
> First let me say that I enjoyed reading your paper a great deal. Your work is
> a pleasure to read. You are articulate and thorough without being overly
> academic. Your thoughts are easy to follow and very engaging. I suspect you
> are an excellent instructor.
>
> Your preliminary discussion of postmodernism and the difficulty it poses for
> Christian theology was extremely interesting and helpful. I don't read much
> theology for reasons too many to consider here. Thus there is a disconnect in
> my mind between philosophical notions such as postmodernism and my religious
> life (such as it is). Yet reading your discussion I came to realize how my
> deepest, most important, and most painful "religious" issues center exactly
> around the problems you highlight. My religious training taught me to believe
> in absolute foundations. When these foundations were shaken (yes, I read
> Tillich, though quite a long time ago) I began to move into the postmodern
> world without ever realizing this was what was happening. This is perhaps the
> reason why I now find myself writing on Nietzsche. I want to find a way out of
> the postmodern crisis, and apparently I thought at some level that learning
> the territory thoroughly would somehow show me the way out. Well, as I'm sure
> you would have been able to warn me, I'm still as lost as ever.
>
> This too-long biography is preliminary to understanding the following response
> which I initially had to your article: thank God someone has found a way to
> create a sensible theology in the postmodern world! I found your analysis of
> the current situation very enlightening and your initial proposal of a
> solution promising and exciting. As I worked through the paper, however,
> certain objections took form in my mind, and iI would like to share them you.
>
> First, let me reflect back to you what I take to be your explanation of the
> postmodern crisis, with some additional gloss of my own. Today we have lost
> confidence in the Modern and the Enlightenment projects. We no longer believe
> we have infallible access to some transcendent reference for Truth and the
> Good, nor do we any longer believe (pure) reason is capable of fulfilling this
> function. In Nietzsche's terms (according to my view), reason is always
> motivated by some affect or some subconscious prejudice. Reason is an
> instrument that can be used to develop coherent ideas, but the premises from
> which reason operates are always prior to rational analysis, and it is these
> unjustified and unjustifiable premises that ultimately determine the
> conclusions our rational thought will reach.
>
> This would seem to lead to inescapable skepticism or even nihilism. (I think
> this fear is actually what motivates Nietzsche.) On the contrary, you say,
> this opens a whole world of possible theologies because it ends the hegemony
> of traditional theology. No one can claim to have the Truth, and so everyone's
> perspective should be taken seriously (assuming, I'm sure you mean, it makes
> sense and conforms to certain standards of biblical scholarship, etc.). You
> say, "Postmodernity is the recognition that there is no universally accessible
> and universally agreed upon beginning point or foundation that can validate
> ultimate truth claims." Thus, we should not hesitate to assert that a coherent
> peace theology has as much right to consideration as any other.
>
> So far, so good. However, it seems to me that you then begin a process of
> justifying a peace theology according to the traditional principles used by
> Modern or Enlightenment thinkers. I haven't traced your methodology well
> enough to substantiate this criticism adequately, even though it's the essence
> of my complaint. So, my criticism may ultimately be impotent.
>
> You ground a peace theology in the example of Jesus' life: "The will of God is
> revealed in the particular humanity of Jesus, which forms the base line
> against which Christians evaluate their own activity." This, I think, is your
> fundamental principle for generating a Mennonite theology. Yet already I want
> to ask: why should the life of Jesus be what defines Christian theology? What
> about the rest of the New Testament? Why shouldn't we take Paul's
> interpretation of the life of Jesus, for example, as the basis for our
> theology? Or why shouldn't we say that our theology must take as its
> fundamental basis a synthetic and careful reading of the entire Bible?
>
> Even if we were to take the life of Jesus as the basic "premise" for our
> theology, is it really indisputable that this would produce a pacifist
> theology rather than some theology with a more moderate stand on peace? I'm
> not a biblical scholar, but I get the impression there is enough ambiguity in
> the Gospels to support some fairly wide interpretations on this issue. Is it
> not possible that Mennonites find Jesus to be a pacifist is because they bring
> pacifist predispositions to the text? We assemble and interpret the fragmented
> stories in the Gospels so that they create the image we want to see.
>
> My point is that your choice of the Jesus narrative as what define Christian
> theology and the interpretation of this narrative as presenting a pacifist
> Jesus are not unarguable. "Well," you might say, "this is indeed the
> postmodern condition. We cannot justify this choice and interpretation against
> the choices that other theologians have made through the centuries. We can
> only say this is our choice and our interpretation."
>
> This might be a good postmodern response, but you seem to want to make a
> stronger claim than, "This is just our choice and interpretation, and you can
> make your own." You are seem to want to bring your new Mennonite peace
> theology into dialog with other Christian theologies. Wanting this theology to
> be taken seriously seems to imply, does it not, that you want others to
> realize it is "valid"? What can "valid" mean outside the Modern and
> Enlightenment models of truth-seeking? Do you really mean nothing more than,
> "It works for us, and so maybe it will work for you too?" If so, can this sort
> of theology function as a prophetic call to Christendom, as you would like it
> to? You say, "Posing a nonviolence-shaped alternative overagainst
> Christendom?s theology is actually an act of engagement with all of
> Christendom."
>
> There are other indications in the paper that you indeed want to justify a
> pacifist theology according to what seems to this theologically untrained
> reader to be pretty traditional, non-postmodern exegetical principles. You
> say, "Jesus? rejection of violence is certainly not the possession of
> Anabaptists alone, and posing a nonviolence-shaped alternative is what
> demonstrates that an Anabaptist theology does address every person who claims
> the name of Jesus Christ." Does this not imply that a Mennonite exegesis of
> the Gospels is superior to an exegesis by those who reach different
> conclusions? Furthermore, doesn't it claim the sort of universality that you
> specifically rejected as part of the postmodern condition? Again, what does
> "superior" mean if not "more justified by a careful, rational analysis of the
> text"? But can a postmodernist make this sort of claim? You also say, "[The
> Anabaptist approach to the Bible] must take history very seriously in order to
> discover and correct deviation from the gospel that begins with the story of
> Jesus." Doesn't the possibility of correction imply rather clearly that there
> is a correct interpretation? What (postmodern?) grounds do you find for
> asserting such universality and correctness?
>
> One more quote: "And further, that which provoked the additions and
> adaptations is actually functioning as a higher authority than the supposed
> authoritative foundation that is being added to. When historic Anabaptists and
> Mennonites felt compelled to make changes and adaptations in the inherited
> theology of Christendom, they were implicitly acknowledging a higher
> theological authority than Christendom?s standard."
>
> ? hmmmm ? foundations and authority ? in a postmodern theology? A
> postmodernist would probably ask annoying questions like: why is your
> foundation better than mine? Where did you find your foundation, and why
> didn't I find the same one? What makes your authority more authoritative than
> mine?
>
>
> Here's what seems to be happening in your paper. Postmodernism opens the way
> for a new Mennonite pacifist theology because postmodernism rips the
> foundations out from under any claim to universality or absolute authority.
> Traditionalists can thus no longer marginalize alternative theologies because
> the Modern and Enlightenment bases for the unique justification of their own
> views has been removed. So, you outline a new theology which is in line with
> Anabaptist tradition which should now be treated as a real player in the
> theological marketplace. But, being unhappy with the postmodern tendency to
> say, "this works for me, and maybe it will work for you," you proceed to
> justify a Mennonite pacifist theology over against traditional theologies. You
> don't want to say (I think), "Here's another possibility just as coherent as
> yours, why don't you try it on for size." Rather, you want to say (I think),
> "Postmodernism means you should listen to us. And now that your listening to
> us, can't you see that we have a better interpretation of Christianity than
> you do, where 'better' means 'based on biblical exegesis that is more
> rationally sound." So, it seems to me that in the first part of the paper you
> use postmodernism to gain a hearing for a new theology, but later in the paper
> you revert to non-postmodern principles to justify this new theology. This
> strikes me as fatally inconsistent. (Of course, a postmodernist might argue
> that my attachment to consistency is a shadow of the Enlightenment and that I
> should give it up. But this eventually tends to degenerate into nonsense: my
> gripe with postmodernism.)
>
> If I am wrong, and you really are presenting a Mennonite pacifist theology as
> just another player with no more justification than any other, then I must
> ask: why should I adopt yours instead of one of these others? Because of
> historical accident, because I happen to be associated with a group that
> traditionally has stood for pacifism? Or because I just personally happen to
> feel like a pacifist, as an accident of genetics and cultural programming?
> These are hardly compelling reasons to adopt a position that is supposed to
> induce such passion that its adherents are willing to sacrifice their very
> lives for its sake.
>
> My own suspicion is that postmodernism reduces every claim of "validity" to a
> claim of power. Postmodern "validity" is power. (Nietzsche's influence is
> rather obvious here.) So, even if we try to be non-coercive, we still must
> play the power game because that's the only game there is. In a "free" society
> which shies away from physical force we must use more subtle mechanisms. We
> must appeal to people's passions, prejudices, need for acceptance, etc. We can
> argue that our view makes more sense, but if reason is instrumental then we
> ultimately must appeal to the non-rational commitments that underlie supposed
> rational choices. In other words, the power game in a "free" society shifts
> from coercion to manipulation. This is a conclusion I dislike very much, but I
> don't know how to escape it.
>
>
> Anyway, please understand that "I want to believe, help me in my unbelief!" My
> criticism probably sounds antagonistic, but as you know, this is part of
> academic training. Also, I have a fair amount of emotional energy behind these
> issues, and sometime it spurts out rather forcefully. I really do admire your
> effort to address these terribly difficult issues with honesty and
> intellectual integrity. Too many Christians stop up their ears and hope the
> unpleasant noises will go away. This can't be the way to take Christianity
> into the 21st century. We need courageous and thoughtful intellectual leaders.
> I suspect this is part of your "call."
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Nevitt Reesor
>
> ************************
>
> Mr. Reesor,
>
> Thanks for your interest and your comments.
>
> Here is a brief answer. I would divide your question into two parts. One part
> concerns the implications of postmodernity for discussions of Anabaptist
> theology with people/religions who are not Christians. The second part
> concerns the conversation with people who do claim to be Chrsitians. These are
> two quite different issues.
>
> For the dialogue with non-Christians, you are quite right. There is no
> universally accessible and universally agreed upon starting point by which one
> can resolve the competing, ultimate claims between or among religions. That
> does not mean, however, that we just throw up our hands and say that we can't
> know anything or that it is impossible to testify to truth. What it does is
> change the way that we [Christians] testify to the truth. We testify to belief
> that the claims about Jesus are ultimately true by being willing to live by
> those claims when they are not required and even when they are costly. This is
> ultimately the truth claim that martyrdom is about--one is willing to live by
> the truth of ones claim, even if it means dying for that truth. Of course,
> people who are not Christians can and do give the same testimony. But we can
> see, at least, that postmodernity has not left us with no means to testify to
> truth (or ultimate truth claims).
>
> The conversation with those who claim to be Christian is a quite different
> conversation. The conversation between Christians [such as an Anabaptist
> interpretation of the Bible versus a Christendom interpretation of the Bible]
> is different. Both sides of this dialogue have supposedly already answered the
> question of where ultimate truth lies. Both sides have supposedly said that
> ultimate truth lies with Jesus. Thus this conversation does have real criteria
> (at least one criterion) by which to test truth claims. That criterion is the
> narrative of Jesus. And the discussion then becomes, which reading of
> Jesus--my Anabaptist reading--or a reading of Christendom--is most true to the
> biblical story of Jesus. And here, I am quite willing to suggest that an
> Anabaptist reading is better with reference to the story of Jesus. That is
> what John Howard Yoder's Politics of Jesus is about. He showed how almost all
> readings of Jesus have discounted Jesus as a source of ethics, and suggested
> that if we are really Christian, then Jesus should be a source of ethics. My
> reconstruction of atonement--which you will see in the third lecture that Ray
> Gingerich brought from Oregon--makes the same kind of argument in theology.
> The second lecture from Oregon shows how, inspite of Jesus' rejection of the
> sword/violence, the standard atonement theologies all enshire or model
> violence at some level. The third lecture then suggests a reconstruction of
> atonement theology that is truer to the story of Jesus than are the
> violence-modeling models that come out of Christendom.
>
> I recognize that this answer also has its ambiguous dimensions--what is a true
> reading of Jesus? Is it the Bible or the narrative of Jesus that is
> authoritative, etc? But for the question between Christians, the dialogue has
> been brought down into the realm where there are recognizable criteria with
> which to evaluate a view.
>
> Thanks again for your interest.
>
> J. Denny Weaver
>
Other related posts:
