Over Christmas I read Peter Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God. It gave me some things to think about, one of which is the nature of theology. Rollins is a continental or postmodern philosopher and one doesn't have to spend much time reading in this field before they come across the terms "object" and "subject." An object is acted upon and the subject acts (i.e. Bill [subject] poured the water [object]) . A great deal of postmodern philosophy is spent turning objects into subjects and subjects into objects.
Rollins writes about how in the Enlightenment God was treated as an object that we dissect and categorize. In this era, theology was all about defining God and getting all the answers. With the dawn of postmodernity theology a new way of "doing" theology has emerged. Now humanity has become the object that is being acted upon. Theology is humanity experiencing God acting upon it. As limited begins, we must recognize that our experience is not necessarily the way it is or the way God is.
I'm not content with either of the views Rollins offers. The first one puts God in a petri dish to be examined, while the second view does the same thing to humanity. I think our relationship with God is so much more than a scientific experiment. Thanks to Rollins I have come to refine my view of theology. I have come to understand theology as a cosmic conversation that spans history. Throughout history God has been speaking to us through revelation and we have been speaking back to God, and speaking to each other, what we understand him to be saying through religion. In turn he responds back to us and we respond back to him. In this cosmic conversation no one is solely object or solely subject but we are all both. For when God speaks to us he is the subject and we are the object, but when we speak to God we are the subject and he is the object.
The purpose of the cosmic conversation is for us to enter into a more intimate relationship with God, by coming to know him more fully. This knowledge is not the kind of knowledge that comes by memorizing the facts. It is birthed out of relationship. The most intimate marriage was born out of and nurtured through long conversations and time spent together. The french language makes a strong distinction between "head knowledge" and "relational knowledge." In french there are two forms of "to know." The first one, "savoir," is a head knowledge, like knowing 2+2=4. The second one, "connaitre," is a personal knowledge, like knowing your best friend. Both of Rollins definitions of theology views are focused on the the savoir knowing, expecting it to lead to the connaitre knowing. However, I believe it is only through the connaitre that anyone (Christian or non-Christian) knows anything about God. Although we may not realize it, God is speaking, revealing himself, to all humanity, and it is through responding to his speaking that we become an active voice in this cosmic conversation. True theology is not birthed out of a petri dish it is birthed out of our relationship with God.
TSB VIII
2 months ago
2 comments:
How far do you carry the conversation metaphor? I am thinking of James--be not only hearers, but doers of the word--and how he goes on to describe that listening to the word is active. If listening is a part of conversation, then how would you incorporate this doing into the conversation?
Also, how is God listening to us? If part of our listening is by doing, is part of God's listening by doing, as well?
I would be willing to say "talking" is not solely verbal. Our actions are a means of "non-verbal communication," so to speak. So our actions are a means of us speaking to God and to others what we understand God to be speaking to us.
Listening in this conversation is more receptive than it is active. God receives what we "say" and speaks to us through the various forms of revelation in order to affirm and correct our interpretation. The active part of listening would be interpreting what is being said.
Post a Comment