Tag Archives: tradition

Deleuze Conference Abstract

I forgot to mention this presentation which I’ll be making at the annual International Deleuze Studies Conference in New Orleans this June. Here’s the successful abstract…

‘The Evolution of Theologies, or Opening the Histories of Hermeneutics’

The history of Christian theology is filled with changes, adaptations, and improvisations. To speak of theology as a singular notion imparts a level of orthodoxy which is impossible to maintain as a simple unity within an increasingly fragmentary religious traditions. The question of orthodoxy, then, presupposes a question of authority and answers it in a circular-but-arboreal manner: the orthodoxy — as defined by the authority — defines the authority. By changing even the slightest bit of scriptures, tradition, or institution, the entirety of orthodoxy splits into two parallel structures. Theology — and any kind of thought which establishes an analogue to ‘orthodoxy’ — is a process of mitosis. Unity, such as the appeal to a universal ‘body of Christ’ within Christian ecumenism, is most acutely realized through the very process of separation which creates multiple orthodoxies that are unable to be resolved. In other words, the desire for orthodoxy as an arboreal structure creates within theology a rhizomatic structure that resists the centralization of orthodoxy.

In this paper, I wish to present an argument for heterodoxy as a contingency of authority within theology. Heterodoxy in this case should not be seen as the opposite of orthodoxy but rather as the condition which makes ‘orthodoxy’ possible as an instance of a universal and singular authority. I shall argue that the assertion of orthodoxy is only possible when there is more than one valid claim. My argument will follow a largely Deleuzian approach as one way of interpreting authority through the play of sense. The Reformation era will serve the historical point at which the issue of authority was brought to the forefront of theology, and I shall argue that the most important question of modern ecumenism (still) revolves around this single issue. However, the tendency towards absorbing dissident groups back into one ‘Mother Church’ can only end in failure because heterodoxy — that is, the plurality of orthodoxies — is what makes ecumenical dialogue and reconciliation possible. Rather than suggesting that ecumenism must ultimately accept a single set of positions as properly authoritative from which all deviations move towards heresy, I suggest that there can never be such an orthodoxy for it is based on a gross misperception of the historical development of orthodoxy. To be orthodox, then, is to become something other-than-orthodox because orthodoxy is a semiotic play between theological sense and nonsense.

Quote of the Day

To begin with the common Christian confession: the common confession is ‘We believe in Jesus Christ with the apostles’…The complexities intrinsic to any Christian theological interpretation of the scriptures becomes clear. For Christianity is not, strictly speaking, a religion of the book like Islam. And yet ‘the book’ does play a central role for Christian self-understanding. Christianity, in more explicitly hermeneutical terms, is a religion of a revelatory event to which certain texts bear an authoritative witness.

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this distinction between event and text for Christian theological self-understanding. To fail to grasp the distinction is to lead into two opposite difficulties…[T]he route to Christian fundamentalist readings of the scripture under the banner cries of ‘inerrancy’ soon take over. Here Christians believe, in effect, not with but in the apostles.

The opposite danger is equally devastating…The difficult is, rather, that since the scriptural texts are not allowed to play any authoritative role, the contemporary Christian community can never know whether its present witness to the Christ-event is in continuity with the original apostolic witness. The historical central Christian theological affirmation–’I believe in Jesus Christ with the apostles’–would then be narrowed into the affirmation ‘I believe in Jesus Christ’.

From David Tracy, ‘Reading the Bible’ in On Naming the Present, 1994 (originally in Concillium 1991/1).

Revitalizing Religion

It is nothing new to say that the Hebrew Bible differs from the Christian Bible, however it is not simply because of the addition of a second testament (i.e. the NT).  In reality, even the set of common texts (I’ll use OT for simplicity’s sake) are radically different.  This is because the NT doesn’t just add new texts to the OT, but the NT also reinterprets the previous set.  For some, this is old hat as well because it is something that Brevard Childs, Richard B. Hays, and others have said to some extent.  As a result of this process, we can see that there is an overlap of interpretations that each are “correct” in some contexts while “incorrect” in others.

Look at the story of Abraham sacrificing his son (well, almost sacrificing his son).  The earliest reading of this, which I will call the “Jewish” one, saw Abraham’s actions as obedience to God or in terms of the Law.  The letter to the Hebrews in the NT reinterprets these actions as acts of faith, not obedience.  Kierkegaard takes this interpretation and makes the other one impossible by arguing (in Fear and Trembling) that Abraham’s actions were obedient to an absurd request/law and therefore must have been because of some illogical faith and not a logical submission to a Law.  With the same story, we have three interpretations, each “correct” in their own context: logical obedience, logical faith, and illogical faith. A second example could be given with Paul’s re-reading of Isaiah that re-inscribes the idea of “salvation” in the idea of the whole world, thus providing him with the hermeneutical argument that the gentiles need to be evangelized.  Without that re-interpretation, Christianity would have most likely died before it ever began because its reinterpretation of the Hebrew texts went beyond the limits Judaism of that day would have allowed.

Reinterpretation is a necessary practice in the development of theological/religious traditions because it inscribes the historical past in the present to create a future for itself.  When a tradition ceases to produce and recreate itself in the present, it tends to dissolve rather quickly because it no longer operates in the present.  Instead, the tradition becomes a preservation of a virtual past seen as some “golden era,” ignoring the very processes which kept it alive.  This “dead tradition” is transformed into a worship of the mummified tradition rather than a continuation of it.  If one goes back far enough in a tradition, one will find that there is no “pure beginning” where the tradition was created ex nihilo.  Theology has never been ex nihilo because there is no point in the past where there was absolute nothing.

Food Culture in Religion

Lately, I have been in a mood of creativity (as in creation, not as in artistically talented) when it comes to food.  I’ve been cooking on a regular basis and thinking about food as a part of religious traditions in the way that one would expect a class on “food and religion” might proceed.

Food, cuisine, and culinary skills are closely tied to societal traditions in Louisiana (where I lived my childhood).  In other words, cooking is simply nourishment; there is a sort of artistry and folklore behind it.  Learning a recipe from someone takes a lot of practice, observation, and (sometimes) patience.  I can recall some recipes that I’ve learned which were coupled with stories; some of these stories were about how the recipe came about, others had no relation to the recipe itself.  Sometimes there are precise measurements (e.g. 1 pound of meat), but others are very imprecise (e.g. “just enough oil to make a layer without touching the edges of the pot”).  Also, variations are considered important as well because while gumbo may be a dish, there’s chicken and andouille (sausage) gumbo, seafood gumbo, turkey bone gumbo, etc–all great dishes.  In some (perhaps many) areas, a recipe is a passed on generation to generation, never to leave the family (or is a mark of one’s being accepted into a family).  My grandfather, for instance, sold some of his recipes at different levels of detail (a $1 recipe, $5 one, and the $20) while still omitting some ingredients or quantities in each in order to maintain the secrecy of the recipe itself.  On a side note here, my grandfather passed away before passing down the full recipe to his children who were able to find one version of the recipe, which they passed among themselves trying to recreate the exact recipe from their own memories.  It took them many years of trying to recreate it and agree on it!

The cooking of a recipe isn’t the only part, however.  Food is consumed by groups of people in different contexts. In fact, some variations of a recipe are commonly seen in some settings (e.g. a family reunion) while rarely or never in others (e.g. a formal dinner).  For example, it was more common (for me, at least) to see chicken and sausage gumbo at large gatherings because it was cheaper and easier to cook than the seafood variety (which had shrimp, oysters, crab, and sometimes crawfish).   Beyond that, different settings have very different atmospheres.  Many of these used a buffet-style pot-luck to imply a communal setting.  At family events (reunions, holidays, parties, etc), every family group* brought one or two dishes for the party.  Some people were known to cook specific dishes well and oftentimes brought only those dishes (e.g. one of uncles makes a great baked macaroni and cheese and if there were any at a party he attended, it was his).  Even wedding receptions, while typically catered, were buffet-style (and sometimes people were known to bring dishes as well) to follow with that sense of communal eating.

What has all of this to do with religion?  For starters, most religious traditions have traditions which are passed down between the generations and are seen as marks of acceptance/membership within that group (e.g. the Sacraments in Christian groups).  Secondly, the way in which a religious group eats is closely related to how it views itself.  For example, for a religious group in Louisana (I can’t speak for all regions of the world!) to regularly have sit-down, formal dinners implies to the culture around it that the group is not a “family.”  This is, in part, why most religious groups in Louisiana tend to have the pot-luck, buffet-style gatherings, because they wish to communicate symbolically that their group is like a family.  Thirdly, the traditions and stories behind the religious group should come hand-in-hand with the group itself.  A group that takes its time to impart traditions, stories, and values (not just moral ones!) is very much like a cook who slowly trains another.  This kind of folk training does two things: provides areas for the newcomer to appreciate the traditions as well as the religion and encourages newcomers to vary the tradition while still holding onto the earlier lines.  In other words, it is an act of interpretation by which the religion and its traditions are passed along to a new generation while still being rooted in the history behind that act (and previous acts of interpretation).

* I say family group because the dynamics of family events in New Orleans tended to bring together larger family units revolving around an older family unit (one generation of siblings and all of their offspring, which tended to equate to 3 or 4 generations in total!).  Both of the annual family reunions I attended centered on my grandmother’s parents and siblings (one reunion for my paternal grandmother’s, another for my maternal grandmother’s), but their spouse’s family wasn’t excluded completely, either.  In both cases here, each family living alone brought 1 or 2 dishes large enough to feed at least 3/4 of the party.  My maternal grandmother had 3 siblings and between the 4 of them, they had 18 children (by my count), which meant that a reunion could easily have 60 people in attendance with 20 or more dishes to choose from (plus desserts)!