Leithart II
Leithart's thesis is shaping up a little more nicely, despite the fact that he often contradicts himself rhetorically
[ EG., He inveighs early on against any attempt to view the Church as "Christianity", as if it were one of many alternatives to be imposed or superimposed on an existing structure, but then on page 50 he implies that Saint Paul preached an "alternative" Judaism. On page 52, he endorses NT Wright's claim that Christians were "Israel in a new way", which also seems to go against his claim that we ought not to adopt "alien tongues". Page 58 - "Contextualization be damned". I suppose he would want to make an exception for Judaism, as he endorses the "Hebraizing" (versus Hellenizing) of our theology, but he brushes off Paul's effort in Acts 17 to speak the language of Mars Hill and Athenian philosophy as singularly and Providentially doomed to failure. Given that he also rejects "anti-supercessionism" (the view that Jews are still in covenant with God to some degree), I can only assume he is steering a middle road between anti-Semitism and the view that God speaks to all cultures to some degree as He spoke to the Jews. Since the Jews were supposed to be the high priestly nation for the entire world, and since strangers were always welcome, I am unsure of where this leaves him. It certainly doesn't entitle him to a carte blanche rejection of Saint Paul's effort at Mars Hill, especially given that elsewhere Saint Paul says he becomes all things to all men, Jew to Jews, Greek to Greeks, etc. But these are minor misgivings and quibbles. As a good, pragmatic American, I wait to see where all of this is headed. Where are you ending up at Leithart? I agree with most of Nietzsche's analyses - just not his conclusions.]
On page 48, he blames Augustine for taking the debate to the philosopher's forum rather than the town square, although he heartily approves of the City of God and most of all, Augustine's method of doing theology. He wants to return to Typology, the principle that "Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother" (page 58).
All of this scattershot and shotgun style of theology I could endorse, as I am thoroughly entranced with literary theology myself. But I get suspicious when Leithart begins to talk about "the [monlithic] Church leaning into life" in a way that demands that "my concept of existence demands that all of society be transformed to that concept" (p.62). Just how is this to come about? If Jesus' saying that "my kingdom is not of this world" means anything, it would at least have to imply some sort of Western-style separation of church and state. http://www.acton.org/programs/students/essay/2003/first.html
Leithart is sailing, to me, uncomfortably close to what Oswald Spengler would call the "caliph" view of government, in which some sort of universal, "Magian" religious body imbues the entire world, both state and society and private practice, with its ethos (or Ekklesia). While I agree with his bashing of modern secular liberalism on many counts, I fail to see exactly how he proposes to deal with the solution in a way that would preserve a Western "right of conscience" (the Reformation entails at least that). At least, so far. The only "Magian" style culture thus far the world has seen originated in Arabistan.
THE SHORT VERSION:
In otherwords, the short version of all this is that, in his zeal to be "anti-modern" and "anti-liberal", it would appear to me he might be drifting into either postmodernism or archaism. And I find it strange that anyone would advocate a deliberate shunning of common language in favor of a dichotomized preference for one's own. This can only mean less communication, or worse communication, or no communication. The solution is not less theology, but better theology. And I also find it odd that his dialogue is only made possible under the auspices of "liberal culture". Furthermore, the pagan language belongs to us. The most effective way to undercut it is to redefine it, as Augustine (his patron theologian) knew well, and as (no doubt) he also knows. In doing anti-theology, he is doing theology. Some of this reduces to the difficulty (similarly) of ranting intellectually against "intellectualism". It's a nice rhetorical flourish, but somewhat problematic if one isn't careful to define more of the actual argument. But I shall continue to read, and we shall see.
I just think he hasn't read the right "modern" theologians. Rosenstock-Huessy, perhaps, or Leddhin. The little that either did is stunning. Though primarily historians, they were both capable of fleshing out their worldview. Leddhin, if memory serves, said he was a Thomist influenced by phenomenology and Christian existentialism. If that confuses too much here is his watchword: With God, anything is possible. Without Him, anything is permitted.
[ EG., He inveighs early on against any attempt to view the Church as "Christianity", as if it were one of many alternatives to be imposed or superimposed on an existing structure, but then on page 50 he implies that Saint Paul preached an "alternative" Judaism. On page 52, he endorses NT Wright's claim that Christians were "Israel in a new way", which also seems to go against his claim that we ought not to adopt "alien tongues". Page 58 - "Contextualization be damned". I suppose he would want to make an exception for Judaism, as he endorses the "Hebraizing" (versus Hellenizing) of our theology, but he brushes off Paul's effort in Acts 17 to speak the language of Mars Hill and Athenian philosophy as singularly and Providentially doomed to failure. Given that he also rejects "anti-supercessionism" (the view that Jews are still in covenant with God to some degree), I can only assume he is steering a middle road between anti-Semitism and the view that God speaks to all cultures to some degree as He spoke to the Jews. Since the Jews were supposed to be the high priestly nation for the entire world, and since strangers were always welcome, I am unsure of where this leaves him. It certainly doesn't entitle him to a carte blanche rejection of Saint Paul's effort at Mars Hill, especially given that elsewhere Saint Paul says he becomes all things to all men, Jew to Jews, Greek to Greeks, etc. But these are minor misgivings and quibbles. As a good, pragmatic American, I wait to see where all of this is headed. Where are you ending up at Leithart? I agree with most of Nietzsche's analyses - just not his conclusions.]
On page 48, he blames Augustine for taking the debate to the philosopher's forum rather than the town square, although he heartily approves of the City of God and most of all, Augustine's method of doing theology. He wants to return to Typology, the principle that "Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother" (page 58).
All of this scattershot and shotgun style of theology I could endorse, as I am thoroughly entranced with literary theology myself. But I get suspicious when Leithart begins to talk about "the [monlithic] Church leaning into life" in a way that demands that "my concept of existence demands that all of society be transformed to that concept" (p.62). Just how is this to come about? If Jesus' saying that "my kingdom is not of this world" means anything, it would at least have to imply some sort of Western-style separation of church and state. http://www.acton.org/programs/students/essay/2003/first.html
Leithart is sailing, to me, uncomfortably close to what Oswald Spengler would call the "caliph" view of government, in which some sort of universal, "Magian" religious body imbues the entire world, both state and society and private practice, with its ethos (or Ekklesia). While I agree with his bashing of modern secular liberalism on many counts, I fail to see exactly how he proposes to deal with the solution in a way that would preserve a Western "right of conscience" (the Reformation entails at least that). At least, so far. The only "Magian" style culture thus far the world has seen originated in Arabistan.
THE SHORT VERSION:
In otherwords, the short version of all this is that, in his zeal to be "anti-modern" and "anti-liberal", it would appear to me he might be drifting into either postmodernism or archaism. And I find it strange that anyone would advocate a deliberate shunning of common language in favor of a dichotomized preference for one's own. This can only mean less communication, or worse communication, or no communication. The solution is not less theology, but better theology. And I also find it odd that his dialogue is only made possible under the auspices of "liberal culture". Furthermore, the pagan language belongs to us. The most effective way to undercut it is to redefine it, as Augustine (his patron theologian) knew well, and as (no doubt) he also knows. In doing anti-theology, he is doing theology. Some of this reduces to the difficulty (similarly) of ranting intellectually against "intellectualism". It's a nice rhetorical flourish, but somewhat problematic if one isn't careful to define more of the actual argument. But I shall continue to read, and we shall see.
I just think he hasn't read the right "modern" theologians. Rosenstock-Huessy, perhaps, or Leddhin. The little that either did is stunning. Though primarily historians, they were both capable of fleshing out their worldview. Leddhin, if memory serves, said he was a Thomist influenced by phenomenology and Christian existentialism. If that confuses too much here is his watchword: With God, anything is possible. Without Him, anything is permitted.
posted by Matthew C Smallwood | 3:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home