Why should I read DeLeuze?

Last updated on: July 17, 2014 at 2:17 pm by Morgan Guyton

Why should I read DeLeuze? 2014-07-17T14:17:49-05:00 Morgan Guyton

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I listen to a Christian hipster podcast called Homebrewed Christianity. They were recently part of a conference called Subverting the Norm where the topic was radical theology, the theology of people like John Caputo and Peter Rollins. It’s hard to tell what exactly radical theology is claiming about God. It descends from the “God is dead” theology of 50 years ago which apparently isn’t atheistic so much as it is apophatic, saying that we can’t know as much with certainty about God as we would like. Anyway, listening to the podcast today, I heard a guy talking about how the French theorist Gilles DeLeuze had opened his eyes. So I wanted to pose the question to any of my hipster theory-head readers: why should I read DeLeuze or Malabou or other contemporary European continental philosophers or for that matter Nietzsche, Heidegger, or Hegel?

I’ve read two different books that trash people like DeLeuze and say basically that any form of thought outside theology is fatally flawed: Theology and Social Thought by John Milbank and Beauty of the Infinite by David Bentley Hart. Hart was particularly brutal with DeLeuze. Milbank and Hart have complex, intelligent sounding arguments deconstructing the premises of postmodern thought (yes, I’m using the word as a catch-all).

Do I just let Milbank and Hart have the final word and rest satisfied that two guys much smarter than me have kicked secular theory’s ass so hard that it can never be resurrected (as long as you accept the terms by which they claim victory which I don’t completely understand)? One thing that bothered me about both Milbank and Hart was their lack of charitable hermeneutics. The screaming irony with regard to Hart in particular is that he argues for a theology of beauty in which God’s truth allows for an infinite array of symphonic harmonies as opposed to being a single note absolute univocity, but then Hart betrays his theory by how he treats thinkers who don’t come to univocity with his premises instead of seeing the potential for complementary harmonies despite starting from different places.

In particular, Hart’s moralistic vendetta against Immanuel Levinas was very troubling to me. Levinas gets lampooned from all sides, but I think the basic principle of his ethics is very sound. I am imposed upon by the presence of the other (any other person in my field of perception who forces me to grapple with the fact that I am not the only relevant being in the universe). Many things that we do are strategies to avoid looking into the other’s eyes, which would likely compel us to respond with empathy. Ethics, to Levinas, is how we cope with the discovery that we are not the only beings in the universe; other people exist who think they’re the center of the universe too and we’re just planets in orbit around them from their vantage point. Levinas’ ethics were critical to my discovery of the way that we make up myths to justify ourselves and our lack of compassion for others, and that this self-justification is what the justification of Jesus’ blood is supposed to kill.

So there you have it: an example of how an atheist philosopher helped me discover how to reframe an important theological problem. There have been quite a few others. Foucault’s critique of Victorian sexuality helped me to understand that the suburban American church’s obsession with sex is not only lopsided; it directly opposes our justification by faith in Christ insofar as it generates the self-justification myth we use to reassure ourselves that people who “keep it in their pants” before they’re married deserve to be wealthy, while knocked up teenage moms can’t blame anyone but themselves for their poverty. Derrida and Benjamin helped me with translation and hermeneutics. Foucault, Baudrillard, and Zizek have given me an appreciation for the demonic “world” that the gospels talk about which we project through humanity’s synergy of self-interest (aka the invisible claw of the market) but which takes on a life of its own and imposes an oppressive script on our lives for “the way things are done.” I actually talked about this last concept in a prayer meeting earlier today, so I busted out Zizek (without naming him) in an ecclesial context.

So I’ve benefited from some of these thinkers, but when I see what the enthusiasts of radical theology are writing and doing, I don’t see ekklesia. I don’t see a gathering of people whose incorporation into a mysterious story makes them a single body that exists to bring God’s love into the world. I don’t see a liturgical foundation for a movement which makes possible the society in which “those who are despised and those who are nothing bring to nothing the things that are” (1 Corinthians 1:28). I hate to say it but what I’ve seen looks like intellectual masturbation.

“To believe is human; to doubt is divine.” Yes, God is mysterious, and fundamentalists are hating God when they hate mystery. Yes, when Christians love Kant more than they love Jesus, it results in all sorts of ugliness. But how does “giving up God for Lent” make you a person more likely to stop to help a bleeding man on the side of the road or a person more likely to get goose bumps when you receive the body and blood of Christ?

In the past, a basic hypocrisy of mine is that I’ve pursued knowledge out of a furious zeal to conquer and own more truth. I’ve wanted to know more just to know more. I’m wanting to do better than that now. If DeLeuze can give me an insight that will help me better tell the story of Christ and inspire greater ekklesia and missio dei in the community that I serve, then he’s worth reading. If he’s just going to make me more arrogant and conflicted, then I’m going to pass.

Seriously though, who among the secular thinkers would be beneficial to my theological development? I’ve started hearing about Catherine Malabou. What’s the deal with her? Are there others? I got Alain Badiou’s Theory of the Subject and I can’t get through it. I understand maybe 20% of Zizek’s new beastly book on Hegel.

Previous Post

April 10, 2013

What is the difference between spirit and flesh?

Next Post

April 11, 2013 Amazon and the Soviet Consumerism of 21st Century Capitalism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advent Beauty Will Save the World Bible Big Picture: Ephesians Bloggers Book Christian salvation and the Beautitudes Culture Daily Office Danceable Homiletics Deadly Sins Deep Roots: Genesis Devotions Dominican Republic May 2011 El Principio Misericordia (The Mercy Principle) Five verses God tattooed on my heart Fundraising FutureGospel Good Biblical Words Henri Nouwen Interview Jennings' Christian Imagination Jesus inside the beltway Jesus Is My Candidate Jesus vs the Pharisees Jesus vs. Plato Journey to Eternity Looking Back on 2012 Love Actually Monday Merton Monday Merton Music Occupy the manger On Earth As It Is In Heaven Original Sin Podcast Poetry Politics Prayer Psalm 119 Radical Jesus 101 Reviews Sermon on the Mount Sermons Spanish Bible study Special Series Spiritual but not religious Synchroblog Theology Things that made me think Thomas a Kempis Ugliness Into Beauty Uncategorized Viaje Dominicano 2013 Walking in the Valley (Lent) Welcome: It's More than a Mat Wild Goose 2013 Wrestling

Select a Month March 2022 January 2022 December 2021 September 2021 April 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How was the New Covenant different from the Old Covenant?

Select your answer to see how you score.

It would be written on their hearts It was only for priests It abolished God’s law It required more sacrifices