Monday, April 11, 2005
(10:50 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
Systematic Theology
Why do Systematic Theology? I know why I want to study in a religion program at this point -- the sheer breadth of questions that can be asked in such a program, the sheer breadth of materials that are available for really creative work, holds a great appeal to me, frightened as I am by the thought of submitting to the disciplinary regime of academia. When I think of teaching, I think of things like history of Christian thought, but also intro to philosophy, ethics, Bible, literary theory -- that is, my mind goes in a million different directions.I probably do take philosophy as normative over against theology. If from a certain perspective, that makes me a theologian manqué (sorry to drag this out, Nate -- no hard feelings), then I might be willing to say that theologians are philosophers manqués -- philosophers for whom certain questions are out of bounds on a priori grounds.[1] Does that mean I don't believe in God? Since I can't think of any way to say that I believe in God that wouldn't involve my becoming a hack: yes, that's what that means. If I'm going to be scolded because it's "not finally about" not being a hack -- scold away. To my mind, intellectual pursuit is "about" trying to figure out what the hell is going on, and a lot of "theology properly so called" seems to me to get stuck in what seem to me to be dead ends. Does that mean that I should -- mustering all the irony I can muster -- spend all my time reading those texts? "Talking the talk," "knowing [m]ine enemy," etc.? With the likely result that I will end up failing to convince those for whom those texts are determinative and will be speaking a foreign language to my own constituency (who would be...?)?
It's at least something to consider. I'll give you that -- something to consider. And I don't think that the pressing question of CTS vs. Vanderbilt is finally about that question, although it does make one nervous when one's professor who is a Vanderbilt alumnae thinks that productive opposition would be chief among the benefits of going there. Or does it?!?![2] I know that in the massive transcendance vs. immanence debates, I did not participate in as informed a fashion as I could have. That's partly why I have decided to read all theology, ever, in chronological order, starting with the Apostolic Fathers. I finished with that bizarre crew last night, so now it's upward and onward to the apologists. I'm really looking forward to the Cappadocians. And if I can learn French to read Derrida and Lacan, maybe I can learn Greek to read all of these bastards -- this long and undistinguished line of hacks and philosopohers manqués, whom I am proposing to join, in my own small way, my own hackish, abortive way.
NOTES:
[1]Or is it a postiori, since what determines the line of questioning is presumably a real historical event? -- and yet that historical event was, according to some, the eternal will of God.... Tough call. A dissertation on Robert Jenson and Jacques Lacan, which would end up pissing off the historical Robert Jenson (which he deserves, because he's clearly an asshole), might be relevant in this regard -- but who could possibly want to hire me to do anything after I had written such a thing?
[2] In fact, what is the final question in the CTS vs. Vanderbilt debate? Is it "moving forward into the future vs. taking the comfortable and familiar route"? Is it "narrow and restrained program" vs. "being able to study what I want"? Is it "financial ruin vs. the certainty of bourgeois comfort and contentment"? Is it "getting a job vs. ruining my academic career before it starts"? No, I don't think it is any of those things. I think it's pretty much a wash on every front -- you may be skeptical on some of this, but it really is. That's probably why I was able to talk to my parents, with my mom coming down pro-Vanderbilt and my dad pro-CTS, and with both of them citing the exact same evidence. It was a work of art. If I were a novelist, I would not have been able to pull off such a scene in a convincing way.
