[T]he posturing of someone like Kotsko can only produce a wry smile in someone of my generation. This is exactly the sort of pusillanimous theology of some in the 1960s that we have long sought to escape from. Why? Because it is bad faith. If you are going to be an atheist and nihilist, then be one. Only second-raters repeat secular nostrums in a pious guise. Such theology can never possibly make any difference, by definition. It’s a kind of sad, grey, seasonal echo of last year’s genuine black. All real Christian theology, by contrast, emerges from the Church, which alone mediates the presence of the God-Man, who is the presupposition of all Christian thinking. Kotsko fears that the Church is an institution, but of course it isn’t—or isn’t primarily—as Graham Ward has well pointed out. It’s rather the continued event of the ingestion of the body of Christ. This fact provides a critical self-correction, well in excess of any outsider criticism of all the Church’s shortcomings and abuses, which I would hope to be among the first to recognize and denounce.This sort of posturing is common among young "theologians" (though I don't know Kotsko's work well enough to fully endorse Milbank's rather harsh treatment of him). There's a difference between critically approaching Christianity from the perspective of continental philosophy and critically approaching continental philosophy from the perspective of the Church. Those who to do the former and claim to be theologians are hopelessly confused.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
John Milbank on Adam Kotsko
In an interview, John Milbank said this of Adam Kotsko (the author of a book on Zizek and theology, who blogs here):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
"There's a difference between critically approaching Christianity from the perspective of continental philosophy and critically approaching continental philosophy from the perspective of the Church."
And that difference is?
I would think the difference is straightforward from what you've quoted. The latter approach speaks not only for himself, but for the Church from within the Church. That is, it's not about putting forth an idiosyncratic personal perspective shaped by modern philosophy, but about articulating the life of the church.
The former begins from an individual perspective without any particular loyalty to the Church, and rather than speaking for the Church, makes it the object of a form of secular criticism. And this is fine, so long as one is circumspect enough to realize it. Zizek, for example, makes no pretense at doing the former; his motives and methods are quite clear and honest.
So am I dishonest or just confused?
Oh, the magic Church thingy. Neat. So, theology should never be critical of the Church? Oh wait, you'd then have to define what exactly this Church thing is, wouldn't you? And which Church exactly are you "articulating the life of"? This is the most historically uncircumspect understanding of thought I've ever read. As if philosophers begin from "individual perspectives"! I suppose in a world where everything is "straightforward" things are much easier than having to actually discuss these issues or, you know, face reality.
I'm not sure. Most of what I've read from you are interpretations of other thinkers (especially Zizek). Probably I should have cautioned that I don't know your work well enough to endorse the characterization of you personally, and used Milbank's quote only to characterize a certain common attitude among young theologians. But, then again, I didn't think anyone actually read my blog, so I wasn't so concerned about spreading a false characterization.
That said, whether or not that characterization of you is false depends on whether your perspective is that of one who speaks on behalf of the Church to articulate what the church teaches and practices, which involves a submission to orthodox Christianity. In this case, continental philosophy can be used within these limits. If that represents your theological perspective, then there's no problem with making claims to be a theologian.
If, on the other hand, you begin with the perspective of continental philosophy, advocate your personal views even if they are outside the bounds of orthodoxy, and make Christian theology the object of a secular critique, then it is appropriate to claim the title of a philosopher, but not of a Christian theologian.
Anthony,
Of course theology can be critical of the Church. But when it does, it should be an internal critique, not an external critique derived from secular philosophy.
In the future, I would suggest not being so cavalier about whether people will wind up reading your stuff, just as a matter of prudence. It certainly seemed to me, reading the quote and then your comment on it, that you had it in for me personally, which struck me as rather strange given that we don't know each other. Good to hear that you weren't.
I obviously disagree with your characterization of theology, but it's a common enough view -- we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
And this is an easy thing to differentiate for you, this inside and outside of Orthodoxy? What exactly is your criteria?
Adam,
Right. I amended the post to make it more clear that I quote Milbank in order to identify a certain sensibility rather than endorse his (rather mean-spirited) insults toward you. I usually think of my blog posts as sort of echoing out in a void. Of course, I still stand by my characterization of the practice of Christian theology.
Anthony,
Of course it's impossible in practice to delineate precisely what is within orthodoxy or not. Some things certainly are (Jesus was fully God, the affirmation of the existence of God, and so on), some are not (asserting the eternal existence of the devil, for example), and some are harder to determine (Balthasar's treatment of Christ's descent into hell, etc.).
I'm less concerned with drawing lines, and more interested in identifying a sensibility that doesn't have any allegiance to orthodoxy.
Professor Milbank's on the mark--actually a bit tame and polite. Kotzko & co are not merely pusillanimous and posturing, but, like, incompetent, at least in regard to say Hegel, the history of philosophy, and history itself-quoting or paraphrasing some au courant postmod jargon does not a philosopher make. I wager even Herr Zizek agrees.
Zizek is my aeroplane: that pretty much defines Kotsko's schtick.
(now prepare for the AUFS bozo's reaction, ad homs, insults, etc)
Any particular writings of Kotsko's you can point me to in order to substantiate that claim, J?
Post a Comment