Monday, March 10, 2014

“What do I love when I love my God?”

The last two interview questions posed to John D. Caputo, a professor of religion and humanities at Syracuse University. The interview was conducted via e-mail, by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and published by the New York Times.

G.G.: "If Derrida doubts or denies that there’s someone who guarantees such things, isn’t it only honest to say that he is an agnostic or an atheist? For most people, God is precisely the one who guarantees that the things we most fear won’t happen. You’ve mentioned Derrida’s interest in Augustine. Wouldn’t Augustine — and virtually all the Christian tradition — denounce any suggestion that God’s promises might not be utterly reliable?"

J.C.: "Maybe it disturbs what “most people” think religion is — assuming they are thinking about it — but maybe a lot of these people wake up in the middle of the night feeling the same disturbance, disturbed by a more religionless religion going on in the religion meant to give them comfort. Even for people who are content with the contents of the traditions they inherit, deconstruction is a life-giving force, forcing them to reinvent what has been inherited and to give it a future. But religion for Derrida is not a way to link up with saving supernatural powers; it is a mode of being-in-the-world, of being faithful to the promise of the world."

"The comparison with Augustine is telling. Unlike Augustine, he does not think a thing has to last forever to be worthy of our unconditional love. Still, he says he has been asking himself all his life Augustine’s question, “What do I love when I love my God?” But where Augustine thinks that there is a supernaturally revealed answer to this question, Derrida does not. He describes himself as a man of prayer, but where Augustine thinks he knows to whom he is praying, Derrida does not. When I asked him this question once he responded, “If I knew that, I would know everything” — he would be omniscient, God!"

"This not-knowing does not defeat his religion or his prayer. It is constitutive of them, constituting a faith that cannot be kept safe from doubt, a hope that cannot be kept safe from despair. We live in the distance between these pairs."

G.G.: "But if deconstruction leads us to give up Augustine’s way of thinking about God and even his belief in revealed truth, shouldn’t we admit that it has seriously watered down the content of Christianity, reduced the distance between it and agnosticism or atheism? Faith that is not confident and hope that is not sure are not what the martyrs died for."

J.C.: "In this view, what martyrs die for is an underlying faith, which is why, by an accident of birth or a conversion, they could have been martyrs for the other side. Mother Teresa expressed some doubts about her beliefs, but not about an underlying faith in her work. Deconstruction is a plea to rethink what we mean by religion and to locate a more unnerving religion going on in our more comforting religion."

"Deconstruction is faith and hope. In what? In the promises that are harbored in inherited names like “justice” and “democracy” — or “God.” Human history is full of such names and they all have their martyrs. That is why the difference between Derrida and Augustine cannot be squashed into the distinction between “theism” and “atheism” or — deciding to call it a draw — “agnosticism.” It operates on a fundamentally different level. Deconstruction dares to think “religion” in a new way, in what Derrida calls a “new Enlightenment,” daring to rethink what the Enlightenment boxed off as “faith” and “reason.”"

"But deconstruction is not destruction. After all, the bottom line of deconstruction, “yes, come,” is pretty much the last line of the New Testament: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.”"

5 comments:

YoungHegelian said...

After making a distinction in deconstruction, the first thing to do is to deconstruct it, to show that it leaks, that its terms are porous and intersecting, one side bleeding into the other, these leaks being the most interesting thing of all about the distinction. I am distinguishing particular beliefs from an underlying faith and hope in life itself, which takes different forms in different places and traditions, by which the particular traditions are both inhabited and disturbed.

I long ago despaired of really making any sense out of the theological musings of Caputo, Mark C. Taylor, and, from a quite different yet similar viewpoint, Thomas J.J. Altizer. Believe me, as a younger man, I actually tried very hard. Their works now line my shelves.

But when push comes to shove, believing is like any other intentional act -- it requires an object to which. We believe in something or maybe a lot of somethings. By the time one is done with the deconstructive hemming & hawing (e.g. like the quotation above), one really has to ask "Is there ever a something at the bottom of all this verbiage?"

The protestations from the post-modern theologians about their "humility" before the ineffable Divinity don't cut it either. As Hegel points out when he discusses the "Revealed Religion", it is God who does the revealing out of His mercy, not we who think we know Him as an act of hubris. Revelation is always God's ineffable choice, and we know Him as He sees fit.

Chip Ahoy said...

It is a question about loving creation, about loving the love inherent in creation.

If that does not make sense then certainly do not proceed.

Perhaps it helps to first be a parent. Then you will know without words the love inherent in creation. If you can see that, if that works for you, then you might see too that same creation imparted to you, that love and live you gave, that you did, that you made in that child. And come to see that child's indwelt spirit independent of your own, apart from the child's personality, your child, and know that same endowment for yourself. That is what you are loving when you love god. A god that loves you so personally he indwells you and your child and your wife and all people with his own portion, its eternal hope to unite completely with your personality unique in the universe, thus the personality attains eternity by fusing with perfection, it portion of indwelt perfection, it is the only eternal thing about you, and your non-unique perfect portion of divinity attains personality unique in the universe. Your personality. That is what you are loving when you love god.

Paddy O said...

I like Jurgen Moltmann's response better:

When I love God I love the beauty of bodies, the rhythm of movements, the shining of eyes, the embraces, the feelings, the scents, the sounds of all this protean creation.

When I love you, my God, I want to embrace it all, for I love you with all my senses in the creations of your love. In all the things that encounter me, you are waiting for me.

For a long time I looked for you within myself, and crept into the shell of my soul, protecting myself with an armour of unapproachability.

But you were outside—outside myself—and enticed me out of the narrowness of my heart into the broad place of love for life. So I came out of myself and found my soul in my senses, and my own self in others.

The experience of God deepens the experiences of life. It does not reduce them, for it awakens the unconditional Yes to life. The more I love God the more gladly I exist.

The more immediately and wholly I exist, the more I sense the living God, the inexhaustible well of life, and life’s eternity.

ken in tx said...

Without pretending to be a theologian or even well read in theology, I would say this. Loving God is not something I feel, but rather something I do. I try to live my life as I think God would want me to, as revealed in scripture. Knowing what I am loving when I express love for God seems to be unimportant to me. I do not expect God to prevent all the bad things I fear from happening. I pray that God will give me the strength to face those fears, whether they happen or not.

Paddy O said...

Ken, I agree. That's what I think Moltmann gets at, which both Augustine and Derrida miss, each in their own way. They de-physicalize the love, putting God beyond conception.

But, Matthew 25, for instance, and so many other passages are closer to your comment, that we love God in our expressions towards others, being more in this world in light of the love rather than off to the side or diminishing Creation.