Theology and Contemporary Critical Theory

by Graham Ward

Outlining the four fundamental concerns in the study of theology with representation, history, ethics and transcendence, this book examines each of these concerns in the light of contemporary critical theory.

Genres: Theology

223 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Graham Ward is an English theologian and Anglican priest who has been Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford since 2012. He is a priest of the Church of England and was formerly the Samuel Ferguson Professor of Philosophical Theology and Ethics and the Head of the School of Arts, Histories and Cultures at the University of Manchester. Previous to that he was the Professor of Contextual Theology and Ethics and Senior Fellow in Religion and Gender at the university.

Reviews

[James Magrini · Rating 5 out of 5]

Graham Ward’s excellent book, which is focused on critical theory in relation to theology, is perhaps more appropriately understood as a critical confrontation with post-modern, or post-structuralist, continental philosophy. I am unfamiliar with Ward’s scholarship, as it is only recently that I took an interest in what is variously termed, progressive or radical theology, but he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the aspects of continental philosophy that he analyzes and incorporates into his theology. His writing style, for the most part, is clear, direct, and accessible (as accessible as can be expected when dealing with post-modern thought (see the critiques of philosopher Roger Scruton!). This is to say, introductory readers need not be fearful; they will not encounter the type of impenetrable writing found in some of the texts penned by radical theologian Thomas J. J. Altizer.

The organization of the book follows a tight logical (formal) structure that is easy to follow, especially for readers who have little or no familiarity with systematic philosophy. Each chapter begins by introducing the philosophers and concludes with an analysis or speculation regarding how their philosophy relates and contributes to a re-conceptualized and revitalized (re-enchanted) understanding of theology. There is, however, an issue with the inclusion of one too many philosophers, “tangential thinkers,” throughout the course of Ward’s analysis (see my concluding/critical thoughts).

In line with the overarching theme of the book (reading, writing, and representation related to a re-conceived notion of “religious experience”), Ward demonstrates that it is the case that all the authors analyzed are, for the most part, interchangeable, in that although their positions might be thought of as radically diverse, they actually share common ground when writing on history, representation, ethics, and aesthetics as might be related to contemporary (progressive?) theological concerns. But as a critic of the radical theology of Cupitt (which Ward labels "a-theology") and Altizer ("death of God theology"), Ward makes reference to his view as "radical orthodoxy."

Four main chapters focus on:

Theology and Representation: This chapter stresses the fluidity and precariousness of language’s power to signify, along with arguing that language is an embodied and performative phenomenon, duplicitous and endlessly referential. Tackling the issue of subject and discourse, there is a concern for theological representation and the move from the traditional reliance on analogy in favor of allegory, and narrative over metaphor. Avoiding the stultifying positions of both realism and naturalism, re-conceived practices for “God-talk” will view suspiciously all reified understandings of the Divine; language does not merely re-present, capturing the essence of that which it brings to stand, instead language always reveals (un-concealment) an excess of meaning that cannot be contained or closed-down (concealment). There is a negative function – acknowledging the limits of language, and a positive one – recognizing how those limitations relate to Christology and contribute to a re-conceptualization of such notions as God, divinity, creation, grace, and incarnation. All these issues are viewed through the philosophies of Derrida, Butler, Irigary, and Spivak.

Theology and History: This section, which includes the thought of Ricoeur, Foucault, and Greenblatt, focuses on new historicist critique and narrative analysis, with the understanding that there remains a distrust of meta-narratives or grand narratives to accurately capture the complex interactions and relations grounded in the distribution and application of power (power-relations/disciplines of power). This again speaks to the theme of privileging truth with a lower case “t” and demonstrating a skepticism toward the belief that categorical instances of truth are achievable (“historical positivism”). The task is to offer “thick descriptions” of historical events, with the goal of representing, to the best of the interpreter’s ability, both a diagnosis and prescriptive for the ills of history (here, recall Benjamin’s tattered and disheveled “angel of history”). Ricoeur’s hermeneutics offers a way to approach the relationship between the “Word of God and the words of human beings,” through a phenomenological-hermeneutic reading of religious experience. Here, it is possible to dismantle the influence of historical positivism in the study of Biblical and ecclesial history. Greenblatt and Foucault combine to open interpreters to taking seriously the ever-present and ever-changing relationship between power-and-knowledge and discourse-and-practice, empowering “the theologian by way of enabling new sociological analyses of the Church and its practices past and present,” which includes, in line with critical theory, identifying and challenging established orders that are oppressive. NB: On page 58 there is a significant typo - Gaston Bachelard (French philosopher) is incorrectly referenced as “Garston Bachelard”. Readers will note that Bachelard is known for his treatment of poetry and the interpretive mode of the “poietic,” studies focused on the imagination (challenging Sartre), with an overarching concern for the tenuous relationship between epistemology (science) and ontology.

Theology and Ethics: This section inspires thinking beyond hegemonic powers giving structure to our institutions, which importantly includes the Church. This must include rethinking notions of love, e.g., an “allegory of love which does not distinguish between agapeic and erotic love,” in relation to a politics of theology. This notion of politics must not only reach beyond Enlightenment paradigms but must also serve to de-structure such paradigms. This calls for an informed and enlightened notion and practice of ethics drawing inspiration from the transcendent, a form of resisting modernity’s attempts to “tear morality away from divine revelation, religious texts, ecclesial authority and practices of [Christian] belief.” This includes embracing the primordial presence of mystery, the divine trace that illuminates our interpersonal relationships, which can never be codified into a definitive, or purely human, nomological system. The ethics of love must outstrip the dangers of obsessive self-love, and come to the understanding that within our intersubjective relations, and not only within our devotional and communal moments of worship, the holy lives, e.g., in Levinas the encounter with the other’s “face” opens a communal space of the “I” and the “other” where the trace (intimation) of the divine is always present and is in essence antecedent to any grounds for a systematic expression of an ethics, which must always acknowledge a sincere debt to the transcendent element, the omnipresence of God, as a foundational expression of the agapeic-erotic love that comes to presence within our encounters and binds us together in a new devotional community.

Theology and Aesthetics: This final chapter introduces literary theory in relation to critical theory and aesthetics, readers encounter Lyotard, Fish, Cixous, and de Certeau – the only Bonafide “religious” thinker in the group. Issues of the sublime and notions of an interpretive community are explored. Considering the post-modern notion of the sublime (in contrast to Kant’s notion), Ward stresses the phenomenon of revelation and transformation in the encounter or event of reading, which is an ecstatic occurrence, where the sublime cannot be traced to a specific object – i.e., the signifier intimates but does not define or bring to present the signified (the holy or divine) – and this transformative event is associated with the aesthetic imagination (sharing intimate characteristics of the religious), which continually outstrips modes of human reason and understanding. Here, there is a return to the primordial “mystery” that always remains incomprehensible, indeed because of this, the religious mystery gathers its transformative power. The understanding of the interpretive community (The Church) is grounded in, as opposed to any definitive notion of interpretation – e.g., a teleological destination where interpretation ends – the ever-renewed experience of the “aporia,” and so based on this aesthetic-religious model of interpretation (reading), carried out in community with others, all readings are shaped by the community but must never be determined or definitively established by such communities (hence halting progress). This is why the event of reading and rereading texts opens the potential for ecstatic moments where enlightenment erupts, as it breaks through the everyday flow of temporality, opening the possibility to see things anew and make course corrections, when necessary, hence the “critical” element of critical theory” becomes a reality, offering the revelatory (aesthetic, historical, and ethical) possibility for change and transformation – this related to transformative theological thought and practice.

My only critique of the book, introduced at the outset: The author includes far too many tangential thinkers in his analysis of the “theological implications” of the main philosophers’ (of which there are many!) positions; it is a move meant to supplement, but it could have the unintended consequence of sewing confusion, especially for uninitiated readers. This critique, it must be stressed, should not i deter readers from pursuing this enlightening text. To provide but one such example, in chapter three, in addition to the detailed analysis of Kristeva, Levinas, Nancy, and Buber, Ward introduces the philosophy of Nussbaum, MacIntyre, and the phenomenology of Lingis - and only one of these thinkers (Lingis) serves as an example of the type of post-structuralism that the book is focused on. Since this occurs throughout the book, readers unfamiliar with these tangential thinkers might feel overwhelmed - the very opposite of the intended goal or desired outcome of superior scholarship. In short, the deep analyses of the many philosophers that populate each chapter of the book - philosophers whose views are undeniably difficult - are more than sufficient to buttress Ward’s claims, serving to inspire readers on to further inquiry.

Dr. James M. Magrini
Former: Philosophy/College of Dupage
For a systematic analysis of the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth, see Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu/106299581/Th...

[Matthew Stanley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr. Ward's work provided a helpful introduction to a range of issues and thinkers in contemporary critical theory, but for a book titled 'Theology and Contemporary Critical Theory,' the work was certainly light on the theology. Often, the theological application felt tacked on at the end and was often more trendy than substantive. Ward's analysis of thinkers like Kristeva, Butler, Irigaray, Foucalt, and Derrida were all enlightening and provided a cogent and lucid introduction to their ideas and questions. So much so that I found myself wanting to go and read their work for myself. But again, as a work of theology, I found it wanting. While I find critical theory to be an important part of the conversation, I find that Ward seems to let the critical theorists take the steering wheel rather than remain as conversation partners. He seems more interested in letting critical theory set the trajectory and dictate the agenda. For those who agree with his methodology and framework, this book will be more fruitful. I have more fundamental theological differences with Ward, so the theological dimension of this work was seriously lacking for me. I still would recommend reading this book because Dr. Ward clearly displays a mastery of the field of critical theory. That alone makes the book worth a read.