By Julius-Kei Kato, PhD
These are some random thoughts I have on this topic which I will present at this year’s AAR session
of the movement Theology Without Walls (November 24, 2024, San Diego,
CA)
[00] Introduction: From a ‘Religion of God’ to a
‘Religion of Life’
The urgency of theology being in dialogue with secularity is obvious: Many of us are located right smack in the middle of very secularized people and contexts. Hence, I’m asking: What can ‘Theology Without Walls’ (henceforward, TWW) contribute to this conversation?
Above everything else though,
let me point out that there is this contemporary phenomenon in which the kind
of “religion” (Note that I take “religion” here to mean “a passionate devotion
to something”) … so, the kind of ‘religion’ unconsciously professed by a great many
people in secular contexts, it seems, has undergone a seismic shift in the
recent past. It has effectively shifted from a religion centered on ‘God’ (theos),
to a religion centered on “life” (I mean the Greek: zoé), not just “life
in general,” but rather: life in the here and now. Hence, the operative
religion of many people we know (perhaps even the religion we ourselves follow
without being fully aware of it) can be called a “religion of life.” And this
is often true even if people can still identify with a traditional kind of
religious faith.
To elaborate, the prevalent
situation in which many of us are located, particularly in the West (and in
Westernized contexts around the world), is one in which the primary “devotion”
(to use a traditional, religious-sounding term) or—to use a more neutral term—the
primary “concern” of many … perhaps most(?) people is no
longer directed to a theistic notion of God (still the operative notion of God
in many churches). No, the utmost concern, (I like to use) “devotion” of many
people has shifted instead to ‘life itself in the here and now’. Back to my
basic question: Can TWW explore and suggest alternative meaning systems/new
paths of religion or spirituality that are more relevant in our contexts today
as conventional ideas of God and religion, hitherto prevalent in the West, are
increasingly fading away? That would be an elaborate version of my burning
question.
This presentation is something
like my two-cents worth on this topic.
[01] What is Theology “Without
Walls”? (How I understand it)
I guess it’s good to start with
TWW’s opposite—Theology WITH walls (TWiW) aka, traditional theology. Theology WITH
Walls, we can say, is a particular religious community’s “inner discourse”
regarding—what the community considers—ultimate matters. In the Western
religious tradition, “the Ultimate” has commonly taken the form of theos
or “God.” Since it is “insider talk,” the community itself, namely, its own authority
structure, is the ultimate arbiter of the discourse. Outsiders should not
interfere. We can say that this way of doing theology has serious limitations
because it is a product of in-breeding, in a certain sense. It can listen and
try to learn from others. And sometimes, it does. But the fundamental stance it
takes (especially for well-established religious communities) is that our
community’s “discourse about God” is the “the best” … at least for us.
TWW is (or at least aims to be) the
antithesis of that. It proposes that theology CANNOT and SHOULD NOT remain an
“insider discourse.” It proposes to break down the walls of the enterprise of
theology. Theology, it proposes, in the sense of “Discourse regarding Ultimacy”
is common to humanity because seeking ultimacy or transcendence
is a deeply hardwired human pursuit.
In this endeavor, theology
without walls can consider secularism as an ally. How so? (The following is from
philosopher John Caputo’s explanation) “Secular” refers to a public order where ideally there
is no one who has hegemony or control over others. Hence, it includes the
separation of church and state so that each would not interfere with the
affairs of the other. Instead, there is the existence and acceptance of a
plurality of opinions (including religious ones). The secular order is
envisioned then to be an open-ended, polymorphic, polyvocal order which
includes diverse voices saying all sorts of things. In principle, anyone in a
secular society has the right to ask any question. (This is from an online talk
of Caputo at The Wheatly Institution)
In such a context, if there be any “discourse about ultimacy/transcendence” (aka, theology), it necessarily has to be “without walls,” that is, an “open-ended, polymorphic, polyvocal order of diverse sorts of people saying all sorts of things. In a secular context, one cannot take refuge in “insider’s discourses” about ultimacy or about God.
[02] The Loss of Relevance of Theology (God-Discourse) and Religion in a Secular Age
Those of us involved in TWW are proud of doing such a theology sans frontières (no barriers). Despite that though, we have to admit that, for many of us located in secular contexts, the very enterprise of “theology” (or “a discourse about theos) itself has become problematic. For many of our students, “theology,” and—I have to add—even “religion” or “religious studies” have become, sad to say, virtually irrelevant.
So, in short, theology … even the kind that seeks to be unencumbered by institutional affiliation or dogmatic constraints, although exciting for us who value these matters, does not really excite the crowd out there anymore. In the secular world, a spirituality or religiosity or even a theology “without walls,” that is, done in an open manner in this our pluralistic, diverse, and globalized world is NOT NEWS anymore. Instead, it is a matter of fact, a necessity, common sense.
It is symptomatic of what is
happening in our secularized societies in which there is a massive loss of
interest in matters pertaining to “God” (theos) and, directly related to
that, there is a correlative loss of interest in “discourses about God,” “religion”
itself, and religious institutions.
Again, our burning question: In
such a context, what can TWW contribute? The suggestions and proposals I will
offer below are the fruit of 20+ years of my efforts to do a “theology without
walls” (although often not naming it as so!) in university/college settings.
[03] Non-Attachment to the
very concept/idea of “Theology” (or Broad Understanding of Theology)
TWW avows to be detached from
“walls.” Conversing with secularity though makes clear another area to be
detached from – the very concept of “Theology” itself. First suggestion: TWW
can insist that those of us involved in the enterprise of theology cannot be
too attached to theology itself due to the reasons I’ve stated above. This
flows from the experience that when you break down those thick theological
walls, you notice that the category of theos is not even a necessary or
important component by which many people try to make meaning in a secular
world.
What I’m suggesting is,
“theology” should be understood in as broad a way as possible, namely, as the
fruit of a common “spiritual intelligence” in humans (whether they are
religious or not), a spiritual intelligence that quests for—what I usually call—“the
meaning of it all” through the pursuit of integrity, depth, and transcendence. Theology,
therefore, can be understood as the endeavor to create meaning through
integrity, depth, and, most importantly, transcendence of some kind. The
emphasis on “transcendence of the spiritual kind” is what sets theology apart
from, say, conventional philosophy or even psychology although, one can argue
that transcendence is also part of those disciplines in a profound way.
We can even use alternative
expressions for “theology.” I have to admit that all of them are unsatisfactory
and cumbersome at this point. Some possibilities: “eudaimonology” “the study of
the human pursuit of depth & transcendence” and such clunky terms. That’s
why I usually still end up using theology but try to explain what I actually
mean.
[04] Branded Theology &
Generic Theology
In my courses, I make a
difference between two categories: “generic” and “branded” with regard to
religion and theology. To give a simple example, “education” is generic while
“a Harvard University education” is “branded.” I think it’s fair to say that,
in the past, at least with regard to religion, theology, or even spirituality,
people didn’t like to stay in generic mode. It probably was not even possible
for people in the past to stay in a “generic” kind of religious belief or theology.
That has changed though in a
secular age. Now, it seems fair to say that “branded” has become unpopular,
whereas “generic” is cool. Why is that so? Perhaps, it’s because generic can
apply to a lot more people due to its wide applicability; “generic” can be
embraced by a more diverse group of people who do not have to be constrained
into accepting one “brand” of theology, religion, or spirituality.
By seeking to break down walls that have siloed theologies
in the past, we can say that TWW seeks to make theology more generic and, thus,
relevant to more people by virtue of their common humanity. TWW strives
to make God-talk or, expressed in a more generic way, “discourse about
ultimacy,” less the property of theological silos or particular
communities/religious groups, but seeks to break it open to and for everyone,
for all humans, or at least, for as many people as possible!
This is another important contribution of TWW to a
secular age.
[05] Dome of Humanity
On the heels of that last point made about making theology and religious discourse more generic and less “branded,” let me share something that I realized with a jolt years ago. As theologians, we have the tendency to think that our expertise is about God. At a certain point in my life (as a theologian), I realized that this is actually an illusion, a delusion. Our expertise is not really about God. More precisely described, it is rather about how humans have thought of and discoursed about God. Theologians’ real field of expertise is not God. No one can be an expert of God. Instead, we are squarely in the area of anthropology. To put it starkly, let’s not pretend to know who God is. We’re experts not really on God. We’re experts on humanity, particularly, how humans have thought and continue to think of God.
Because of this, I’ve become convinced that it is proper to put theology very, very firmly under the dome of humanity and stop pretending that we are discoursing about divinity itself.
What are the consequences of putting our “discourses on god, better yet, discourses on ultimacy” squarely under the dome of humanity? It’s this: We should no longer claim a “privileged status” for theology or religion (See Willi Braun’s book, Jesus and Addiction to Origins). We should not make “revelation” and like matters our sort of “privilege,” believing that we can dispense ourselves from the constraints of a rigorously humanistic critical analysis of phenomena. Instead, we must be aware of and embrace working with anthropocentric tools. We have to make humanity (and how humanity seeks transcendence) the main focus of our study and discourse.
But, since I’m still a theologian in the classical Anselmian sense, that is, someone having faith but seeking understanding, I’ll say this: I’m convinced that only through this clear embrace of anthropology can we perhaps scratch the surface of humanity’s transcendent nature, touching in some way the mystery of the divine.
TWW can emphasize the importance of our common humanity in the enterprise of theology itself.
[06] “Spiritual Intelligence”
And here I’d like to introduce something that, as of lately, I’ve begun to think and teach to my students more and more. I guess, the object of disciplines such as religious studies and even theology, is the study of—what I call—human “spiritual intelligence,” that all important component that is hardwired into our humanity itself. Standing together with other types of intelligence (such as, cognitive, emotional, social, motor, etc.), by virtue of our humanity, we have something in us that drives us to seek for meaning—ultimate and transcendent meaning. Concretely expressed, we seek integrity, depth, and transcendence. That’s how I understand spiritual intelligence. And one of the most prominent symbols of humanity’s spiritual intelligence is theos (or even “theoi” - plural). Hence, theology—namely, discourse about God (or gods)—has played a crucially important role in history because it is arguably the symbol and the means which a huge part of humans has used/ still use to express their spiritual intelligence.
Hence, another suggestion I’d like to make about what TWW can contribute to a secular age is to express theology as the study of human spiritual intelligence.
[07] The Primacy of Spiritual
Practice --- God as an Afterthought / God as a Result of Spiritual Practice
Various strands of liberation theology often say that “orthopraxis” takes precedence over “orthodoxy”. Related to that is a rising trend, I sense, in spirituality studies today: It is that spiritual practice (or practices) takes precedence over religious beliefs. What that comes down to is that you take up spiritual practice—whether that be meditation, mindfulness, service, discernment, ethical living, minimizing distraction and focusing on the here and now, etc. Be faithful to and consistent in these spiritual practices. You may or may not put God into the equation. In short, “God” is secondary. Practice is primary.
However, ironically, if you are faithful to practice, somewhere along the way, you will have a significant spiritual experience. Name that experience as you will or according to your spiritual tradition (such as, encountering God, feeling the Spirit, touching Big Mind-Big Heart—labels are secondary). What is important is, through practice, you will have a spiritual experience and with that, your “religion” or spirituality, if we could borrow William James’ categories, moves from second-hand religion to first-hand religion. And when you reach that stage, you, like other mystics, will be able to say, I don’t just believe in God (or however you’ll want to name Transcendent reality); I KNOW that God is present and active in myself, in others, and in the world.
Ironically, being detached from God (theos) leads to an experiential knowledge of God in this scheme. So, my next suggestion for TWW’s possible contribution to a secular age is: studying and proposing the primacy of spiritual practice as a common heritage of practically all spiritual-wisdom traditions. This again is another way of “breaking down walls.”
[08] Rise of Non-Theistic
Religions in the West
A telling sign for the importance of a theology without walls in the West today is that we are experiencing a tremendous surge in the popularity of non-theistic religiosities and spiritualities. A case in point is how Buddhism is becoming—I think it is fair to say—“mainstream” in the West today. Although Buddhism has many devotional, mythological, and even superstitious aspects as well (I have seen this firsthand, having lived in Japan for a long time). As Buddhism has evolved in the West, it is mainly very humanistic, emphasizing that one does not need to believe in supernatural or mythological matters. It is centered on practicing how to be aware of the here and now, how to control one’s mind, how to act ethically, etc. Again, one does not need to be in a particular theological silo to practice the spirit of Buddhism and other non-theistic spiritualities becoming more and more popular in the West today. One just has to embrace one’s humanity fully and be open to its potential to seriously quest for integrity, depth, and transcendence.
A last suggestion of mine for
TWW: Study why and how non-theistic spiritualities and religiosities have
become very relevant in the secular West today. Then, offer relevant
reflections and suggestions for blending the West’s traditional theistic theology
with non-theistic spiritual-wisdom traditions.
***
And that’s my two-cents’ worth
about what a theology-without-walls can contribute to a secular age.
No comments:
Post a Comment