Harvard Divinity School

Communicative Theory and Theology: A Reconsideration Author(s): K. L. Afrasiabi Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 91, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 75-87 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509790 . Accessed: 10/12/2013 01:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Communicative Theoryand Theology:A Reconsideration

K. L. Afrasiabi
Andover Newton Theological School

udging by the proliferationof a new body of theological works that have e. courageda deliberaterethinkingof the intellectualpremisesof Christiantheology,' scholarly discussion appearsto have come to the juncture of an exciting thoughunpredictable stage in theology.Perhapsthis is nowhereclearerthanin the realmof the ongoingdialogueon the theologicalrelevanceof communication theory associatedwith the Germanphilosopher,JurgenHabermas. Contraryto what has become an articleof faith in recenttheologicalforays into social theory,I contend: (a) that Habermasiantheory has little to contributeto theological thought and is more valuable as an indirect aid in critiquingvarious deficient theological discourses; (b) that the currentHabermas-sympathetic attemptsat a communicative theology are, by and large, open to criticismfor the same shortcomingsand problems found in Habermas'sown works;and (c) thatthe need to addressthese problems necessarilypoints us towardan alternativepostcommunication theology.
l See, for example, Mark C. Taylor, Deconstructing Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1982); Elizabeth A. Johnson, She WhoIs (New York: Crossroad, 1993); Brian D. Ingraffia, Postmodern Theoryand Biblical Theology (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995); Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1992); Jirgen Moltmann, The Coming of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991). Milbank's claim that "theology is social science" and his exclusivist Christianity as a "metanarrativerealism" leave a great deal to be desired. He collapses the distinction between idealism and realism by adopting a perverse notion of (meta-) narrative that obviates any and all standardsof evaluation external to it.

HTR 91: 1 (1998)

75-87

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

76

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

I ChristianTheology and the Seductionof Habermas's Communication Theory

By all accounts,variousChristianthinkershave invested a greatdeal of hope in the recentencounterswith the aporiasof Habermasian theory.For the most part, their intentionis not simply to find in Habermassome hints of compatibilitywith thoughtto a theologitheological concepts, but ratherto assimilateHabermasian cal discourse.2 Such sympatheticenlistmentsof Habermas,focusing on his multifaceted notion of social action and rationality,his universalistic"communicative ethics," his evolutionarydefense of modernismagainst the relativistic assault of "anti-metanarrative" postmodernism,and the like, have sparkeda new depth in theological investigations.3 Dobert, for instance,has relied on Habermas'stheory of communicativecomhistory"of worldviews to propetence and his concomitantview of the "internal vide an evolutionarymodel of religious development.4Accordingto Dobert, indices of religious evolution (such as the expansionof the profanein the sacred, the of moralconsciousness, and demythologizationof cosmology, the autonomization the related reconstructionof religious consciousness) confirm the basic hypotheses of social evolution put forwardby Habermas.While Dobert's insights run enterprise,Peukert,Badillo, Fiorenza, and others atparallelto the Habermasian direct a more convergenceof theology and communicativetheory. tempt Peukert's "theology of communicative action" represents, first and foremost, a sophisticated blending of Habermas's social theory, Metz's praxis-oriented fundamentaltheology, Bultmann's Heideggerian existentialist theology, and Rahner's hermeneutic-transcendental theology. Undergirding the intermeshing of these diverse thinkers is the claim that the thoughts of Metz, Bultmann, and Rahner harborelements of Habermasiancommunicative rationality. Thus, while Peukert utilizes Lenhardt'sconcept of "anamnestic solidarity" and Benjamin's notion of "repressedpast" to substantiate a Metz-sympathetic communicative theology of the cross, this is complemented by a selective, critical appropriationof Bultmann's historicist eschatology and Rahner's transcendental"I-Thou"conceptualization.
2 See, for example, Don S. Browning and Francis Schissler Fiorenza, eds., Habermas, Modernity,and Public Theology(New York:Crossroad,1992); RobertP. Badillo, TheEmancipatory Theory of Habermas (Washington, D.C.: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 1991); Helmut Peukert, Science, Action, and Fundamental Theology: Toward a Theology of Communicative Action (James Bohman trans.; Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984); and Rudolph J. Siebert, From Critical Theory to Communicative Political Theology (Darmstadt: Lang, 1989). 3 A decent explication of Habermas's thought appears in Stephen K. White, The Recent Work of Jurgen Habermas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). 4 Rainer Dobert, Systemtheorie und die Entwicklung religioser Deutungssysteme (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973).

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

K. L. AFRASIABI

77

In a similar vein, Badillo has engaged in a theological reconstruction of Habermasiantheory that finds its precursorin the writings of Thomas Aquinas. revisionistreadingof Aquinas and otherclassic theoHe attemptsa Habermasian the "gift to an logians whereby, give example,Aquinas is said to have interpreted of creation"as an act of communication.In Fiorenza,on the otherhand,one finds a more guardedrecourseto Habermasthatis highly criticalof the latter'sfailureto providing an appreciatethe role of churches as "communitiesof interpretation," for the discussion of moraland institutionallocus of the "lifeworld"(Lebenswelt)5 practicalissues. Fiorenzahas, moreover,distancedhimself fromHabermas's"formalistic"discourse ethics and has called for a historicistapproachto "publictheology." Despite these criticisms,however,Fiorenzaremainscommited to the notion thata substantiveand methodologicalfusion of Habermasian theory and theology is both possible and necessary.6Fueling this conclusion are the signs of reconciliation toward religious worldviews in the recent writings of Habermas, worksthatemphasizereligion's"therapeutic experience"andits role in fosteringa communicativeethics and protectingthe culturallifeworld from the incursionsof the "mediatizingpower and money."7 In his "reply"to the writingsof Fiorenza,Peukert,and others,Habermashas conceded sizable groundto his theological critics by revising his earlier "hasty" of religious worldviews and his circumspect conclusions about the disintegration view of the "religioussphere."8 While acknowledgingthe potentiallyimportant has also assigneda largerrole of "publicpoliticaltheology,"Habermas contribution for religionin his theoriesof needs andsocial action:accordingto him, religiousand values functionas "stencilsaccordingto which needs are shaped." othertraditional is said to be "evermore stronglydepenSimilarly,the renewalof religioustradition dent on individuals'readinessfor critiqueand capacity for innovation."Without doubt,the traditional rivalrybetweentheologyand atheisticsocial science has been somewhatundermined by the provocationsof a mutuallyenrichingencounterthat reconstructive effortsin social confirms a logic of convergencein current seemingly of the the and convergencethesis, altheology. Still, hopeful expectations theory

5A hermeneutic andothersdenotingthe totalityof the Habermas, Ricoeur, conceptfoundin Gadamer, moral, culturalsphere. In Habermas,"lifeworld"is counterposedto "system,"that is, economic and reificationof lifeworldby system, etc. bureaucratic systems, and deals with theirinterpenetration, 6 See Francis Schiissler Fiorenza, "CriticalSocial Theory and Christology,"Proceedings of the CTSA30 (1975), 63-110. 7 For more on this, see Fred Dallymer, "CriticalTheory and Reconciliation,"in Browning and Fiorenza,Habermas, Modernityand Public Theology, 95-121. Unfortunately, Dallymer misses the irreconcilablegaps between Habermasand theology discussed in this writing. in Browning andFiorenza, inThisWorld," from Transcendence "Transcendence Within, s JirgenHabermas, 226-51. andPublicTheology, Habermas, Modernity,

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

78

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

heresies,9areheld backby the lingeringproblemsthat readynegatedby postmodern the of the prevent narrowing gap betweenthese thoughttraditions.

' The Problemsof a Communication Turnin Theology

The questionof whetheror not Christiantheology is reconstructible within the frameworkof a Habermasian communicativetheory is an open question that is, often takenfor grantedinsteadof proven.This is the problemwith unfortunately, Dobert, who not only generalizes about world religions on the basis of religious experience in the West but also commits the error of uncritically endorsing Habermas'ssecularistinsights concerning"metaphysical" consciousness. To elaborate,in his critiqueof "metaphysical thoughts,"which owes more to Feuerbachand Heidegger,Habermascontends that the main fault of these metaphysicalreflectionsis thatthey "putthe worldas a whole at a distanceby means of a history of salvation or of a cosmology."10One must ask whether the idea of metaphysicsthat Habermasis rejecting is really an adequateone. Certainly,the notion of an attenuated deity in which God is conceived as a distantbeing beyond the universe is flatly rejectedby most contemporary Christianthinkers.Thus, for instance,Jirgen Moltmannwrites:"Theindwellingpresenceof God is the source of the light that interpenetrates everythingand makes it shine."1 Similarly,Gordon Kaufmanhas writtenthat God works within this world and is "directingthe world beyond into perfection."'2An addedproblemwith Habermas'scelebration of "postmetaphysical thinking"is that it is markedby the beginning of a selfthat a reversal, is, circumspectembraceof metaphysicsthat runs contraryto his theoretical system. He writes, for example: "Withoutthe spur of an idealizing worldprojectionand a transcendent truthclaim, objectifyingscience is swallowed up by its contingentcontexts."'3 Dobert excuses himself from applying any religiously-based critique of Habermas(for example, of Habermas'sunecological notion of human/nature in-

9This is particularly true of Derridaian "negativetheology."For more on this, see WalterLowe, Theologyand Difference: The Wound of Reason (Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press, 1993); David Rutledge, Reading Marginality:Feminism, Deconstruction,and the Bible (New York: Brill, 1996). For an apt discussion of postmodernityand its resignationto bottomless fragmentationand ephemerality,see David Harvey,Conditionof Postmodernity(Oxford:Blackwell, 1989). 0 Jirgen Habermas, PostmetaphysicalThinking(Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1992) 119. t Jirgen Moltmann,The Comingof God (Minneapolis:Fortress,1996) 318. 12GordonKaufman, In the Face of Mystery:A ConstructiveTheology(Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1993) 415. 13 Habermas,PostmetaphysicalThinking,134. The example of Habermasrecalls Emil Brunner's insight that "even philosophicalthoughtcannot get away from God" (The ChristianDoctrine of God Westminster,1949] 156). [Philadelphia:

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

K. L. AFRASIABI

79

teractionunder the rubricof instrumentalrationality).One cannot fully address such a lacunain Habermasian theoryshortof, at a minimum,a reembraceof quasiKantian transcendentalinterests featuredin Habermas'searlier writings-writings which Habermashimself has long abandoned. Nor is Dobert capable of acin some Easternreligions, knowledging the sacralviews of nature,so paramount which have neitherchangedover time nor become irrelevantto the contemporary ecotheological concerns.14 WithPeukert,on the otherhand,the reversalof the classical (antagonistic) relationshipof criticaltheoryto theology is at bottomindebtedto the honing of a key hermeneutical idea: intersubjectivity. is the Briefly, for Habermasintersubjectivity centralorganizingprincipleof his systemictheoryin all of its subsets,thatis, views on speech-actsand their validity claims, consensus theory of truth,ideal and distorted communication,and religion.15 Accordingly,religion in all its aspects becomes an intersubjectively mediatedsocial tradition. In his magnumopusHabermas focuses on the "linguistification of the sacred,"thus assertingthatreligiousconvictions "owe their authorityless and less to the spellbindingpower and auraof the aboutcommunicatively."'6 holy,andmoreandmoreto a consensusthatis... brought Peukertendorses this idea wholeheartedlyand seeks to substantiateit within theology by, for example, sighting Rahner'sview of "love of neighbor"to drive home the point that the transcendental experience of God is necessarily intersubjectively mediated.'7 In hindsight, however, this raises the question of whetheror not Peukerthas engaged in a selective and highly imaginativereading of Rahner.This questionowes its origin to Peukert'scuriousoversightof Rahner's basic theological assumptionregardinghumanity'sforeknowledgeof God. For Rahner,the self exists in intrinsicrelationshipwith the deity, and religious experience transpiresas the ultimate depth of every personal experience at the presociallevel.'8 The assumption(latentin Rahnerand, before him, in Hegel)'9of an intrinsiccommunicationwith God incarnatethat has existed in all humanbe-

14 See, for example, MinocherSethna,"Zoroastrianism andthe Protectionof Nature,"in idem, ed., Religion, Nature, and Survival (New Dehli: Parcham,1992); see also, K. L. Afrasiabi, "Towardan Islamic Ecotheology,"HamadardIslamicus (1995) 33-45; and idem, "IslamicPopulism,"Telos 105 (1995) 99-127. 15 For more on this see, ThomasMcCarthy,The Critical TheoryofJiirgen Habermas(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1979) 272-358. 6 Action, (2 vols.; Boston: Beacon, 1987) 2. 89. JiirgenHabermas,The Theoryof Communicative 7 Peukert,Science, Action, and FundamentalTheology,272-74 18 KarlRahner, Foundationsof ChristianFaith (New York:Seabury,1978). Formoreelaboration on this issue see, JohnHaught,WhatIs God? How to Thinkabout the Divine (New York:Paulist, 1986). 19"Humanity implicitly bears within itself the divine idea, not bearingwithin itself like something from somewhere else but as its own substantivenature."FriedrichHegel, Lectureson the Philosophy of Religion (3 vols.; Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1984) 3. 109.

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

80

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

ings from the beginning is foreign to a communicativetheology burdenedwith a notion of transcendence.20 To be fair to Peukert, one-sided, purelyintersubjective he recognizes the need to addressthe questionof the existence of God; his chamhowever,forces him into a certainreticence pioningof communicativerationality, on this issue. He does not link up with Rahner'snotion of interiorself-communication of human beings as embodied spirits;consequently,he moves within the area of this theistic question.Nevertheless, owing to the subversive power of his communicativebias, he misses Metz's recognition that one cannot evaluate the claim that God exists by the epistemic standards of intersubjectivity.21 Like Peukert of inflates intersubjectivity and thus closes off the option unHabermas, of belief' in an entirelydifferentsense from thatpro"rationalization derstanding posed by Habermas. of the WhatHabermasmeans by rationalization is a "decentered understanding In an analogous manner,Habermasbases the rationalityof an expresworld."22 sion on its criticizabilityandclaims thatreligiousor metaphysicalthoughtrequires a "fusion of ontic, normative,and expressive aspects of validity";its basic conThis criticism is, however, cepts are thereby "immunizedagainst objections."23 applicableonly to a limited approachto theology, such as that of Alvin Plantinga, accordingto whom "it is rational.. . to believe in God without any evidence or is twofold. First, argumentat all."24 The problemwith Plantinga'sinterpretation
20 "The relation to God is then possible only in the turningto the other in solidarity."Peukert, Science, Action, and FundamentalTheology,218. This statementis ultimatelybased, on the one hand, on an anthropocentric view of religion and, on the other, on an oversight of the theological insight concerningthe priorityof individuals'relationshipwith God. 21 See John B. Metz, "Unglaubeals theologisches Problem,"Concilium 6-7 (1965) 484-92. In a key footnote in anotherwriting, Metz has stated, "My reflections about a political theology began therefore with a criticism of transcendentaltheology based on intersubjectivity"(Faith in History and Society [New York: Crossroad, 1980] 238). The same criticism applies, mutatis mutandis, to Mark C. Taylor, whose Derridaian "carivalization" of Scriptures represents a long detour to intersubjectivity;note, for example, his claim: "Withthe realization of the total reciprocity of subjects, the entire foundationof economy of dominationcrumbles."(Erring:A PostmodernA/theology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984] 134). In addition,Taylor's "a/theology,"with its call for the overcoming of unhappyconsciousness, representsa closet Hegelianism that contradictsits pretensionsof wanderingerring;a/theology's claim to be irreduciblymarginalis ill-matched with its self-privileging as a "decisive"moment in moder thought.Taylor's attemptto anchora/theology in a range of philosophical terms and maneuvers is, from the outset, greatly at odds with itself; at bottom, the errors of Erring are that it is not deconstructive enough and proceeds by setting up pseudoenemies in theology and logic, embracinga "radicalchristology" that does not belong to the theological syndrome precisely because it lacks any notion of divine transcendence. 22 Action, 1.72. Habermas, Theoryof Communicative

23

Ibid., 2. 189.

Alvin Plantinga,"OnTakingBelief in God as Basic," in JosephRunzo and Craig K. Ihara,eds., Religious Experienceand Religious Belief (New York:UniversityPress of America, 1986) 1-19.
24

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

K. L. AFRASIABI

81

he conflates the issues of rationalityand rationalizationof belief, reducing the latterto the formerand thus presentinga monological view of theology as such. This is precisely where Habermas,with his theoreticallyrich distinctionbetween becomes useful. Second, Plantingarelies on a fullrationalityandrationalization, blown, maximalistnotion of belief in God as "trustingin God, accepting his purThis broadnoposes, committingone's life to him and living in his presence."25 tion, emphasizingaction and intentionality,contradictshis basic thesis, which is supportableonly by referenceto a more restrictive(thatis, minimalist)notion of belief. What is missing in Plantingais the recognitionof the world of difference between a basic, primordial belief in God and a systematicbelief in God, one that a thematic requires knowledgeof God'spurposesandthe obligationsof the knowersubject. Similarly,Plantingafails to probe the triggeringfactors and/oractuating processes that make the evolution of primordialbelief to systematic belief possible. Such an insight requiresa communicativetheology based on a notion of referencethatpoints towardthe path of belief. Despite its usefulness as a critiqueof deficient theologies illustratedabove, the nub of the problem with communicativetheology, as formulatedby Peukertand is thatit is limited in its freedomto reconstruct the theoreticalframework others,26 within which its theology works itself out. It is exposed to the syndrome of a methodological atheism that forms a specific barrierto the stated objective of a transcendental hermeneutics.To elaborate,communicativetheology is wedded to Habermas'spragmatic theory of meaning, in which meaning is assimilated to This is, however,precisely what makes communicativetheory a intersubjectivity. theology-nullifying endeavor;the theological meanings nullified are those that This correspondsto the dissobelong to the elements of "God-consciousness."27 lution of any sense of foundational "transcendental grounding." That the

Alvin Plantinga,"Is Belief in God Rational?"in C. F. Delaney, ed., Rationalityand Religious Belief(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979) 7. 26 For example, Gary M. Simpson, "Theologia Crucis and the Forensically Fraught World: Engaging Helmut Peukert and Jurgen Habermas," in Browning and Fiorenza, Habermas, Modernity, and Public Theology, 173-206. See also, Rudolf Siebert, The Critical Theory of Religion (Berlin: Mouton, 1985) and Marsha A. Hewitt, Critical Theory of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). Hewitt's uncritical endorsement of Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza's brand of feminism constitutes its major shortcoming; Hewitt overlooks the noncritical, consensus motivation of Schtissler Fiorenza's thoughts and concepts (for example, "wo/men"), which undercuts the oppositional strand. Like Taylor, Schiissler Fiorenza wants to be both a marginal outsider, that is, "resident alien," and yet occupy the center at the same time. See Discipleship of Equals: A Feminist Ekklesialogy of Liberation (New York: Crossroad, 1993). 27 Thus my fundamental objection to the term "God-talk," which has a built-in tendency to give primacy to the intersubjective, communicative dimension of God-consciousness. According to Habermas, a key fault of this kind of consciousness is its fetishization of ontologi-

25

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

82

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

Habermasian theory precludesa minimuminsight into this dimension can be inferred from the fact that Habermasprovides little insight on the domain of an "innerworld." Habermas's commentson the "innerworld"tie into his speech-acttheory,which maintainsthat utterancesabout any such inner world raise claims to sincerity of which may be authenticor inauthentic; truthclaims per se inexself-presentations, plicably disappearfrom this realm.Habermas,however, somewhatreverseshimself when returningto the issue of "authenticity" in the context of (Authentizitdt) and which he calls action." Here, action, teleological norm-guided "dramaturgical the assessment of (in)authenticityis directly relatedto the possibility of self-deception, thatis, whethera personexpresses a truefeeling or need. In otherwords, actionone canimplicit in Habermasis the recognitionthateven in dramaturgical not get away from the questionof truth.28 This applieseven to the religious sense of "avowal"thatHabermasdetects in the "innerworld,"althoughwithoutbotherAt bottom, this laing to hypothesize about its origin and social consequences.29

cal oneness that breaks down in the face of a "disenfranchised plurality" (Postmetaphysical Thinking, 120-21). This overlooks a basic insight concerning a Triune God, that is, if theology has to do with the Trinitarian presence of eternity in the moment, then the problem of absolutism collapses of its own accord. This criticism is applicable to Fiorenza, who writes: "Universality... presupposes an underlying common human nature and practice. It undercuts diversity and plurality, which are reduced to a fundamental oneness." Francis Schissler Fiorenza, "Christian Redemption between Colonialism and Pluralism," in Rebecca S. Chopp and Mark L. Taylor, eds., Reconstructing Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 298. Fiorenza's attempt to find a third alternative between universalism and historical particularism with respect to human nature remains an unfulfilled agenda, not the least because of his inability to see the implicit universalist claims concerning human nature in Habermas's communicative rationality, which he endorses. 28 Of course, the has always been a controversialone. In his question of what constitutes"truth" discussion of the sense of numinousin the "faithstate,"CharlesHardwickhas maintainedthat "Godtalk could well be objectively,solidly trueeven when 'God' refersto nothing"(Eventsof Grace, Naturalism, Existentialism,and Theology [Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press 1996] 69). Although this statementmakes sense from within a philosophy of language, it does not remain accuratewhen invoked theologically, from the prism of its system of concepts, which presupposesthe existence of the referrent,God. 29 As partof his recent, slow reconciliationwith religion, Habermas has penned:"we are exposed to the moment of a transcendencefrom within."Yet he holds back this rudimentary insight with his of a resilientphilosophicalscepticism:"Butthis does not enable us to ascertainthe countermovement fromWithin,"in BrowningandFiorenza, frombeyond" ("Transcendence compensatingtranscendence Habermas,Modernity,and Public Theology, 238). Bernsteinhas noted that Habermashas an actionorientednotionof "avowal." See Jay M. Bernstein,RecoveringEthicalLife:JiirgenHabermasand the thereis no hint of a suggestion Futureof Critical Theory(London:Routledge, 1995) 74. Interestingly, in Bernsteinaboutthe turnto theology by Habermasian theorydiscussedhere. This (one step forward, two steps backward)turnhas broughtHabermascloser to PeterBerger,who has similarlywrittenabout

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

K. L. AFRASIABI

83

cuna is connectedto the fact thatHabermashas yet to give centralattentionto the natureof this "innerworld."30 Without, however, a more elaborate conception of the "innerworld," which may imply a reconstruction of the theory of rationality from the bottom up, Habermasiantheory remains fundamentally inadequate and without much seductive power for theology.31The currentassimilation of Habermasby Peukert and Fiorenza, among others, is owing to the fact that their criticisms of Habermas do not go deeply enough and, consequently, result in discovering untenable points of similitude and harmony between his theory and theology; their interpretations are handicappedby systematic distortionsaboutmetaphysical thought and religious worldviews detectable in Habermas. The foregoing critical diagnosis of the limitations of communicative theology points toward the need to delineate the elements of a postcommunication theology arising from such criticisms.

* Postcommunication Theology: TowardA Theory of Theological Competence

notionof theology as God-knowledgefirst and foremost, Startingwith a "hard" the theological perspective offered here finds its intellectual antecedentsin the twin pillars of Calvin and Schweitzer.There are significant,yet largely unrecognized, similaritiesbetweenthese two thinkers. Both held comparableviews on the natureof deity and attemptedto integrateall aspects of existence within a theory of reverencefor the divine. In addition,they both saw their intellectualendeavors andethical responsibilitiesflowing naturally fromcertainabsoluteandfundamen-

the "signals of transcendence" (The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theoryof Religion [GardenCity, NJ: Doubleday, 1967]). Unfortunately, Bergerfails to draw the full implicationof his above all a primordial desire for God, are inborn insight, namely,thatthese "signalsof transcendence," in humanbeings, whose strugglefor decipheringandrecognizingthemprovidesthe moralforce thatis ultimatelyresponsiblefor the developmentof the "sacredcanopy." 30 In a footnote in one of his recentpublications, Habermasstatesratherobliquely:"A corresponding hypothesisconcerningthe constructionof an innerworldandhow it is delimitedfrom the objective and social worlds need not concernus here except in so far as the subjectiveworld and its thematizable experiences representa furtherbasic attitudeand perspective,roundingout the system of world perAction [Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1990] 190). spectives"(Moral Consciousnessand Communicative 31 The same criticism applies, mutatismutandis,to Seyla Benhabib'smore elaboratephilosophy of the subjectin her work, Critique,Norm and Utopia:A Studyof the Foundationsof Critical Theory (New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1986). In spite of her insights, Benhabib'swork is interlaced with the same theoreticalshortcomingsin Habermasdiscussedhere;thus, for example, Benhabibgives only cursory attentionto the role of religious experience in the constitutionof "inneridentity"and, relatedly,fails to explain the way in which truthand authenticityare interconnectedwithin a transcendental subjectivity.

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

talprinciples.Schweitzer'sphilosophyof "reverence for life"complements Calvin's "reverencefor God" in a way that the contemporary context of theology should find significantfor an integrativetheology of God, humankind,and the social and physical world. it as "thatreverCalvin equates reverencefor God with piety and understands This ence joined with love of God which the knowledgeof his benefits induces."32 reverence is a reciprocaland dialectical one; it is relatableto a desire of God to "render himself nearandfamiliarto us"throughhis "commongrace"to humanity This, in turn,invokes a "desire by plantingthe "seedsof religion"in "everyheart." for God" that manifests itself in humanbeings' passion for religion. One might describethis notion of religion as illuminism,thatis, the notion thatknowledge of God is "illuminated throughfaith by an internalrevelationof God."33 The illuminismthatCalvincalls faith is defined as "a steady and certainknowledge of Divine benevolence towardsus, which, being foundedon the truthof the gratuitouspromise in Christ, is both revealed to our mind and confirmed to our this view stronglyresemblesthe thoughts hearts, Interestingly, by theHoly Spirit."34 whose methodof describingesotericknowlof the MuslimtheosophistSuhrwardi, edge in Philosophyof Illuminationshifts from "being"to "light"and, in a manner similarto that of Calvin, refers to an "innereye."35 Parentheticallyspeaking, it is also noteworthythatMoltmann'slatestworkevinces a similarpreoccupationwith divine light: The light that shines througheverythingis a visible sign of the allpenetrating presenceof God, and of the perichoresiswhich does not created beings but fulfills them. The countless and multifaridestroy ously brightreflectionsof the divine light shows the richnessand the of createdbeings in the presentglory of God.36 eternalparticipation In termsof comparativetheology,this raisesthe curiousquestionof whetherone is now witnessingthe beginningof a quietconvergenceof EasternandWesterntheological reflection!

32

Calvin Institutes,1.5.15.

33 Ibid.

Ibid., 1; 3.2.7. 35 "Once the inner eye opens, the exterioreye ought to be closed. Lips must be sealed and the interiorsenses should begin to functionso the person,if he attainsanything,does so with innerbeing, and if he sees, he sees with the inner eye, and if he hears, he hears with the inner ear. .... Therefore, when asked what would one see, [the answerof the innerself is] it sees what it sees and what it ought to see.... The beginningof illuminationis detachmentfrom the world;the middle way is observation of divine light; and the end is limitless."(Quotedfrom WheelerM. Thackston,Mystical and Visionary Treatiseof Suhrwardi[London:Octogon, 1982] 181). 36 Moltmann, Comingof God, 318.
34

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

K. L. AFRASIABI

85

Schweitzer carries Calvinist illuminism several steps further within a civilizational discourse that is based on the ethical philosophy of "reverencefor the latteras elementalpiety.37 Whatis more, the very realizalife";he understands tion and knowledge of this philosophy is related to an illuminist discovery.38 Schweitzer,however, neitherworkedout the connectionbetween his philosophical "reverencefor life" and the theological "reverencefor God," nor, as a result, his own illuministexperiencetheoretically,thatis, was he ever able to understand as partand parcel of a theory of theological competence. Such a theory is necessary for the exposition and surfacingof Schweitzer'sdeep theological inclinations lying behind his philosophicalconcerns.The goal of this theory is an explicit descriptionof the process thata typically competenttheologian must travel in order to form adequate theological knowledge. It would show that, contrary to the "reverencefor life" principle was not Schweitzer's own self-representation, triggeredby an utterlyisolated cogito, but by the internaland externalimpression on a consciousness of the fact of its presence within a web of existence in the context of natureand others.39Takingthis analysis one theologically-interpreted one that the theological presuppositionof Schweitzer's claim may step further, a andthatit represented illuministphilosophicaldiscoverywas not context-bound, pure form of metatheoreticalknowledge issuing neither from a communicative nordirectlyfrom an interestin "carefor others."Rather,it was first understanding generatedby a concernto rendermeaningfulthe natureof being (Dasein) through self-communication. diThe idea of self-communicationserves to highlightthe non-intersubjective mension of inner life that, when theologically understood,underscoresthe primary phenomenologicalperceptionand desire of deity.0 It also denotes the key link in a chain of theological learning,consisting in one's learningto conceive of
Albert Schweitzer,Out of My Life and Thought(New York:Holt, 1944) 235. The phrase,"Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben"came to Schweitzerwhile observingnatureon a riverboat tripin Africa. Ibid., 156. 39 Indeed,far from an exception, Schweitzer's illuministdiscovery is sharedby a numberof other theologians throughouthistory. For example, Anselm's famous ontological argumentis related to a suddenmomentof illumination.See Jonathan Bares, TheOntologicalArgument (London:Macmillan, 1972). Anotherexample belongs to Nicholas of Cusa and his suddendiscovery recordedin De Visione Dei. 40 Relevant works are Nelson Pike, Mystic Union (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992); Timothy Beardsworth, A Sense of Presence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977); William Alston, Perceiving God (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991); and Julia Annas, The Morality of Happiness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). My argumentruns contrary to both Peukert and Taylor who, each in his own way, espouses a theology of despair by associating God-knowledge with death. My view is closer to that of Tracy, who focuses on the ambiguities of existence. See David Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, and Hope (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).
37

38

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

86

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

REVIEW

oneself, as well as the entire universe, from the normative perspective of the Creator.41 Thatthere are otherlinks in this chain one can infer from, among other Schweitzer's things, ecological and humanist "reverencefor life," the articulation of which itself representsa sign of evolution of theological competence (at the theoreticallevel). This is so because Schweitzer's infusion of an ethics of the human/naturerelationship arguablyrepresents a qualitative broadening of the theological horizon, not unlike the recent contributionof feminist theologies.42 Anticipating Habermas,Schweitzer maintainedthat rationality was an integral partof his ethical thought and of any coherent philosophy of civilization.43The increased differentiation and complexity of theological thought in these cases provide us with the justificatory explanation of a theory of theological competence that operates at both practicaland theoretical levels.44 Seen in this light, Moltmann'ssophisticated, multifarious"immanent Trinity" a recent of creative in which works as a represents example imagination theology,

41 Following this line of reasoning, everyone has a generative, deep competence to think theologically. This does not mean jumping to the conclusion that we are all theologians, which is reserved for those who have advanced to a postgenerative level blessed with a coherent, full-fledged theology. In a certain sense, both Luther and Calvin are guilty of overlooking the internal differentiation of the (stages of) theological competence and the external (that is, church-related) requirements of cultivating and surfacing this competency. My approach builds on the "stages of spiritual knowledge" in medieval mysticism. See, for example, St. Bonaventure, The Journey of the Mind to God (Indianapolis: Hacket, 1956); and William of St. Thierry, The Golden Epistle (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1980). 42 So far, an overall discussion of feminist contributionsto theological thought is lacking. As far as this author is aware, in terms of doing "hard"theology, feminist theologies have not really made any contribution,save the notion of mother-father God, which deals only with the metaphorical aspect of theological language. This is clearly discernible in Elizabeth Johnson's trinitarian feminist theology which adopts a roundaboutway of endorsingRahner'stheology of God. (See She Who Is, 116). A relevant work in this connection is SandraHarding and Merril B. Hintikka, eds., Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology,Metaphysics,Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht:Reidel, 1983). 43 Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization (Tallahassee: University Press of Florida, 1981) 22, 80. In his critical assessment of Schweitzer, Moltmann completely glosses over the theological contribution of Schweitzer's philosophy of civilization and confines himself to a debunking of Schweitzer's lopsided view of theology-as-eschatology, without bothering with the significance of Schweitzer's philosophy for Christian eschatology (Moltmann, Coming of God, 7-10). The same criticism applies to Steven C. Rockefeller in his "The Wisdom of Reverence for Life," in John E. Carroll, Paul Brockman, and Mary Westfall, eds., The Greening of Faith: God, the Environment, and the Good Life (Hanover, NH: University of New Hampshire Press, 1997) 30-44. 44 At the practical level, one may conceptualize the reign of Soviet communism as a systematic distortion of theological competence that finally dissolved under the contradictions of its own system as well as the (theologically-informed) resistances of the lifeworld in Eastern Europe.

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

K. L. AFRASIABI

87

motor force of theological competence. Moltmann's somewhat "half-realized" ecofeminist "reverencefor eschatology,when conjoinedwith a neo-Schweitzerian life,"formsthe basis of a feminist"ecoeschatology" thatis bothimmanentandtrana future-oriented in the hereand scendental,salvic yet pragmatic, theologyanchored definition and communicative.45 becauseits now, andis, therefore, Yet, by dialogical is informed an "innate" of reverence for it remains above and God, path by theology of the and is thus beyond purview intersubjectivity authentically postcommunicative. Inconclusion, whiletheexactshape andorientation of thispostcommunication theology has yet to be worked examination the out,the foregoing has,I hope,established cursory a needto workoutitsdetails for research.46 byfollowing comprehensive agenda theological

45 By "ecoeschatology" I mean, first and foremost, a theology of suspicion with respect to the Enlightment notion of progress and its "instrumental rationality." Unfortunately, the ecological dimension is missing in recent literature on escatology. See for example, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology (3 vols.; Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1998) 3. 527-645. Also Zachary Hayes, Visions of a Future: A Study of Christian Eschatology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990). For a recent work that misses the eschatological argument in ethics/nature discussion and presents a purely social theory of action, see Kaufman, In the Face of Mystery, 194-210. 46For more on this see, K. L. Afrasiabi,"Critical Theory,Feminism, and Theology," Telos (special issue on religion, forthcoming1998).

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:12:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions