The Future of Political Theology

http://journals.cambridge.org/HOR

Additional services for Horizons:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here

Commercial reprints: Click here

Terms of use : Click here

The Future of Political Theology - IV. Feminism and Inter-religious Dialogue in the New Political Theology

Johann M. Vento

Horizons / Volume 34 / Issue 02 / September 2007, pp 321 - 328

DOI: 10.1017/S0360966900004497, Published online: 18 March 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0360966900004497

How to cite this article:

Johann M. Vento (2007). The Future of Political Theology - IV. Feminism and Inter-religious Dialogue in the New Political Theology. Horizons, 34, pp 321-328 doi:10.1017/S0360966900004497

Request Permissions : Click here

TheFutureofPoliticalTheology

JohnK.Downey,MaureenO’Connell, StevenOstovich,JohannM.Vento

Introduction

Talkingabout“politicaltheology”ispleonastictoday.Social,economic,andstructuralelementspresentinanyhumanenterpriseattract attentioninmosttheologicalconversations.Theologiesassumewe havehadahandintheconstructionofourexperiences,ourthought patterns,andourworld.Withoutthisattentionthereisnohopeof changingourfutureandnoresponsibilityinaworldcomeofage.The futureoftheologyisapoliticalfutureinthiswidestsenseoftheinterconnected,interpersonal,andmaturedynamicsofthepolis.Theology isnoprivateaffair.

Yetwestillneedthecorrective,thetheologicalreminder,putforth undertherubricofthe“newpoliticaltheology”thirtyyearsagoby JohannBaptistMetz.ToparaphraseLudwigWittgensteintalkingabout hisowninsistenceonattentiontolanguage,ifwejustsaythesocialis important,everyonewilljustagreewithusandgoonasbefore.Metz forcesustostopandquestionwhatwearedoing.Forhim,theshortest definitionofreligionremains“interruption.”1

Politicaltheologyisacalltorememberhumandignityandresponsibility.Morespecifically,Metzcallsfora memoriapassionis, constructinganintellectualtheologicalenterprisethatturnsontheauthorityofothers’suffering.Compassioniswhatmakesushuman,what makesourtalkaboutGodChristian,andwhatmakesusreasonable.So thefutureofpoliticaltheology,theunfinishedprogram,isspeakingup fortheother,forhumankind,incollaboration,indialogue,andinresistance.

Hastheologyreallybecomepoliticalinthissense?Whatisour agendaaspoliticaltheologians?Inher2004Presidentialaddresstothe CatholicTheologicalSocietyofAmerica,ShawnCopelandstatedthe taskofpoliticaltheologywell:“Politicaltheologywillinterpretjust howoureconomicdecisionsarenotvalue-free,notinnocent,andnever merelyindividualistic;ratherthattheologywilluncoverthemoral,

1JohannBaptistMetz, FaithinHistoryandSociety:TowardaPracticalFundamentalTheology, trans.DavidSmith(NewYork:Seabury,1980),171.

HORIZONS34/2(2007):306-28

ethical,andculturalconsequencesofthosedecisions.”2 ButCopeland wentontoaskwhytheratherelegantproposalsofpoliticaltheologians suchasJohannBaptistMetz,JürgenMoltmann,andDorotheeSoelle havehardlybeentakenupbyAmericantheologians.Shesuggeststhat apoliticaltheologyistooclosetohome:wedon’treallywanttoaddressthedegradationofthemarginal,thedespised,andthepowerless inourchurchorinourownsociallives.

Theessaysbelowbrieflybegintotakeupthischallengeofpolitical theology.Theauthorsconstitutedaroundtablediscussionofthefuture ofpoliticaltheologyinthePhilosophyofReligionsectionofthe2007 CollegeTheologySocietyConventionattheUniversityofDayton.The roundtablecontinuedtheworkbeguninacollectionofessaysonpoliticaltheologyfromEuropeanandAmericanscholars, MissingGod?

CulturalAmnesiaandPoliticalTheology. 3

Inwhatfollows,MaureenO’ConnellmostdirectlytakesupCopeland’schallengetoframewhatO’Connelldescribesas“faithinNorth Americanhistoryandsociety.”Ibegin,however,withabriefoverview oftheconcernsofthisnewpoliticaltheologyandsomeimplicationsfor thestructureoftheacademy.ThecontributionsbySteveOstovichand JohannVentoalsoareconcernedwithspecificcontextsfordoingpoliticaltheology:criticaltheoryinOstovich’scase,feministtheology andEasternreligiousthinkinginVento’s.

JOHNK.DOWNEY

I.CulturalAmnesiaandtheTheologicalAgenda

Politicaltheologyissimplyacalltorememberwhoweareas humanbeings.Controlandsubjugationarenotwhatmakeushuman— orreasonable.Metzcautionsagainstlivingoffa“breadofdomination” thatdisconnectspeople:subjugationdoesnotgivelivestheirvalue.4 Allhumanbeingsarecalledtobesubjects,thatis,tobeagentsof humanvalueintheworld,actorswhodeclarehumanvalueintheir actions.Tobehumanistorealizeourconnectedness,ourresponsibilityaswellasourvulnerability.Christiandiscipleshipoffersasitshope humansolidarityratherthandomination.Itisfoundedonahopethat thehumanheartwillturnoutward.

Thetouchstoneofpoliticaltheologyisnotanabstractideaofbeing

2ShawnM.Copeland,“PoliticalTheologyasInterruptive,”in Proceedingsofthe CatholicTheologicalSocietyofAmerica59(2004):71–82,at77.

3MissingGod?CulturalAmnesiaandPoliticalTheology, ed.JohnDowney,Jürgen Manemann,andSteveOstovich(Berlin:LIT,2006).

4Seehisdiscussionofthis“anthropologicalrevolution”in Love’sStrategy:The PoliticalTheologyofJohannBaptistMetz, ed.JohnK.Downey(Harrisburg,PA:Trinity PressInternational,1999),53–61andofourhopeascommunalon137–43.

GonzagaUniversity

humanbutaconcreteturnto memoriapassionis. 5 Doingcriticaltheologyincludessensitivitytothesufferingofothers.Afterall,thedignityoftheotherasotherputsafaceon“humanbeing”:thecallofthe othercanonlybeheardfromparticularpersons.Andreasonendowed withthepowerofmemory,amemoryofsomeoneelse’ssuffering, demandsmoreofusthanmereassenttopropositions.Thisisananamnesticreason,areasondirectedtowardthehumangood,towardthe freedomofothers,towardjustice.Rootedinthe apriori ofhuman suffering,thisreasonisnotjustafeeling,notjustanempathy,buta claim.Itcallsforsolidarityandresistancethattransformtheworld.It helpsusresistthexenophobia,racism,ethnocentrism,andreligious arrogancethatgeneratehumanmisery.Beinghumanthenbecomes rememberingandrespondingtoother’ssuffering.6

Politicaltheologydoesnottoleratehumansuffering,itdoesnot explainit,itdoesnotacceptit.Onthecontrary,itbringssuffering, especiallythesufferingoftheinnocent,totheforeandquestionsits righttoexist—eventothepointofquestioningGod,ofaskingGodtobe Godandliveuptohispromisestous.

Thesufferingofothersislargelyabsentfromourtheologicalreasoning.Iwanttoaskhowthequestionsofpoliticaltheologycanbe insertedintocontemporaryconversation.Whatshouldwebedoingin ordertoseepoliticaltheology’s memoriapassionis injectedintotheologicalissuesandtheologydepartments,intouniversitypolicy,and intothepublicandpluralisticdebateaboutourfuture?Iwanttohighlightthreepracticalstrategiesinonearea.

First,weneedtobeclearaboutthebasiccategoriesortoolswhich organizepoliticaltheology,namely,memory,narrative,solidarity,and theturntopraxisovertheory—allboundbythethreadofhumansuffering.Thesetoolscomeintosharperreliefwithtimelyapplications, sinceapoliticaltheologyfindsitsfullshapeonlywhenitengages actualissues.

Thenexttwostrategiesconcernhowwemightempowerourstudentsandcolleaguestousethesenotionstoaddressthepublicsphere

5ForabriefhistoryofthisfundamentalcategoryofMetz’stheologyseehisrecent book MemoriaPassionis:EinprovozierendesGedächtnisinpluralistischerGesellschaft (Freiburg:Herder,2006),252–57.

6“Theanamnesticreasonweareseekingherewinsitsenlightenedcharacterandits legitimateuniversalitywhenitknowsitselftobeguidedbyaspecificmemory,precisely, bythememoryofsuffering:thisistosay,notintheformofaself-referentialmemoryof suffering(therootofallconflicts!),butintheformofamemoryofothers’suffering.This apriori ofsufferingiswhatorientstheology’sclaimtotruthwhen,asapoliticaltheology, itincorporatesthehistorical,social,andculturalsituationinitstalkaboutGod”(Johann BaptistMetz,“God:AgainsttheMythoftheEternityofTime,”in TheEndofTime?The ProvocationofTalkingaboutGod,ed.TiemoRainerPetersandClausUrban,ed.and trans.MatthewAshley(NewYork:Paulist,2004),26–46,at42.

withauthorityandrespect—andbeheard.Theseareinterdisciplinary collaborationandthepedagogyofcoursedevelopment.

Howarewetoenterpublicdiscussionsinwaysthatcannotbe dismissedassimplyuninformedpiouschirping?Weneedtotakeour questionsabouthumansufferinginsidecomplexissues.Theologyis notnormallyseenasdisciplineofvaluetoseculardiscussions,butit shouldbe.Weareintellectualsplayingbytherulesoftheacademyand ourtopichasalonghistoryintheconversationofhumankind.Thisof coursemeansknowingenoughtobeabletoatleastcollaboratewith criticaleconomists7,politicalscientists,psychologists,andothers.This processwoulditselfhaveresultsintermsofapublicpresenceand growingcredibilityamongcolleagues.Weneedtoengagethefully secularandpublicrealm.

Collaborationwithotherintellectualdisciplinesoncommonissueswillservetodisplayandnormalizetheintellectualintegrityand valueofatheologicalpartner.Evenso,onecannotrushintoother intellectualdiscussions whethersocial,economic,orpolitical withoutrespectforthoseparticularmethodsandmaterials.Ignoring thedisciplinarylanguageandcontextisasortoffundamentalismthat simplystandsupwithoutaddressingtheappropriateinterdisciplinary pedagogyorrespectingtheintellectualcontextofthat“foreignland.” Beingheardmeanslearningthelanguageofthatotherdiscourse.That iswhatwehavenotdone,oratleasthaveonlybeguntodo.

Next,Iwanttopointouthowourownuniversitiesprovideasettingforbringingattentiontoourquestions.Forexample,interdisciplinarydoctoralprogramsorevenseminarsthatintegrateandanalyze theologyandsocietywouldproducestructuresthatcreateinterestand expertiseinstudentsfromvariousdisciplinestothinkcriticallyabout bothsocietyandreligion.Collaborationisrealwhenitmovesbeyond juxtapositiontoacriticalharmonyordialectic;theargumentsofeach partnermusthaveinternalrelevancetothedisciplinaryconclusionsof theother.Anotherwaytohelpstudentstothinkcriticallyaboutsociety andreligionistoaddservicelearningprojectstoundergraduate courses:workingandreflectingwiththehomeless,theabused,andthe marginalstimulatesinquiry.Studentsshapetheirinvestigationinto politicaltheologyastheystruggleintellectuallyandpersonallytodeal withrealfacesandpersons.8

Thisstrugglehighlightsboththepowerandtheunfinishednature

7FordiscussionofthisoptionseeMatthewL.Lamb, SolidaritywithVictims:TowardaTheologyofSocialTransformation (NewYork:Crossroad,1982),1-27.

8IfstudentsinEnglishclassescanbeassignedtoanalyzethewritingpracticesand discourseconventionsoftheagencyinwhichtheywork,surelyreligionstudentscould benefitfromwritingaboutthepowerstructures.Servicelearningisnotafrivolousaddonbutapedagogicalstructureformeetingcoursegoals.Tacticsoftenflowfromthe

ofpoliticaltheology.Student-centeredmethodsandclassroomssensitivetodifferenceareaversionofthecommitmentsofpoliticaltheology.9 Theseprogramsdonothavetobecalledtheologyprograms.An interdisciplinaryminor,amajorinhumanities,oraseniorcapstone seminaronatopicofcurrentinterestallprovideanentrypointfor thinkinglikeapoliticaltheologian.Manycollegesrequireadiversityor justicecourseofallstudents.Theissueistogenerateandparticipatein theconversationnotonlyinthechurchbutinourpubliclivesaswell.

Politicaltheologyinsertsquestionsabouthumandignityandsufferingbyconstantlyexaminingthesufferingofothersinanyandall theoriesandsituations.Thispracticeofquestioninggroundsourintellectualandcommunallife.Inthisway memoriapassionis injectsthe concretehumansubjectintointellectual,political,economic,andsocialcalculations,makingtheologyanantidotetoourculturalamnesia.

GonzagaUniversity

JOHNK.DOWNEY

II.FaithfromtheLongShadowsofGuilt: TowardPoliticalTheologyintheUnitedStates

InherpresidentialaddresstotheCatholicTheologicalSocietyof Americain2004,M.ShawnCopelandproposedthatif“wearetomeet theintellectual,moralandreligiouschallengesthrowndownbythe exigenciesoftheglobalsituation,”thentheologyintheUnitedStates needstobemorethanpublic.10 Itmustbepolitical.Theformerapproachtofaithinpubliclifeconstructivelyintegratesourtalk about Godintothefractiousdialogueofourpluralisticpublicsquareinorder torenewcollectivecommitmenttothecommongoodofall.Bymany accounts,publictheologythrivesinourcountry.11 Politicaltheology, ontheotherhand,standsattheuncomfortableintersectionofmystical educationalphilosophyofPauloFreireandIraShor.See,e.g.,ThomasDeans, Writing Partnerships:Service-LearninginComposition (Urbana,IL:NationalCouncilofTeachers ofEnglish,2000).

9ForstrategiesseeDonaldL.FinkelandStephenMonk,“TeachersandLearning Groups:DissolutionoftheAtlasComplex,”in CollaborativeLearning:ASourcebookfor HigherEducation, ed.AnneGoodselletal.(UniversityPark,PA:NationalCenterforPost SecondaryTeaching,Learning,andAssessment,1992),50-58;EmilyLarderetal., Diversity,EducationalEquity,andLearningCommunities (Olympia,WA:EvergreenState College,WashingtonCenterforImprovingtheQualityofUndergraduateEducation, 2005).

10Copeland,“PoliticalTheologyasInterruptive,”72.

11Aselectionofparadigmaticandrecentworksinpublictheologyincludesthe following:JohnCourtneyMurray, WeHoldTheseTruths:CatholicReflectionsonthe AmericanProposition (NewYork:Sheed&Ward,1960);DavidTracy, TheAnalogical Imagination (NewYork:Crossroad,1981);KennethHimesandMichaelHimes, Fullness ofFaith:ThePublicSignificanceofTheology (NewYork:Paulist,1993);MartinE.Marty andJonathanMoore, Politics,Religion,andtheCommonGood (SanFrancisco:Jossey-

andpoliticaltalk with Godabouttherealityofunjustsuffering,of whichthecrucifiedGodisapart,inordertointerruptthecomplacency ofthecomfortable,privilegedandmorallyanesthetized.Copelandprovocativelysuggeststhatpoliticaltheologyhasyettotakehold,despite ourstatusastheworld’sremainingsuper-power.Americantheologians haveby-passedthetheologyofMetz,SoelleandMoltmanndespite theirconcernwiththeimplicationsofaprivatized,bourgeois,and politicizedfaith.

Thisdetourreflectscertaindangerousironiesgiventheirrefutable similaritiesbetweentheGermanpoliticalandtheologicalclimate whichfirstgaverisetopoliticaltheologyinthedecadesaftertheHolocaustandthatofourownnationalexperience.LikeourGerman counterpartswetooareanesthetized.Weareinsulatedfromthedehumanizingsufferingofthemajorityoftheworld’spopulationbyaprivatizedfaiththatvaluesindividualismandautonomy,byapoliticized faiththatvaluesidentifiabledistinctionsbetweenbelieversandsecularists,byaquietfaiththatvaluesdisengagedtoleranceinthemidstof religiouspluralism,andbyaradicalizedfaiththatvaluesdefinitive truthclaimsinanageofuncertainty.WeintheU.S.constituteanation of“haves”withtremendouscapabilitiesandresourcesfortransforming thesufferingsocialreality,andyetweremainlargelyunmovedby globalinjustices.Moreover,whilethiscountryisamongthemostreligiousandreligiouslyfreeontheplanet,faithinAmericanpubliclifeis tooquicklyparalyzedbycompetingconvictionsoffaithratherthan galvanizedbythecollectivecommitmentsoffaith. ItisinthemidstofthiscomplexcontextthatIjoinothersin redirectingAmericantheologytowardamuch-neededinterruptive “talkwithGod”whichfacesthosewhosuffer.12 HereIidentifythe cultishcatalysts,interruptivetasks,anddistinctiveconstructivecomponentsofwhatMetzmightconsider“faithin American historyand society.”13

First,likeourGermancounterparts,politicaltheologiansinthe Bass,2000);andMaryDoak, ReclaimingNarrativeforPublicTheology (Albany:SUNY Press,2004).

12CopelandalsomapsoutaNorthAmericanPoliticalTheologyin Memory,EmancipationandHope:PoliticalTheologyintheLandoftheFree (SantaClara,CA:Santa ClaraUniversityPress,1997)andexploresthedangerousmemoriesoftheAfricanslave experiencein“KnowingChristCrucified:DarkWisdomfromtheSlaves,”in Missing God?,59–78.MaryDoakcreativelydrawsuponpoliticaltheologyinarticulatingtherole ofnarrativeincontemporarypublictheologyin ReclaimingNarrativeforPublicTheology ArecentcollectionofessayseditedbyLaurieCassidyandAlexanderMikulich, InterruptingWhitePrivilege:CatholicTheologiansBreaktheSilence (NewYork:Orbis,2007) embodiesthecriticalandtransformativenatureofpoliticaltheologyinthespecificcontextofracismandprivilege.

13Indoingso,IrelyonMetz’s FaithinHistoryandSociety.Intermsoftheological assessmentofthiscontext,IalsofindthefirsttwochaptersofTerranceTilley’s Religious

U.S.willneedtosituateourselvesinwhatMoltmanncalledthe“long shadowsofhistoricalguilt.”14 Metzsuggeststhatdoingtheologyfrom theseshadowsenablesustoidentifythe“cults”whichdemandthatwe sacrificeourabilitytoperceive,interpretandrespondtounjustsuffering.15 Cultsco-optourmoralimaginations.Ourpredecessorsstoodin thelongshadowsofAuschwitzandcalledattentiontothecultsof timelesstime,thepossible,andevolution.Wemightlocateourselvesin thelongshadowsofwhatCopelandconsiderstheforgottenmemories ofthe“landofthefree.”16 Doingsorevealsthethreecultsofour distinctivebrandofbourgeoisChristianitywhichpoliticaltheology mustaddress:identity,securityandamnesia.

Thecultofidentitystemsfromthephenomenonofglobalization whichenmeshesindividualsandcommunitiesinawebofrelationshipsandexposescompetingframeworksofmeaning.17 Inorderto maintainourrespectiveculturalmoorings,weincreasinglyidentify ourselvesoverandagainstothersinourincreasinglytransnational, value-free,anonymousandvirtualpublicsquare.Thecultofidentity emphasizesexclusivityratherthaninclusivity,differencesratherthan commonalities,independenceratherthaninterdependence,andnarrowvaluesandtruthclaimsrootedinparticularexperienceratherthan broadprinciplesarisingfromoverlappingconsensus.Tothatend,it sacrificesourcapabilitiestocelebrateoursharedhumanity,ourwillingnesstothinkself-criticallyaboutourrespectiveframeworksof meaning,andourabilitytoentertotransformativedialoguewithdifferentothers.Politicaltheologianswillneedtopayparticularattention tothereligiousdynamicsofthecultofidentity.TherelationshipbetweenAmericanreligiosityanddevelopment whichrendersusa paradoxicalexceptiontothesecularizationthesis—presentsaninterestingchallenge.Also,theriseoffundamentalism,bothsecularand DiversityandtheAmericanExperience (NewYork:Continuum,2007),1–46,helpfulin mappingoutbothwhatheseesasthedistinctivecharacteristicsoftheAmerican“site” fortheology.Fromtheperspectiveofsociologyofreligion,IfindMartinMarty’s Politics, Religion,andtheCommonGood aswellas StrongReligion:TheRiseofFundamentalismsaroundtheWorld,ed.GabrielAlmond,ScottAppleby,andEmmanuelSivan(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2003)insightful.Finally,fromtheperspectiveofpoliticalscience,seeKennethWald’s ReligionandPoliticsintheUnitedStates (NewYork: Roman&Littlefield,2003).

14JürgenMoltmann, GodforaSecularSociety:ThePublicRelevanceofTheology, trans.ChristianKaiser(Minneapolis:FortressPress,1999),49.

15Forafulldescriptionseechapter10inMetz’s FaithinHistoryandSociety

16Copeland, Memory,EmancipationandHope,6.

17Forcomprehensivetheologicalreflectiononthephenomenonofglobalizationsee GlobalizationandCatholicSocialThought:PresentCrisis,FutureHope, ed.JohnA. ColemanandWilliamF.Ryan(Ottawa:NovalisPress,2005);RebeccaToddPeter, In SearchoftheGoodLife:TheEthicsofGlobalization (NewYork:Continuum,2006); DanielGrodyandPeterPhan, Globalization,SpiritualityandJustice (NewYork:Orbis, 2007).

religious,demandsthatweexaminethewaysinwhichbothframeworksofmeaningfrequentlyexcludememoriesofsufferingfromChristianself-understanding.18 Metzrecentlynotedthatheisnotsoconcernedwiththeroleofthesecularstateintheprivatizationoffaithbut rather“thedangerthatChristiansundertheanonymouspressureofa religiouslypluralisticpublicsphereincreasinglywillprivatizeChristianitythemselvesandtherebycallintoquestiontheiridentityand mission.”19

Asecondcult,thatofsecurity,emergesfromthelongestshadows ofthelandofthefree.ThecurrentWaronTerror,however,hassingularlypreoccupiedthemoral,civicandpoliticalimaginationofthis country,fashioningsecurityasanewidolforcitizensintheworld’s onlyremainingsuper-power.Asaresultofourdesireforimmunity fromthedisruptionsoftheworld’ssufferings,wesuspiciouslyview othersaspotentialthreats,investtremendousresourcesinprotecting ourever-expandingglobalself-interests,andenvisionthegoodlifein termsofmaterialgoodswhichpromisesecurity.Thecultofsecurity demandsthatwesacrificeourintangiblecapabilitiesforrelationality, interdependenceorevensufferinginfavorofworry-freeselfsufficiency.Thiscultpresentstwochallengestopoliticaltheologians. First,AmericanCatholicsnowjointheranksofthenation’swealthiest andmost-educatedsocialgroups.20 Thiscomfortablydistancesusfrom ourancestors’experiencesofeconomicandsocialmarginalizationas wellasfromthosewhostrugglewiththesevulnerabilitiestoday.Asa result,understandingsofinjustice itscausesandappropriateresponses—havesignificantlychanged,asournationalresponsetoHurricaneKatrinaindicates.21 Moreover,politicaltheologianswillneedto considertheimpactofthecultofsecurityonourinterpretationofthe Christiantraditionitself.Theincreasinglypopular“gospelofwealth” movementaswellasprevailinginterpretationsofthejustwartradition suggestassociationsofdiscipleshipandpeacewithmaterialwealth andsocialstabilityratherthanvulnerabilityrootedinrelationship.

Third,politicaltheologyintheU.S.contextwillneedtograpple withacultthathasbeeninherentintheAmericanexperience—social,

18PeterBerger’schapterentitled“TheDesacralizationoftheWorld:AGlobalOverview”in DesacralizationoftheWorld:ResurgentReligionandWorldPolitics, ed.Peter Bergeretal.(Washington,DC:EthicsandPublicPolicyCenter/GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1999),1–18isahelpfulresourceonthistopic.

19Metz,“UndertheSpellofCulturalAmnesia?,” MissingGod,8.

20SeeLisaKiester,“UpwardMobility:ExploringtheRomanCatholicAdvantage,” SocialForces 85/3(March2007),1195–1225.

21ForanethicalanalysisofthecausesofandresponsestoHurricaneKatrinasee ThereisNoSuchThingasNaturalDisaster:Race,ClassandKatrina, ed.ChesterHartman(NewYork:Routledge,2006)andMichaelEricDyson, ComeHellorHighWater: HurricaneKatrinaandTheColorofDisaster (NewYork:BasicBooks,2006).

economicandreligious—sincethefirstEuropeansarrivedhere.Despiteourpassionatepost-9/11slogansto“NeverForget!”,wearea nationwithaselectivememory.Weintentionallychoosenottoremembercertainactionsofournationalforbearers,ourfamilialancestors, andourcontemporaries.Thelistofevents,people,movementsand attitudesweselectivelychoosetoforgetislongerthanthosewememorializeintheritualsofourcivilreligion.Tothatend,ourhistory becomesmyth,ourself-understandingafabrication,andourvisionof thefuturenothingmorethanpropaganda.Thecultofamnesiasacrificesourcapabilitytoviewhistorythroughthenarrativesofthoseon themargins,ourwillingnesstoseemoreaccuratelyourselvesandour reality,andourabilitytomovebeyondparalyzingguilttoactiveresponsibility.Copelandrightlynotesthat“therecoveryofmemoryisof crucialimportancetothedevelopmentofpoliticaltheologyinthe U.S.,”22 arecoverythatdepends,inherestimation,onbringingtogetherthosewhocannotforgetwiththosewhochoosenottoremember.

Politicaltheologiansinthiscountryarechargedwiththetaskof interruptingthesecultsandtheprevailingdiscourseaboutGodwhich theyperpetuate.Clearly,interruptionsabound.Iselectthree.First, whereasGermantheologianswrestledwiththeinterruptionoftheEnlightenment’srationalityinaworldviewshapedbymystery,theologicaldiscoursewhichhassinceembracedthewisdomoftheEnlightenmentmustbeinterruptedbytheirrationalityofviolentreligiousfundamentalism.Iffundamentalismsarereactionaryexpressionsoffaith, itisourresponsibilitytolistentothenarrativesandmemoriesofthose labeledasterrorists,insurgents,Islamacists,jihadists,andenemynoncombatantstodiscoverthecausesoftheiractions.U.S.politicaltheologymightsituateitselfattheintersectionsofthesharedhistory,narrativesandtraditionsofthethreeAbrahamictraditionscaughtinviolentconflictaroundthecountryinordertoresistthecultofidentifying ourselvesoverandagainstothers.

Second,whereGermantheologiansacknowledgedMarxismasan interruptivesocio-economictheorythatneededtobe“takenseriously byCatholicsystematictheology,”politicaltheologyintheU.S.canturn totheinterruptionofglobalizationasitaffectspracticallyeveryaspect ofhumanexistence.Doingsorequiresliftingouttwodangerousmemorieswhichprovideasourceofmoralauthorityinthemultitudeof understandingsofglobalization.First,personswhostruggletosurvive inaglobaleconomicmarketchallengetheprogress,developmentand humanizationpromisedbysomany.Second,theirmemoriespointto 22Copeland, Memory,EmancipationandHope,6.

Americansasthedrivingforcebehindglobalization.Inotherwords,we areallcomplicitindehumanizingothersincyclesofpovertyandunder-development.

Finally,politicaltheologyintheUnitedStatesneedstorecallSoelle’spropheticcommentthat“evenafterAuschwitzisover,it’snotover yet.”23 TheAfrican-AmericansoftheNewOrleansdiasporapropheticallyremindusofthedehumanizingeffectsofourselectivememoryon ourabilitytoperceivesufferingpersonsinourpresentrealityandto respondcompassionatelytothemwithactionsthatbuildafuturethat ismorejust.Thememoriesandnarrativesofthethosestillhomeless afterHurricaneKatrinashedlightonthemythsthatwehavespunto supportourcultsofidentity,securityandamnesia—mythsthatname victimsasculprits,relyexclusivelyonmeritinassessingaid,encouragepaternalisticcharitybutresistrelationaljustice,etc.Turningtoface thesepersonsmightinterruptournationalself-understandingasthe world’sguarantoroffreedomandjusticeandinsodoingliberateour moralimaginations.

Certainly,politicaltheologyiscritical—ofsociety,ofcultureand oftheChurch.Andourcontemporaryrealityinthiscountryundoubtedlyprovidesamplefodderforcriticalreflection.Butpoliticaltheology isalsoaconstructivetheologymotivatedbyanurgenteschatological hope.AndAmericans’desiretointegratedeeplyheldpersonalconvictionsandpublicactionsinpursuitofmoralcoherenceprovidesaviablestartingpointforpoliticaltheologyinthiscountry.24 ThereforeI concludebyofferingfourcomponentsofthemethodofpoliticaltheologywhichcanembodythecriticalandconstructivenatureofpoliticaltheologyinthecontextoftheUnitedStates.

First,politicaltheologianscanbolsterandreorientthepursuitof moralcoherenceintheU.S.byacknowledgingwhatMetzcallsthe “moralauthorityofsuffering.”Thememoriesandnarrativesofsufferingpersonsofferaliberatingsourceofsocialcriticismwhichfreesusto seetheworldasittrulyis,notaswethinkitis;toseeourselvesaswe trulyare,notaswewishwewere.Theymighthelpbreakthroughwhat EyalChowersdescribesasthelimitingcopingmechanismsofthe“entrapmentimagination”whichhasparalyzedtheconsciousnessofthe privileged.25 Moreover,memoriesofsufferingofferacorrectivetothe theologicalnear-sightednesswhichkeepsusfromperceivingandre-

23Soelle, Suffering,36.

24RobertBellahetal., HabitsoftheHeart:IndividualismandCommitmentinAmericanLife, rev.ed.(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1996).

25EyalChowers, TheModernSelfintheLabyrinth (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004).Chowerssuggeststhatourcapacityforrationalprogresshasincreasinglyalienatedusfromourselvesandoneanother.Thisleadstoarealismrootedin “anonymousdomination”bycomplexinstitutionsandstructures.Itfosterswithinthe

spondingtotheinjusticewithinourownneighborhoods—racismand privilege,immigration,concentratedpoverty,addiction,etc.These memoriesmightalsoprovideanimportantcommondenominatorina countryandChurchincreasingpolarizedbycompetingapproachesto understandingandarticulatingtruthclaims.

Second,wemightunpackthesignificanceofMetz’s“anthropology ofthepoliticalsubject”byliftingupthedynamicofvulnerabilityinherentinhumanrelationships.Irecognizethattheterm“vulnerability” mightnotbeespousedbythosewhoselivesaredictatedbyavulnerabilitythatisimposedandnotchosen;however,politicaltheologycan bestresistthisimposedconditionbycreatingasenseofmutuality,and dependenceamongthoseimpervioustovulnerability.Therelational vulnerabilityIendorsechallengesthecomfortof“humanhaving”with thedifficultprocessof“humanbeing.”Itinterruptsthesecurityof engagementwithinself-selectingenclavesofsimilaritywiththedissonanceofdifference.Vulnerablerelationalitycouldserveasanimportantlitmustestforhumanflourishingfortheover-andunderdevelopedalike.

Third,politicaltheologiansmustkeeptherenewedfocusonthe theodicyquestionintheforefrontoftheologicalreflection.Wemust, however,shiftthefocalpointofthatquestionbackonhumanity,particularlywhenatrocitiesstemmingfromnaturalcausesorcommitted inthenameofGodcreatedistractingdebateamongsecularistsand believersalikeaboutGod’sconnectiontosuffering.Weriskfailingto acknowledgeourcollusioninthecausesofthesetragicevents whetherthroughourfailuretounderstandaccuratelythemotivations ofreligiousterroristsortheperfectstormsofracismandpoverty. Therefore,weneedtoaskofourselvesthesamedifficultquestionswe askofGodregardingtheallowanceof,collusionin,andresponsibility fortragicsuffering.Metzsuggests“anthropodicy”astheonlyviable responsetotheodicy.Iseeitasaviablecomponentoftheological methodinacountryinneedofself-awareness,socialcriticism,and socialresponsibility.

Finally,politicaltheologiansintheU.S.mustevaluatecritically thewaysinwhichwesufferwithothers.Theprevailingmodelsof disasterrelief,whileobviouslysuccessfulinraisingsubstantialfunds, silencethevoicesofthoseaffectedbysocialsufferinganddolittleto fosterrelationality.Compassionhasbecomeone-way,unreciprocated charity-from-a-distancewhichisaninsufficientresponsetobothimmediateandlong-termsufferingcausedbystructuralinjustices.26 PoAmericanpsycheahighlyindividualizedcopingmentalityevidencedbytheAmerican obsessionwithwork,therapy,consumerismandaestheticself-recreation.

26ForanevaluativephilosophicaloverviewofAmericancompassionseeMarvin

liticaltheologycanreconstructthis“opticnerveofChristiandiscipleship”byliftingupthemysticalaspectsofencounterswithsuffering othersthattheanthropodicyquestionraises.Moreover,politicaltheologymightunderscorecompassionasapracticeofrelationalvulnerabilityandassuchmovebeyondcontractual,reciprocalexchanges amongprivateindividualstomorecollectiveandhistoricallyconsciousrelationshipswithparticularsufferingpersonsandcommunities.Finally,politicaltheologycanrestoreasenseofsocialcriticismto compassion.It’spoliticalnaturedemandsnotjusttherestorationof individualslanguishingintheditchontheproverbialroadtoJericho, buttheconditionswhichmakethatjourneysolife-threateningforso many.

Integratingaself-criticalpoliticaltheologyintoourthrivingpublic theologydemandsthatweapproachfaithinpubliclifewithanuncomfortableawareness:ourpursuitofhappinessinthereligiouslysupportedcultsofidentity,securityandamnesiacreatesastrugglefor survivalformostoftheworld.Faiththatisbothpublicandpolitical movesbeyondmerelydebatingthesocialimplicationsofcompeting truthclaimsaboutGodtothemoreimaginativeandliberatingtaskof “livingGod”bywayofacapacityforinterruptionsandvulnerability. Throughanthropodicyandcompassion,politicaltheologymightshed lightonthedarkshadowsofourcollectivepastinordertoenvision moreclearlyourcommonfuture.

III.Time/Reason/Subjectivity:QuestionsofPoliticalTheology

IwouldtobeginwithaquotenotfromJohannBaptistMetz,but fromWalterBenjamin,specificallyBenjamin’s ArcadesProject:“My thinkingisrelatedtotheologyasblottingpadisrelatedtoink.Itis saturatedwithit.Wereonetogobytheblotter,however,nothingof whatiswrittenwouldremain.”27

InwhatfollowsIwanttotracearelationshipofpoliticaltheology andwhatmightbecalledphilosophyorcriticaltheory.Thepolitical

Olasky, TheTragedyofAmericanCompassion (1992;repr.,Wheaton,IL:Crossway Books,1995);MarthaNussbaum, CultivatingHumanity:AClassicalDefenseofReformin LiberalEducation (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1997);idem,“Compassion andTerror,” Daedalus 132(Winter2003):10–26.SeealsoHilleHaker’sarticulationof politicalcompassionin“CompassionasaGlobalProgrammeforChristianity,”in In SearchofUniversalValues, ed.Karl-JosefKuschelandDietmarMieth,Concilium2001/4 (London:SCM-CanterburyPress,2001),55–70.

27WalterBenjamin,“N[OntheTheoryofKnowledge,TheoryofProgress]” The ArcadesProject,ed.RolfTiedemann,trans.HowardEilandandKevinMcLaughlin(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPress,1999),471.

FordhamUniversity MAUREENO’CONNELL

theologywillcomefromMetz.Butitwillnotbeanexplorationofthe philosophicalinfluencesonhim Heidegger,Bloch,morerecently Habermas,notevenBenjaminwhoseinsightsformaleitmotifinMetz’s reflectionsonhistory.Rather,Iwanttoreflectonhowpoliticaltheologymightbethe“ink”withwhichtosaturateanewcriticaltheoretical praxis.

BenjamintestifiestotheimportanceofmessianicJudaismforhis ownbrandofMarxismandliterarycriticisminthequoteabove.Itis importanttonotice,however,whattheimageofblotterandinksays abouttherelationshipoftheologyandcriticisminhisthought:the influenceisprofound,somuchsothattheinkoftheologycompletely saturatesthecriticism,butwhathasbeenwrittenisnolongerlegible. Benjaminknewthatwhatheelsewherecallsthe“wizeneddwarf”of theologyhadtostayoutofsightinmodernthinking.28 Afterall,weare Enlightened,webelievewehaveunmaskedreligiousthinkingasno thinkingatall,asirrational,andwearetoomaturetopropupour reasonwithbelief.AndyetBenjaminknewthedangersofthisimpoverishedmodernconceptofreason,dangersevidentintwentiethcenturyhistoryanditsrevelationoftheintimaterelationshipofreason, domination,andcatastrophe.

ItisatthisjunctureofreasonandhistorythatMetz’spolitical theologybecomescriticallyrelevant.Iwouldliketoindicatethree areaswhereourthinkingcanbenefitfrom“soakingup”theinkof politicaltheology.

First,letusconsidertime—thatis,theeschatologicalunderstandingoftimethatisfundamentaltopoliticaltheology.Metz’searlywork framesatheologyoftheworldunderstoodashistoryandhistoryas eschatology.Thishistoryisanythingbuttheemptytimeofhistoricism andthehistoricistconcernfor“facts”orthereductionofeschatologyto philosophyofhistoryandphilosophicalfaithin(dialectical)progress. Metz’shistoryaseschatologyisspecificallyChristianwithadoublefocusonapastevent(Resurrection)andafuturehope(Parousia).Christianfaithisaconcretepraxisinhistoryandsocietyorientedbythe eschatologicalproviso,aprincipleofcriticismrenderingeverypoliticalsystemprovisionalinlightofthepromisedKingdomofGod,andby anamnesticsolidaritywiththedeadandtheircriesforjustice.

ThecrucialcategoryhereisoneMetzderivesfromBenjamin:dangerousmemories.Metzwrites:

Therearememoriesinwhichearlierexperiencesbreakthroughthe

28SeeWalterBenjamin,“OntheConceptofHistory,”in WalterBenjamin:Selected Writings,vol.4,1938–1940,ed.HowardEilandandMichaelW.Jennings,trans.Edmund Jephcottandothers(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPress,2003),389.

centre-pointofourlivesandrevealnewanddangerousinsightsfor ourpresent.Theyilluminateforafewmomentsandwithaharsh steadylightthequestionablenatureofthingswehaveapparently cometotermswith,andshowupthebanalityofoursupposed“realism.”Theybreakthroughthecanonofallthatistakenasselfevident,andunmaskasdeceptionthecertaintyofthose“whosehour isalwaysthere”(John7.6).Theyseemtosubvertourstructuresof plausibility.Suchmemoriesarelikedangerousandincalculablevisitantsfromthepast.29

TheEucharististheliturgicalenactmentofonesuchmemory.Auschwitzisanother.ItisthinkingofAuschwitzthathasledmetowrite about“melancholyhistory”andthenecessityofresistingclosurewith regardtothepastifthedeadreallyaretohavetheirsay,ofsomehow livingcriticallywiththepossibilityofruptureinourhistoricalunderstanding.30 Thisgoesagainstthegrainofamodernhistoriography wheresuccessfulrememberingcanbeaformofforgetting,asMetz pointsout.

JohannVento’sworkinfeministtheologyraisesanimportantissue here.31 Ventooffersadifferentiatedunderstandingofsuffering,acentralcategoryofpoliticaltheology,inlightofthetraumacausedby violenceagainstwomen.Traumathreatensagencyandmustbeworked throughinahealingprocessofmourningifasenseofwholenessisto berestored.Inthiscontext,melancholyhistorythatresistsclosure basedondangerousmemoriescouldbecomeaformofontologizing humantorment.Howthentoformanunderstandingofhistoricalsubjectivitycapableofmelancholicagency,thatis,ofactingwithoutforgetting?Thisissuereturnsbelow.

Timeismorethaneschatologicalhistory,anditisdifficulttothink aboutthis“more”inthecontextofpoliticaltheology.Metz,forexample,fearsthedissolutionofmeaningfultemporalhumanexistence intheemptytimeofevolution,soheacceptsconstructingadivide betweennatureandhistory(characteristicoftheorganizationofthe Germanuniversity)asawaytosafeguardthelatterfromtheformer.But timeisabroadercategorythanhistory,andhumansaretemporalas

29JohannBaptistMetz,“TheFutureintheMemoryofSuffering,”in NewQuestions onGod, ed.JohannesB.Metz,Concilium76(NewYork:HerderandHerder,1972),15.

30See,forexample,StevenT.Ostovich,“Epilogue:DangerousMemories,”in The WorkofMemory:NewDirectionsintheStudyofGermanSocietyandCulture,ed.Alon ConfinoandPeterFritzsche(Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinoisPress,2002),239–56;and “MelancholyHistory,”in MissingGod?,93-101.

31See,forexample,JohannM.Vento,“Violence,Trauma,andResistance:AFeminist AppraisalofMetz’sMysticismofSufferinguntoGod,” Horizons 29(2002):7–22;idem, “NotinVain:MemoriaPassionisandViolenceagainstWomen,”in MissingGod,79–92; andheressay,below.

wellashistoricalbeings.Thenestedtheoryoftime’sconflictsinthe workofJ.T.Fraser(andspecificallyFraser’snotionof “sociotemporality”)mayprovideawaytothinkthroughthisgapinpolitical theology.32

RelatedtotimeandanamnesticsolidarityisMetz’sunderstanding ofreasonasanamnesticinitsstructure,thesecondareaIwantto consider.Metzwritesofthe Geist ofancientIsraelasanalternativeto thetimelessrationalcategoriesofGreekphilosophy.This“spirit”or “intellect”isaformofthinkingmoreadequatetoexistenceinhistory andtoatheologyofquestioning,atheodicyof“sufferinguntoGod.” Metzalsowritesofthe“mystical-politicaldoublestructureoffaith” andthenegativeoriginaryofanytheologicalaffirmation.

Thisapproachpresentsasignificantopportunitytore-thinkthinking.ThesameEnlightenmentculturethatconsidersreligiousbelief irrationalandatmostamatterofprivateemotionunderstandsreason intermsofdomination,thatis,asthequesttodominatewhatwefear byreducingexperiencetothosetimelessrationalcategoriesthatgiveus asenseofcontroloverthefuture.AsHorkheimerandAdornohave madeveryclear,itisthisconceptofreasonasdominationthatresults incatastrophe,mostnotablythecatastropheofAuschwitz.Political theologyoffersthepossibilityofbringingthetemporalandpolitical intothinkingasamatterofbeingmoreratherthanlesscritical.

Aconcernariseshere,however.Metzhasbeenaparticipantinthe exchangebetweenJürgenHabermasandPopeBenedictXVIregarding theJewishandChristiangroundfortheEuropeantraditionofsecular freedom.Metz,likeHabermas,trustsinourabilitytothinkforourselvesratherthantorelyonecclesialpaternalism.Still,Metzseemsto betakingakindofpull-backpositionhere,defendingratherthanmovingbeyondEnlightenmentcategories.Thisleadstothethirdareato exploreinthe“soakingup”ofpoliticaltheologybythought,alsoan areaofconcern.

Finally,politicaltheologyhasimportantifintheendinsufficiently radicalthingstosayabouthistoricalsubjectivity.Metzembracesthe Aristotelianunderstandingofhumanbeingsas“politicalanimals”and rejectsapoliticsbasedonliberalindividualismandareligionthat simplyservestheemotionalneedsoftheconsumingsubject.Atthe sametime,however,Metzoffersadefenseofthehumansubjectagainst thedehumanizingforcesatworkinhistoryandintheabstractcategoriesofmodernphilosophyofhistory(whetherHegelianorMarxist, Romanicorevolutionary).Theliberalpoliticalsubjectremainsthelocusofhumanrightsinpoliticaltheology.

32SeeJ.T.Fraser, Time,Conflict,andHumanValues (Urbana,IL:Universityof IllinoisPress,1999).

Thisunderstandingmissesanopportunitytorethinkhumanexistencepoliticallyandhistorically.HannahArendt,forexample,offers amoreradicalassessmentofpoliticalexistencethandoesMetz,inher analysisofaction, eudaimonia,andthe “webofhumanrelationships.”33 Andmorerecently,GiorgioAgambenpointsoutthedisturbingcoincidencebetweenthediscourseofhumanrightsandthereductionofpoliticstobiopoliticswhereinthe“camp”becomesthebiopoliticalparadigmofthemodern.34

Whatisneededmightbedescribedasapoliticalontologyofhistoricalhumansubjectivitywhichrethinks “public” and “private,” amongotherdualisms.TheTorahisinstructivehereasitsetsforth covenantasapoliticaltaskinwhichdomesticliturgyforcesareconsiderationoftheclassicaldistinctionof oikos and polis.Thisisnota matterofsacrificingtheselfforthecommunity(orthecauseortheunit asinwarriorculture)butisclosetowhatisfoundinbiblicalprophets likesAmosforwhomrepentanceisasubjectiveactthatmakessense onlyinthecontextofhopeforthecommunityofIsrael.Inshort,formingapoliticalsubjectcapableofagencyinthemelancholyofhistoryis thetaskandhope.

CollegeofSt.Scholastica

IV.FeminismandInter-religiousDialogueintheNew PoliticalTheology

Thereisnothinginmyheadtoday

Nothingawfultheretoponderorconfuseme Goaheadwithwhatyouhavetosay AndIwilllistenasIlistentothenews.

Iknowthewholetruththereishorrible It’sbetterifyoutakealittleatatime

Toomuchandyou’renotportable

STEVENOSTOVICH

Whilepreparingthesecomments,IheardfolksingerJohnGorka’s song“GypsyLife,”andfoundthatsomeofthelyricshelpedmetothink aboutwhatIwantedtotrytosay,inparticularthefirstandsecond verses:

Notenoughandyou’llbemakinghappyrhymes.35

33HannahArendt, TheHumanCondition,2nded.(Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press,1998[1sted.,1958]).

34GiorgioAgamben, HomoSacer:SovereignPowerandBareLife,trans.Daniel Heller-Roazen(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1998).

35JohnGorka,“GypsyLives,” TemporaryRoad,HighStreet10315(CD,1992). TheologicalRoundtable

TheseversesevokeformeMetz’sdescriptionofthebourgeoissubjectandhiscalltoallowthememoryofsufferingtobreakthroughthe insulationandisolationofourcomfortable,middle-classunderstandingofChristianity,ofsociety,oftheworld.Theseversesseemtosuggestthereisawaytoknowjustenoughaboutthesufferingofothersto beinformed,butnotenoughtobetruly“interrupted.”Further,they evokeourtendencytotakethenews“alittleatatime,”andthroughthe lensofthesenseofhelplessnessandhopelessnessgenerated,Metz argues,byourevolutionarysenseoftimeandouroverlyindividualistic,privatizednotionofChristianityanddiscipleship.Conventional wisdomsaysitisnotgoodtogetboggeddowninthenegative,todwell onthingswecan’tdoanythingaboutanyway;ifwedo,we’renot “portable.”Gorkaiswritingaboutagypsylife,abouttheneedtobeable topickupandleaveatanytime.Inthinkingaboutpoliticaltheology, thisword“portable”remindsmeofthedynamicsofglobalcapitalism inwhichwearesupposedtoberootless,readytopickupandmove(or bemoved)tobefunctionalorusableinrelationsofexchange.Staying presenttocommunity,toplace,andespeciallytothesufferingofothers seemstocompromiseour“portability.”Atthesametime,thesong seemstosuggeststhereisareasonablelimituptowhichweshouldface the“horrible”;otherwise,we’dbesooutoftouchwithrealityastonot betakenseriously—we’dbe “makinghappyrhymes.”

Inthisessay,Iwanttoexplorethedynamicsthissongraisesin lightofthenewpoliticaltheology.Howdoweface“thehorrible”?How dowecountenancethesufferingofothersinawaythatcannurturea politicalmysticismofcompassion?Whatisnecessarytosustainsucha mysticism?Attheriskof“makinghappyrhymes,”Iwillarguethat politicaltheologyneedstoarticulateavisionofhumanwell-being,and thatadeepengagementwithfeministtheologyandwithotherreligions onthequestionsraisedbyapoliticalmysticismofcompassionwill yieldnecessaryresourcesforthatarticulation.Inbothofthesedialoguesitwouldbemyhopethatarenewedunderstandingofwell-being wouldemergeasacategoryforpoliticaltheology.

First,Iproposethatfeministtheology,especiallyoneinformedby theproblemofviolenceagainstwomen,teachesusthepoliticalmysticalnecessityforthiscategory.Metz’sinsistenceonthememoryof sufferingandonresistinganytemptationtoanesthetizeourselves againstitisoneoftheaspectsofpoliticaltheologyIhavefoundmost usefulintryingtoarticulateapoliticaltheologyinresponsetothe problemofviolenceagainstwomen.36 Ihavearguedthatthelogicof patriarchy,withitsportrayalofwomenasappropriatevictims,isso

36JohannM.Vento,“NotinVain: MemoriaPassionis andViolenceagainstWomen,” in MissingGod?,79–92.

deeplyingrainedastobealmostinvisibleandtofunctionas“common sense”inourcontext.Thereforethecallforinterruption,thecalltoface thehistoryofsuffering,andespeciallythecalltorescueeventhedead, thealreadydefeated,fromthe“monotonousvictoriousnessofrealityas ithascometobe”isessentialindestabilizingthatlogic.37 Atthesame time,considerationoftheproblemofviolenceagainstwomencallsfor aspecificallyfeministanalysis.Iaminterestedinwhatadialogue betweenfeministtheologyandpoliticaltheologymightproduce,especiallywithregardtoquestionsoftheologicalanthropology.Iwantnot onlytoapplytheinsightsofpoliticaltheologytoviolenceagainst women,butalsotoinformthefutureofpoliticaltheologywithinsights gainedfromafeministanalysisofviolenceagainstwomen.

Severalquestionsarise:Whatkindofsubjectivityorsubjectivities canresistinjustice,canrememberthesufferingofthepast,attendas fullyaspossibletothesufferinginthepresent,andempowerfurther praxisagainstinjustice?Whatdoesittaketoface“thehorrible”more thanjust“alittleatatime?”Whatdoesittaketonourishandsustain apraxisagainstvictimization?

Iwillofferprovisionallytwoinsightsfromafeministconsiderationofviolenceagainstwomen,trauma,andrecovery.Possibly,both ofthesewill“soundwrong”totheearsofapoliticaltheologian,asthey seemtopullbackfromMetz’scentralinsightthatweneedthememory ofsufferingtointerruptourpre-occupationwithself.Iwillargue,first, thatalongwiththememoryofsuffering,thestruggletoresistviolence againstwomenteachesusabouttheimportanceofthememoryof agency.Second,thissamestrugglecangiveusinsightintotheimportanceof“well-being”asacategoryofapoliticaltheologyinformedby feminism.Inbothcases,IhavefoundtheworkofElisabethSchüssler Fiorenzatobehelpful.

SchüsslerFiorenzaacknowledges,alongwithMetz,theimportanceofthememoryofsufferingintheformationofsubjectivity.38 She addstothis,however,theimportanceandpotentiallyrevolutionary functionofmemoriesofwomen’sagencyinthestruggleagainstpatriarchalandviolentoppression.Alongwiththememoryofsuffering, thesemustalsobepreservedintheinterestoftheformationofemancipatorysubjectivitiesinwomen,especiallyinlightofthefunctionof patriarchytoeraseorrenderirrelevantwomen’shistory.39 These memoriesgivewomenaheritageofstruggle.Theynurturehopeby

37Metzusesthisphrasein TheEmergentChurch:TheFutureofChristianityina PostbourgeoisWorld,trans.PeterMann(NewYork:Crossroad,1981),99.

38ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenza, InMemoryofHer (NewYork:Crossroad,1983),31.

39ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenza,“ADiscipleshipofEquals:EkklesialDemocracyand PatriarchyinBiblicalPerspective,”in ADemocraticCatholicChurch:TheReconstruc-

directlycontradictingtheinevitabilityofpatriarchy.Suchmemories narratedincommunitiesofsupporthavethepowertoinspirehopethat changeispossible,thatwomenstrugglingforjusticecanhaveanimpactontheworld.Forvictimsofviolentabuse,memoriesofwomen’s agencyinthestruggleagainstviolencecannurtureself-efficacy.They cansupportvictimsintheirquestforadifferentviewofrealitythanthe onetheviolencehasinscribedinthem.40 Forthecommunityatlarge, suchmemoriesresistpatriarchalnotionsofwomen.Theyprovidean environmentinwhichbothmenandwomencanlearntoquestion patriarchaldefinitionsofwomenandcanbegintothinkofwomenas personswithdignity,capableofintegrity,compassion,strength,anda thirstforjustice.

Thisraisesseveralquestionsforpoliticaltheology.Isitpossibleto maintainandnotpullbackfromthememoryofsufferingandatthe sametimespeakofamemoryofthehistoryofagency?Dostoriesof healingfromtraumaorresistingviolencehavetherevolutionarypotentialthatSchüsslerFiorenzasaystheydo,oraretheyonly“happy rhymes”thatblunttheforceofthememoryofsuffering?Intermsof violenceagainstwomen,orintermsofhealingfromtraumagenerally, howcanpoliticaltheologyspeakaboutareturntoageneralstateof health,acertainfreedomfromtheimmediateeffectsoftrauma,tothe abilitytoacteffectivelyintheinterestofhealthandwholenessfor oneselfandforothers?41 Iaminterestedinhowthesequestionsrelate towhatStevenOstovichhasarguedaboutmourningvs.melancholy, becauseIwanttoguard,ashedoes,againstawayoftalkingabout healingthatbetraysthesteadfastattendingtosufferingsocentralto politicaltheology.42 Isthereawaytotalkabouthealingthatresiststhe “closure”or“gettingbeyond”thatOstovichwarnsagainst?Ilikethe term“melancholicagents”thatheusesinthiscontext,andIbelieve thisisanecessaryandpotentiallyfruitfulareaforexplorationinthe futureofpoliticaltheology.

Closelyrelatedtothisroleforthememoryofagencyistheconcern forwell-being.MetzandSchüsslerFiorenzashareaninsistenceonthe tionofRomanCatholicism,ed.EugeneC.BianchiandRosemaryRadfordRuether(New York:Crossroad,1992),18.

40Foratreatmentofthelossofagencythroughtraumaticviolenceanditsreestablishmentintheprocessofrecovery,seeJudithHerman, TraumaandRecovery:The AftermathofViolence FromDomesticAbusetoPoliticalTerror (NewYork:Basic Books,1992).

41Foraconsiderationofthedynamicsofvictimization,trauma,andrecoveryamong victimsoftheShoahandanargumentinfavoroftheimportanceofmourninginrecovery, seeDominickLaCapra, RepresentingtheHolocaust:History,Theory,andTrauma (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1994)and HistoryandMemoryAfterAuschwitz (Ithaca: CornellUniversityPress,1998).

42StevenT.Ostovich,“MelancholyHistory,”in MissngGod,93–101.

importanceofintersubjectivity.Botharguethatachievinganemancipatorysubjectivityisdependentuponanactiveandpracticalinterest inthesubjectivityofothers,particularlythosewhosesubjectivityis threatened.Forboth,identityisnecessarilyformedinrelationtoothers.Thisinsistenceisrootedintheircommonunderstandingofthe corporate,publicnatureofChristiandiscipleshipandsalvation,an understandingwhichisdeeplysuspiciousofprivatizingtendenciesin Christiantheology.ForMetz,itisimpossibletohopeforone’sown salvationwithoutalsohopingforthesalvationofallthelivingandthe dead.ForSchüsslerFiorenza,moreover,theoptionforwomen’swellbeingalwaysalsoincludestheoptionforone’sownwell-being;women mustmakean“optionforourwomenselves”aspartofdedicationto thewell-beingofallwomen.Sheexplicitlydelineatesthemoraland ethicalvalueofconcernforone’sownwell-being,alwaysforherunderstoodinthecontextoftheongoingstruggleforthewell-beingof all.43

44

ThisemphasismarksadifferencefromMetz,whoalwaysspeaksof themoralauthorityofbeingaccountabletothesufferingoftheother. Butananalysisofthedynamicsofvictimization,trauma,andrecovery bearsouttheimportanceofthe“optionforourwomenselves.”Women havetherightanddutytosolidaritywithself.Beliefinthisrightis preciselywhatistakenfromwomeninandthroughtheexperienceof abuse.Women’sgrowthintheirabilitytoclaimtherighttoloyaltyto theirownwell-beingisanecessarystepinthearduousprocessof recoveryfromseveretrauma.Afirmconvictionofthemoralandreligiouscorrectnessofwomen’sactiveconcernfortheirownwell-beingis thusanecessaryaspectinasubjectivitywhichcanresistviolence againstwomen.

Fortoolongandwithgraveconsequenceswomenhavebeenledto believethatconcernfortheirownwell-beingiscontrarytotheirChristiancallingtoloveandsacrificeforothers.Pastoraladvicetovictims thatconfusesself-abasementandservitudewithhumilityandselfsacrificecanbedeadlyforwomenandrepresentsanappallingfusionof Christianthemesandpatriarchalnorms.SchüsslerFiorenzaarguesthat thereisadirectratherthananinverserelationshipbetweenconcernfor oneselfandconcernforthewell-beingofallwomen.Thesetheological insightsarebornoutbypsychologicalresearchintotheconnection betweenself-empathy,orloyaltytotheself,andthepossibilityofac-

43ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenza, BreadNotStone:TheChallengeofFeministBiblical Interpretation (BeaconPress,1995),xv.

44SeeSarahBentley,“BringingJusticeHome:TheChallengeoftheBatteredWomen’sMovementforChristianSocialEthics,”in ViolenceAgainstWomenandChildren:A ChristianTheologicalSourcebook,ed.CarolJ.AdamsandMariaM.Fortune(NewYork: Continuum,1995),152–71. TheologicalRoundtable

tiveconcernforothers.45 Ratherthanbeingselfish,aloyaltytoone’s ownwell-beingisaconditionforthepossibilityofconcernforand servicetoothers.

Isthereawaytoapplytheseinsightsaboutwell-beinggleaned fromaconsiderationofviolenceagainstwomentopoliticaltheology moregenerally?Ifso,whatshouldbeincludedinthiscategoryof well-being?Clearly,well-beingcannotmeanthecomfortable,insular existenceofthebourgeoissubjectasMetzdescribesit.Butwecould definewell-beinginawayinformedbyMetz’sinsistenceonintersubjectivity,thatis,inawaythatinsistsourownidentityasasubjectis tiedupwithourdefenseofthesubjectivityofallothers.Andwecould addSchüsslerFiorenza’sinsistencethatthereisadirectratherthan inverserelationshipbetweenconcernforourownwell-beingandthat ofothers.Thereisawaytodefinewell-beingthatdistinguishesitfrom comfortanddemandsconversioninwhatwe(whoarecomfortable) thinkisnecessaryforourlives.Inthiswayweminethepolitical potentialofarticulatingandinsistinguponawell-beingforallthat acknowledgesandtakesseriouslytheconnectionbetweencomforthere andinjusticeinthenextneighborhoodorinanotherhemisphere. Mysecondproposalisaboutinter-religiousdialogueonpolitical theology.Iapproachthis,notasacomparitivist,butasonewhose Christiantheologicalperspectivehasbeenandcontinuestobeformed inthecontextofinter-religiousdialogue,throughwhichIhavehadthe privilegetoengageBuddhist,Hindu,Jewish,andMuslimscholarson issuesofsuffering,justice,love,andforgiveness.

46 Theseexperiences haveledmetoyearnforthistypeofdialoguetoundertakethespecific concernsraisedbythenewpoliticaltheology,especiallywithregardto thememoryofsuffering,theauthorityandclaimsmadeonusbythe sufferingoftheother,andthespecificallypoliticalcontoursofsolidarity,compassion,andforgiveness.Tobesure,thesetermsandcategories asemployedinthevariousreligionsarerootedindiversehistories, cosmologies,andphilosophicalassumptions;nevertheless,Iamconvincedthatdialogueontheseissuesinapoliticalveincanenrichthe projectofpoliticaltheologyforthefuture.

SuchadialogueisespeciallyimportantbecauseofthewayMetz

45SeeHerman,235–36;seealsoMargaretCraddockHuff,“TheInterdependentSelf: AnIntegratedConceptfromFeministTheologyandFeministPsychology” Philosophy andTheology 2(Winter1987):160–72.

46Theseformalexperiencesofdialoguehaveoccurredthroughalongassociation withtheNationalConferenceforCommunityandJustice(formerlytheNationalConferenceofChristiansandJews)intheir(nowdefunct)TheologyinaPluralisticSetting program,andmostrecentlywiththeElijahInterfaithInstituteThinkTank,whosecurrent projectexploresthepossibilityofsharingwisdomamongreligioustraditionsonthetopic ofloveandforgiveness.

hasrecentlycharacterizedthenatureofpoliticalcompassionandits relationshiptothememoryofsuffering,rootedinbiblicalmonotheism, asdistinctfromunderstandingsofsufferingandcompassioninreligionsofthe“fareast”ashedesignatesthem,andinparticularBuddhism.Inhiscallforapoliticalmysticismofcompassion,Metzhas arguedthatBuddhismisanalogouswithaversionofcontemporary Westernpost-modernismthatisonlyabletocountenancesufferingas illusion.HedistinguishesthebiblicalmysticismofJesusasoneof “openeyes”asopposedtoBuddhism’s“mysticismofclosedeyes”that cannotlookuponthesufferingoftheotherinawaythatmakesaclaim onusandholdsusmorallyaccountable.47 Theargumentrests,of course,onbroadclaims,andthereisnoroomhere,norparticular competenceonmypart,toevaluateMetz’sengagementwithBuddhist traditions.ButIsuspectthatthereismuchthatMetzwantstoemphasizewithregardtoapoliticalmysticismofcompassionthatcanbenefit fromadeepdialoguewithBuddhismaswellaswithotherreligious traditions.Inparticular,Metzcallsforawayofencounteringthesufferingoftheotherthatisnot“emotion-laden,”easilysentimentalized, andthereforeremovedfrompraxis.Heappealsforawaytoengagethe sufferingoftheotherthatcan“emboldenanewpraxis.”48 Itisin preciselythiswaythatadialoguewithBuddhismcanbeindispensable,thatis,ininformingaspiritualpractice,amysticism,ofpaying attentiontosufferinginawaythatseesclearlyandmaintainsthecapacityforaction,inawaythatevokescompassionratherthansentimentality.

Metzcallsforan“indirect”ecumenismofreligions,bywhichadherentsofthevariousreligionsoftheworldunitetofightthecausesof injustice.Hearguesthatthisindirectwayisamuchmorefittingecumenismforourpresentsituationthanadirectdialogueofcomparison aboutthereligionsthemselves.However,Metz’newpoliticaltheology findsitsanaloguesincontemporary“engaged”BuddhismsandHinduisms.49 Again,whileIwouldnotwanttobeguiltyofcollapsingdifferencesormisswhatisuniqueandradicalwithregardtobiblicalmono-

47JohannBaptistMetz, MemoriaPassionis, 175–78.

48JohannBaptistMetz,“ChristianityinaGlobalizedWorld:Faith,Politicsandthe MemoriaPassionis,” translatedanddeliveredbyJamesMatthewAshley,Religionand PostmodernismConference,VillanovaUniversity,October26,2006,par.28.

49TheliteratureonsociallyengagedBuddhismisvastandgrowing.Foroneexample, seeChristopherS.QueenandSallieB.King, EngagedBuddhism:BuddhistLiberation MovementsinAsia (Albany:SUNYPress,1996).Whilethereisalongtraditionof“sociallyengagedHinduism”(inthemodernperioddatingtoSwamiVivekananda),theuse ofthephraseamongHindusisrecentandnotyetwidespread.ForacontemporaryHindu theologianre-evaluatinghisreligioustraditioninlightofthestruggleforcasteandgender justice,seeAnantanandRambachan, TheAdvaitaWorldview:God,World,AndHumanity (Albany:SUNYPress,2006).

theism,Iurgeadeepdialogueaboutexactlytheissuesthatariseoutof thiskindofmutualpoliticalactivism.Whenpoliticallyinterpreted,a theologicaldialogueaboutourresponsibilitytothosewhosuffer,about thenatureofcompassionandofwell-beingwouldbroadenanddeepen thatindirectecumenismofpraxisofwhichMetzspeaks.Itwouldalso helppoliticaltheology,andperhapsitscousinsintheotherreligions, tocontinuetodevelopthetheologythatisitselfpartofthatpraxis.And soIamadvocatinganinter-religiousdialogueonpoliticaltheologyin thetraditionofthe Paulus-Gesellschaft Christian-Marxistdialoguesso influentialintheinceptionofthenewpoliticaltheology.Isuspectwe willfinddifferencesthatchallenge,butthattheexperiencewillhelp politicaltheologytocontinuetodefineitselfintothetwenty-firstcentury.

Dotheseproposalsamounttoacapitulationtoamodern/postmodernabsorptionwithselforan“optionforourselvesandothers” thatfunctionstodestabilizeviolenceanditseffects?Aretheyanaively “politicallycorrect”calltoapolitebutshallowdialogueoraprofound opennesstoconstructiveengagementsbetweenstrugglesforjusticeand thewisdomofthereligioustraditions?Dotheycreateportability(or worsehappyrhymes),orwaystostayattentiveto“thehorrible”more thanjust“alittleatatime”?Becausetheymayseemtostrikeafalse notetopoliticaltheologyasithassofarbeendefined,Iwelcome furtherdiscussion.Ithasbeenmyargumentthatfeministtheology focusedonviolence,trauma,andrecoveryandan“engaged”interreligiousdialogueofferresourcestoarticulateavisionofhumanwellbeingthatwillhelptonurturethepoliticalcompassionforwhichMetz continuestocallinfreshandprovocativeways.

GeorgianCourtUniversity

JOHANNM.VENTO