Peter Rollins is this year’s ESR Willson Lecturer
on April 8. Our hope going into this year’s Lectures was that they would not
just be a one-time encounter with a theologian, but include community-wide
discussion both before and after Peter’s visit to campus. We are pleased to
share that this is already taking place online, and invite others into the
discussion. Below is a summary of a recent dialogue between Peter and ESR alum
Micah Bales:
Among other things, Peter is behind a campaign called “Atheism for Lent.” As described on
the site, “Atheism for Lent seeks to use some of the most potent critiques of
Christianity as a type of purifying fire that might help us appreciate and
understand Christ’s cry of dereliction on the Cross in a new way. Just as Christ experienced the loss of God on
the Cross, so Atheism for Lent invites participants into that desert space
traditionally called the dark night of the soul.”
After hearing about and looking into this campaign, Micah
posted an article on his blog – “Should
we give up God for Lent?,” in which he makes the case that “Tearing down
false images of God is an important task, but this cannot be the end of the
story. God does not leave Job sitting on ashes and picking at his sores. After
the night must come the dawn. Unfortunately, Rollins seems unwilling to engage in
the process of developing an alternative vision. Rather than offering a
positive understanding of who God is, he seems solely interested open-ended
deconstruction.”
After some online discussion, Peter responded to Micah with
the post “How Could I Possibly Need
Atheism For Lent? I Need God Like I need Air!” In this response, Rollins
suggests that “those in the Liberal tradition generally advocate a form of
perpetual concrete action when faced with the injustices around them. In the
words of Levinas, the face of the other issues a cry for help and the liberal
is one who responds directly to that cry. The issue here is the nature of the
response, one that can be termed ‘perverse.’ The pervert is, psychoanalytically
speaking, unable to say ‘no’ to the desire of the other. The pervert’s desire
is to be the object of the others pleasure. They are the one who always says
‘yes.’
“In a similar manner the liberal experiences a cry in the
concrete face of the other that always demands a direct response. Hence there
is a dislike of critical theory, which involves a form of stepping back from
that cry (attending university, reading, writing etc). In Micah’s piece this is
classically played out in his use of words such as ‘intellectualism’ and
‘elitism.’ Because the liberal tradition always attempts to say ‘yes’ to the
call of the other any form of theoretical activity is viewed as oppositional to
(or, at best a distraction from) the emancipatory project. The European tradition
of Leftist theory is seen as divorced from the exigencies of actual action to
eleviate inequality. Theory is seen as a type of second-order reflection on
political activity rather than a form of political (in)activity. We see here,
of course, the influence of American pragmatism.
“From the Radical perspective however the perverse response needs to be avoided. This means that there are times when we should refuse to respond to the concrete cry of the other for the sake of wider and deeper transformation. This means having to take on a certain guilt while working toward real change.”
Micah followed up with a response to this, “The Radical
Within,” where he argues “that the answer to an unreflective faith is not
to cease action, but rather to engage in action that is informed by
reflection. The proper response to a religious life that is overly
dependent on individual experience is not to deny experience, but rather to hold
that experience in dynamic conversation with theory. If we are to live out
the full gospel, a balanced and complete gospel, we must wed faith and action,
experience and analysis.”
What do you think about Micah’s and Peter’s comments? Do you
find the concept of “Atheism for Lent” helpful or not? What other elements of
Peter’s work do you find yourself either resonating with or pushing against?