If You Don't Eat, You'll Die

So someone was saying to me "What we really need is a theology of the body blah blah blah..." but it seemed what they meant was "I would like to be able to take some Bible verses and apply it in a way that determines what we say we can do with bodies."

That happens a lot. You can replace the word body with just about any other word and do the same thing. Theology of life. Theology of death. Theology of work. Theology of food. As I type this out it seems like the internets naked lady/porn meme. You can search anything with naked lady and porn and find hits- I'd bet you could do the same thing with "theology". And fittingly enough, it is its own kind of porn. Self-serving, indulgent, fruitless in terms of theology. (I wasn't able to find anything good with "theology of theology"). Anyway I don't think it does what one probably hopes to do when they say they are creating a theology of [insert word here]. I also don't think that happens to be theology.

Second things first. My guess is that what one wants to do when they are creating a theology of x is to make something called theology relevant to that x. In this type of set up, theology is a set of metaphysical premises addressing a range of concerns. The purpose seems to be to make those metaphysical premises address the subject or make it seem the subject is integrated into or with those metaphysics. So the project is to make whatever x might be, "the body" in the example, fit into the metaphysical framework- especially in a way that then lets one know what ought to be done. I'm not saying we ought not engage in that project. It is what we do, it's how we get our sense of do and do not do, who's sane who's mad, who's right who's wrong, who we can eat who we can't (why I should've written "'what' we can't"), who's family who's enemy. We do that. My metaphysical commitments and concerns have me say we should do that. That's a fine project. I'm saying that project is not theology. That's the second thing first: that's not theology.

Well... maybe it's a kind of theology. Maybe an anthropocentric theology, which I would still say isn't theology. I think that sense of theology works like the word "god". It's the end of the line in what we say tells us what to do. So for some, what is meant by theology is "The last word on what we do or do not do", so because we say, "God ultimately tells us what to do", a study of what to do about something or other could be called a theology of that something or other. Of course not everyone says that it is "God" telling them what to do- but at the end of the line of justification and legitimacy you have something that functions as the final authority whatever it might be: a Dungeon Master's Guide, a motto, a volcano, a belly, gilt pages, funny hats, a goat statue, a gun... Anyway the "final" authority on something seems like the kind of thing the word god can be thrown at. That is oftentimes what we mean, or how we use the word god. God says this, God says that are other ways of saying "Do this, not that". And you must admit it's easier than:
-What are you doing?
-I'm loading the car so we can go.
-Why?
-Because we're going to grandma's.
-Why?
-What do you mean "why"? Because it's Thanksgiving and we go to grandma's for Thanksgiving.
-Why?
-Because
-Because why?
-Because I said so- Throw your pillow in and get in the car.

Whatever.

I know, I know, that leaves things hanging in mid-air. Well some things anyway. I'm not one of those who may say there is no such thing as an objective observation or proposition. But I don't think that goes to "there is 'science' and the possibility of objectivity about some things so it seems there must be the possibility of some objectivity about all things, so if I can say with objective certainty something banal like 'My shoe is on my foot' I should be able to say with objective certainty something like 'It's wrong to eat puppies' and what's more if God is anything it ought to be the kind of thing about which there is the most absolute certainty and most absolute certainty seems like it should be objectivity so if I can say I know what God says I can say it even more certainly even though there shouldn't be degrees of certainty otherwise we're not really talking about certainty. Right?"

No.

I mean science as a method is about observations, falsifiable propositions and testable theses, addressing things that are of no concern. But those things that are a matter of concern are those things that tend to be left hanging in mid air, as it were. Should you marry so and so? Should we kill children who disobey their parents? Should I consume peyote? Handle snakes? Bomb Iran? Less glibly- say you know some kid who wants- right now, in our present circumstances- to join the military because he or she is sick of living at home and wants to earn some money for college. How, and especially wether, you counsel that kid is not a matter of objectivity. Neither are the reasons that could make sense to them.

I know, as THE CHURCH especially, we're inclined to think that what we believe and do is just the way it is, as in it corresponds to an established order and someday everyone will see things exactly the same way- sometimes, conveniently enough the way we see things now. And so theology is often seen as a matter of seeing that "The Way It Is" in a moral sense. That said, I am not picking on churches here, though I am picking on that sense of THE CHURCH that imagines it can find some sense of pure or pasteurized sense of "ought" that is the way everyone over all time should be. This can be leveled at even the non-churchy; an attempt to reduce "oughts" to a matter of genetic determinism seems the same. Moral knowledge is created and known in culture and culture is a fluid thing.

Which is why I suggested previously metaphysics is/are crazy, and I think crazy is the right word to use to make the point. But that shouldn't be a problem to a church people, should it? Who better than a people called the church should be okay remaining unsettled, waiting in mid-air? Why shouldn't a people who claim to act in faith not proceed in faith? I suppose because we still remain people.

M'eh.

Anyway, I tend to think theology is about clarifying the ongoing redemptive nature of God. I have nothing to say to that that would make sense apart from a community that is living in light of that knowledge and experience. That is, the only thing that can justify that claim is the community that lives it. There is no proposition or proof set that can stand alone and in itself prove to anyone that this concept beats their concepts. I would say a responsible theology is one that is concerned with better and more clearly living this claim.

I like a description of theology that a clever student coined a semester or two ago. She said theology ought to be like crafting recipes. I liked that. I like it.

Now we could have a "theology of the body" that corresponds to this sense of theology. We could say, this is our experience of bodies that demonstrates we are a people who believe God is set on saving us from us. So, first things second now. When we say we have a theology of x in an attempt to make our claims relevant to x- it seems what we are actually doing is speaking about that x in such a way that it does not correspond to how we live with that x. We are forced to make it stand alone so that it no longer bears any resemblance to how any person would experience that x in their life. So the attempt to make it relevant makes it matter less to any existing person. So rather than redeeming, the "theology" dominates. Rather than reflecting the redemptive nature of God, it becomes a means of demonstrating the dominance of the particular concept. We make a thing out of a concept that ought not really be a thing.

It almost seems that the project of theology ought to be discarded for the sake of demonstrating a theology that reflects a redeeming God. Almost. I suppose it depends on how we say it.

So now you're maybe asking "Well then, how do we talk about something like the body in relation to what we say God is?" To which I say, "Exactly, how do we?"