A conversation has been sparked recently by Peter Rollins’ desire to form a reading group “dedicated to introducing and exploring the work of key theorists who are contributing important insights into Christianity.”

In this corner, Geoffrey Holsclaw argues that to consider Žižek a theologian is wrong in “either one or two ways,” to misunderstand his project or misunderstand the practice of theology. Holsclaw states,”the only way to understand Žižek as a theologian is to serious (sic) downgrade theology itself.”

In this corner, Peter Rollins asserts that in Žižek and Milbank’s The Monstrosity of Christ, “we get something more than a philosophy, anthropology, sociology or psychology of religion,” namely a theology in the vein of Altizer and the Death of God movement.

While I understand Holsclaw’s perspective, my money is on Rollins in this one. Adam Kotsko, author of the recent Žižek and Theology,explicates my thoughts well in his response to the conversation at The Church and Postmodern Culture:

What I do find important is that very bizarre thing that seems to have happened in Christ and in his wake. People who help me, directly or indirectly, to think about that wierd happening in new or more rigorous ways inspire gratitude in me.

His book is the first of a new series offered by T&T Clark which (will) examine(s) other “atheists” and their contributions to theology, including Badiou, Derrida, and Nietzsche.

I don’t want to wade into this debate here, but instead offer some recent thoughts from my ongoing research regarding Jesus’ temple action as a way to reform our ecclesiological communities. For, while many in both church ministry and theological education would question the importance – or even argue against the legitimacy – of engaging with an avowed Marxist, materialist atheist (including Holsclaw?), Žižek provides a helpful perspective with which to engage the study of religion in contemporary culture.

Žižek draws heavily upon Hegelian dialectical philosophy, Marxist social theory and Lacanian psychoanalysis, and has, throughout his career, drawn insights from Christian theology. Of late, however, he has become one of many contemporary theorists who have turned to religion, though he would most likely bristle to be included in such a grouping. Kotsko has noted that this “turn” should be viewed instead as

having been occasioned by the tensions within his more strictly philosophical work on subjectivity, ethics and political theory. (Žižek and Theology, 6)

Or, to put this recent engagement in his own words, Žižek asserts:

The subversive kernel of Christianity… is available only to a materialist approach – and… to become a true dialectical materialist, one should go through the Christian experience.” (The Puppet and the Dwarf, 6)

My thesis, then, in engaging with Žižek throughout the posts to follow, is that his reading of Christianity – heretical, sideways, or short circuited though it may be – provides a significant support for de(con)structing the temple(s) of contemporary Christianity.

Tags: Adam Kotsko, Geoffrey Holsclaw, John Milbank, Peter Rollins, Slavoj Žižek
Categories: Pages

This entry was posted on Friday, July 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 am and is filed under Pages. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.