Curtis A. Bronzan

As my ThM program comes to a close, I’ve been looking into some possible PhD programs. Much to my surprise – and chagrin – after countless hours of searching their websites, it seems neither USC nor UCLA has a doctoral program in religion! In Los Angeles of all places, arguably the most religiously diverse city in the world… a city that practically invented the new age spirituality movement!

USC’s website explicates – in great detail – a PhD program in religion and social ethics. Wait, scratch that… It no longer exists. Not even UCI, with it’s stellar philosophy department, features a graduate program in religion. The closest doctoral programs (outside of Fuller and Claremont) are at UCR and UCSB.

The image to the left reminds me of John Drane’s thoughts regarding the McDonaldization of the church (which built upon George Ritzer’s social theory). And it reminds me of James’ thoughts on the topic:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

(not to mention the countless other passages throughout religious traditions that call for a truly committed faith)

This fall, I again have the distinguished opportunity to do a directed study with Ryan Bolger, which comprises another 4 units en route to Fuller’s ThM degree in the School of Intercultural Studies.

I’ve previously been able to fill units (and even meet requirements) by studying missional ecclesiology with Ryan and postmodern philosophy/culture with Barry Taylor.

This quarter, however, I’ll be delving into the religious and social setting of the first century. Ultimately, my hope is that all three streams come together for my thesis, tentatively titled The De(con)struction of the Church: An(other) Attempt at Religion (Without Religion).

I am often asked, especially around the church, when I will be “ready for ordination.” Those asking this question are usually referring to the taking of 144 Master of Divinity units, four extra PC(USA) courses in preparation for five ordination exams, as well as church and hospital internships (totaling 400 hours each).

Then comes my rambling attempt to explain, in essence, “I’m there.” I have been approved, that is, to accept an ordained position, after which I will be officially ordained. But, don’t get any crazy ideas, I will never be “Pastor Curtis” or “Reverend Bronzan.” Just “Curtis” is fine, thank you.

You don’t call a plumber “Plumber Joe” or a secretary “Secretary Linda.” Referring to a pastor as “Pastor [Name],” I’ve become convinced, implicitly sets up an unbiblical hierarchy. Furthermore, I’ve become convinced that such titles often contradict Jesus’ ideas regarding religious leadership, note especially verses 8 through 12:

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

“So,” comes the response, why are you still going to school? And at that, I struggle even more to respond coherently.

At times, I have said something to the effect of how the Master of Divinity degree (though earned from the best seminary in the history of the world) sought to make me into a Constantinian who had very little ability or developed skill to tell anyone outside the church anything important about Jesus. In short, it can become all about keeping butts in the pews, instead of faithfully exegeting our post-Christian culture, thus reaching outside the church to proclaim and enact good news.

Thus, I began a post-graduate degree focused upon contemporary, postmodern culture. My proposed thesis is tentatively entitled “De(con)structing the Temple(s): An(other) Attempt at Religion (without Religion).” Thus far in my research, I have found a rather interesting dynamic; when you ask big questions, like the role of institutions in the life of faith, lots of people (who would normally be ousted from discussions among the “faithful”) have something to say, including even the likes of Neitzsche (who taught us how to philosophize with a hammer).

It all got started with John Caputo’s brilliant little pamphlet of dynamite, What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church:

The church is Plan B. (In deconstruction, everything is Plan B.)… The existence of the church is provisional – like a long-term substitute teacher – praying for the kingdom, whose coming Jesus announce and which everyone was expecting would come sometime soon. But this coming was deferred, and the church occupies the space of “deferral,” of the distance of “difference,” between two comings. (I just said, in case you missed it, the church is a function of différance!) In the meantime, and it is always the meantime for the church, the church is supposed to do the best it can to bring that kingdom about in itself, here on earth, in a process of incessant self-renewal or aut0-deconstruction, while not setting itself up as a bunch of kings or princes. The church is by definition a call (kletos) for renewal.

That is why the church is “deconstructible,” but the kingdom of God, if there is such a thing, is not. The church is a provisional construction, and whatever is constructed is deconstructible, while the kingdom of God is that in virtue of which the church is deconstructible. so, if we ask, “What would Jesus deconstruct?” the answer is first and foremost the church! For the idea behind the church is to give way to the kingdom, to proclaim and enact and finally disappear into the kingdom that Jesus called for, all the while resisting the temptation of confusing itself with the kingdom. (WWJD?, 35)

My contention is that in our day and age, the church has, in fact, set itself up as a bunch of “kings and princes.” Thus, I am hoping to short-circuit Jesus’ original, prophetic “de(con)struction” with post-modern ecclesiology, by engaging Scripture, critical theory and continental philosophy.

This summer, in the midst of a flurry of activity at the church, I’ve had the opportunity to work as a Teaching Assistant in Fuller’s School of Intecultural Studies under Ryan Bolger.

Throughout August and September, I’ll be doing an Independent Study with him looking at recent (and some not so recent) literature engaging the missional conversation. While it’s a departure from the more philosophical reading I worked through previously with another professor, thus far it’s proven a nice change of pace – and may ultimately be of some help for my ThM research and thesis.

I stopped by the Fuller Bookstore before a class I’m taking / TAing with my ThM advisor, Ryan Bolger to pick up In Name Only: Tackling the Problem of Nominal Christianity upon which the course, Evangelizing Nominal Christians, was originally based. The material for the course has since shifted toward engaging the emerging / missional conversation, though I wanted to become acquainted with In Name Only as well, since Gibbs’ other works – including his recent ChurchMorph – are epic.

Stopping by the Fuller Bookstore is extremely helpful, but also exceedingly problematic – at least for my bank account.

Today, before even finding Gibbs’ In Name Only, I encountered James K.A. Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation (which, along with Derrida and Theology, was on the same Amazon order as In Name Only, that wasn’t due to ship for another couple of weeks!). But I also ran across Graham Ward’s The Politics of Discipleship: Becoming Postmaterial Christians and Merold Westphal’s Whose Community, Which Interpretation?: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church, both of which aren’t due out until October 1st!

Needless to say, I picked both up, as well as Hegel and Theology.