I posted yesterday about the first part of my talk, ‘Positioning Pyrotheology’, which focused on some of the radical theology, atheology and a/theology that has influenced Pete Rollins’ wider theological project.

Photo of Ikon’s 2009 Greenbelt performance, ‘Pyrotheology’, from pyrotheology website.

Talking later with someone at the retreat, they asked me why they needed to know this background, and it made me think about why I had chosen to present it. Obviously, I did so partly because that was what Pete had asked me to do. But I also realised that my desire to present some of this history reveals my own preoccupation with reading Pete’s work for information.

As a researcher exploring the impact of continental philosophy and radical theology on everyday religious discourse and practice, I spend most of my time reading for information, tracking the influence of philosophical and theological ideas on the work of people like Pete. But, as I talked about in this other post here, this often means that I miss the ways in which his writing aims at transformation and not information.

So when I reflected on how I’d structured my talk, I realised that I’d focused in the first half on information - on the theological and philosophical heritage of pyrotheology – but had spoken in the second half about the transformative potential that I see in Pete’s work.

Positioning pyrotheology philosophically, I charted a trajectory from Nietzsche’s declaration of the event of God’s death to various theologies, atheologies and a/theologies of the event of God – which you can hear echo in Pete’s pyrotheological project. Positioning pyrotheology politically, however, I then traced the ways in which it has been influenced by what I call philosophies of identity suspension that can be found in the work of figures like Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek, who see in Paul’s Letters a new form of universalism.

In Galatians 3.28, Paul writes, ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female’.

In one of his chapters for Church in the Present Tense, Pete writes that this verse is at its core a form of identity that ‘cuts across political, cultural, and biological divisions, one that involves the laying down of such identities’ (p. 23):

There is neither high church nor low church, Fox nor CNN, citizen nor alien, capitalist nor communist, gay nor straight, beautiful nor ugly, East nor West, theist nor atheist, Israeli nor Palestinian, hawk nor dove, American nor Iraqi, married nor divorced, uptown nor downtown, terrorist nor freedom fighter, priest nor prophet, fame nor obscurity, Christian nor non-Christian, for all are made on in Christ Jesus (p. 24).

Pete speaks of churches as suspended spaces, in which participants’ identities, including their religious identities, are left ‘at the door’ to create a space of ‘neither/nor’, in which they can explore a different mode of social relation and through which they hope to transform social and political practices outside these liturgical spaces. It is imagined that this suspension of identity can offer a different vision of social, political and economic life in the West – what Pete calls ‘a theatrical performance of that Messianic time when all will be equal’ (The Fidelity of Betrayal, p. 178).

The practice of suspended space is charged with political potential by a philosophy of identity suspension that can be found in the work of contemporary thinkers like, Badiou and Žižek.

A rough cut of an interview I did after “Subverting the Norm II: Can Postmodern Theology Live in the Churches?” (Apr 5-6 2013, Drury University, Springfield, Missouri). George Elerick was asking me questions on behalf of Emigre New Monasticism.

In my first ever interview, I talk mainly about my work at the intersection of philosophy, theology and religious studies, exploring in particular how continental philosophy and radical theology are impacting everyday religious discourse and practice. I also introduce the direction that I want to go in next, looking at the political potential of various philosophies of identity suspension and of the emerging practice of suspended space.

Apparently there were a load of questions that didn’t get asked, so I’ll think about posting responses to them when I get back from this event in Belfast next week.

I thought that posting the programme schedule for the first Subverting the Norm conference (Oct 15-16 2010) might help those at STN2 put the conference in the context of its development from STN1.

On Saturday, I asked how our intended aim of bringing together academics and practitioners had been reflected in the format of both STN1 and STN2, looking ahead to what STN3 might look like in this regard. Yesterday, I wrote about how questions about diversity emerged from STN2. Today’s post will look at the issue of politics, but it will also link back to the two previous posts – in order to continue reflecting on the Subverting the Norm conference series as a whole.

For some reason, it seems that I didn’t post anything on my old blog after returning from STN1 in October 2010. That was probably partly to do with being jetlagged when I came home, but also probably partly to do with a couple of negative experiences at STN1 (most likely made worse on reflection by jetlag!). I already wrote yesterday about how rubbish I felt about my contributions to the roundtable discussion that I took part in. But I also felt patronised by a mature, male PhD student, and had to then be defended by another male PhD student (‘she has got a PhD, you know’).

But in thinking about STN1, I also know that I met some great new people (including Emily Bowen, Matt Gallion, Jeff Robbins, Chris Rodkey, and Phil Snider), finally connected with some people I’d met online (including Adam Moore), and got to spend more time with people I already knew (like Jack Caputo, Chad Lakies, and Pete Rollins). I think that my plenary presentation on Slavoj Zizek’s pneumatology went well. And it was great to see a US example of ‘transformance art’, in the VOID collective’s ‘Revival!’.

Anyway, after searching through piles of notebooks, I found the notes I’d taken from STN1 and Jeff Robbins and Chris Rodkey’s presentation stood out in light of a couple of online conversations about STN2 and the question of politics.

Jeff and Chris’ plenary presentation (and the first presentation of STN1) was entitled, ‘An Emerging Radical Theology: On Politics and Ecclesiology’. (From my notes, I think they were largely referring to both death-of-God theology and deconstructive theology).

In it, Jeff asserted the ‘failure’ of radical theology to influence either wider culture or religious practice. He then stated (and I have this in quotation marks in my notes):

The failure of radical theology is that it has been insufficiently political; there is no radical political theology.

Chris then echoed this by claiming that radical theology has also failed because it is not ecclesiological enough.

Although the theme for STN2 emerged from discussions on Twitter about the relationship between radical theology and ‘confessional theology’ (and Jack’s keynote addressed this a little), as I think about it now, it also feels a little like STN2 took up Chris’ challenge, to explore how radical theology might be ecclesiological, by asking ‘Can postmodern theology live in the churches?’

Perhaps, then, STN3 can take up Jeff’s challenge, to explore how radical theology might be political?

I’m in the middle of completing a funding application for an Irish Research Council (IRC) post-doctoral research fellowship (2 years), based at the Belfast campus of Trinity College Dublin’s Irish School of Ecumemics. The project brings back together a more philosophical study of the suspension and potentiality of being of my research interests (which I focused on here for this - unsuccessful - PhD in Philosophy application) with the empirical study of the emerging church practice of identity suspension in ‘suspended space’ to examine their potential to affect socio-political transformation.

If successful in my application, the project would be mentored by Gladys Ganiel, Assistant Professor in Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation, and Ireland’s foremost expert on the emerging church.

The project is entitled, ‘Saint Paul, the Emerging Church, and the Politics of Identity Suspension: Exploring New Religious Approaches to Socio-Political Transformation’, and here’s some of the proposal I’ve been putting together:

Abstract

Contemporary philosophical interpretations of Saint Paul argue against identity politics and standpoint epistemologies in favour of a generic humanity or universal humanism. For philosophers such as Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek, identity politics fragments humanity into special interest groups competing for recognition within the existing social system, thereby weakening possibilities for political resistance and collective action. Elements of the ‘emerging church’ – a diverse, transnational milieu exploring Christian belief, faith and life in conversation with both inherited traditions and contemporary cultures – seek to embody insights from philosophers like Badiou and Žižek in their lived, everyday practices.

This is the first project to ask how elements within a small but burgeoning religious movement are gathering around the religious turn in radical political thought and what its implications might be for the relationship between religion, identity, and socio-political transformation.

Bringing recent scholarship on Paul together with a focused, ethnographic study of Ikon, Belfast, and Ikon, New York City (NYC), this approach is in contrast to much of the current literature on emerging Christianity, which portrays it as the contextualisation of church structures and mission forms, thereby domesticating the radicality of the emerging theologies and practices that are the focus of my research. Instead, I argue that radical collectives within this milieu should be more properly understood as forming part of a wider political movement.

I heard today that my funding application for a PhD in Philosophy at Oxford Brookes was unsuccessful. I’d been so hopeful that I’d be able to have a nice three year chunk of time to study continental philosophy, philosophical interpretations of Saint Paul, the notions of suspension and potentiality, feminist philosophy of religion, and critiques of identity politics. Not to mention three years when my husband and I would finally, finally, know what was happening in our lives. Sigh. I’m really disappointed.

The feedback from the shortlisting panel was that they were ‘very impressed with the quality of [my proposal’s] structure and the richness of its content’. But that, after much discussion, they thought my application ‘had the character of a proposal for a research project which included a monograph rather than [for] a postgraduate research studentship as commonly understood’.

So, in essence, it seems like my proposal was too good.

But Bev Clack and the head of the History, Philosophy and Religion department seem keen to meet up to talk about writing a post-doctoral funding application, and they seem genuine rather than just being placatory after disappointing me about the PhD in Philosophy. So we’ll see what comes of that.

Still no money. 

But at least there’s another funding bid on the horizon.

To celebrate three years of unemployment since I finished my PhD in Religious Studies, I’m applying for a second doctorate, this time in Philosophy, in the History, Philosophy and Religion department at Oxford Brookes University. While this is obviously an attempt to fund my work any way I can, I’ve thought hard about how a PhD in Philosophy will enable me to position myself as a philosopher, as well as a researcher of religion, and I’m really looking forward to working with Bev Clack and gaining more of a grounding in feminist philosophy of religion. As a PhD in Philosophy, my proposal focuses on the philosophical aspects of my work in more detail, leaving aside the empirical study of the emerging church practice of ‘suspended space’ which has been a feature of some of my other research proposals. Here’s some of the final draft:

Introduction

Contemporary philosophical interpretations of Saint Paul argue against identity politics and standpoint epistemologies in favour of a generic humanity or universal humanism. For philosophers such as Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek, identity politics fragments humanity into special interest groups competing for recognition within the existing social system, thereby weakening possibilities for political resistance and collective action. However, feminist approaches to religion and politics have traditionally utilised identity politics and standpoint epistemologies in both scholarship and activism. This project asks what a political, feminist philosophy of religion might look like against the backdrop of this ‘turn to Paul’, by examining the relationship between these readings of Paul’s Letters, on the one hand, and feminist philosophy of religion, political philosophy, and approaches to the study of Paul, on the other.

“There’s nothing else possible now”.

“Then let’s wish for the impossible”.

Alain Badiou, The Incident at Antioch: A Tragedy in Three Acts, p. 5.

“Emancipatory politics always consists in making seem possible precisely that which, from within the situation, is declared to be impossible”.

Alain Badiou, Ethics, p. 121.

“The possibility of the impossible is the basis of politics”.

Alain Badiou, Can Politics be Thought? p. 78.

I’ve been trying to get a post-doc project funded for a while now - on identity politics, secular philosophical interpretations of Saint Paul and emerging Christianity (see, for example, this post about it, here). Over the last month, I’ve been mulling over a way of combining this previous idea with more of a focus in the feminist philosophy of religion. Here’s what I’ve come up with:

Research Title

Ir/Religion and Society: Saint Paul and the Philosophy of Identity Suspension

Introduction

This project examines the relationship between contemporary philosophical interpretations of Paul’s Letters (Giorgio Agamben, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, etc), which argue against identity politics and standpoint epistemologies in favour of a generic humanity or universal humanism, and feminist philosophy of religion and approaches to the study of Saint Paul. It contributes in particular to knowledge of the relationship between philosophy of religion and lived or material religious practices, as well as to debates about political subjectivity and collective political action.

“My atheism gets on in the churches, all the churches, do you understand that?” -- Jacques Derrida

Subverting the Norm — a two-day event that brings together pastors, theologians, philosophers, church practitioners, and researchers in religion — asks a follow-up question:Can postmodern theology live in the churches? As such, we are interested in presentations that explore the relationship between radical theologies and the church.

Checking my emails to see if Bristol have made a decision after my interview today, I got a message from Gordon Lynch to say that the University of Kent aren’t going to support my research proposal in this round of applications to the Leverhulme Trust, which is a real blow. He said, “Your academic CV was recognised as very impressive, but on this occasion it was felt that other applicants with very strong research backgrounds had projects which were more likely to be funded through this particular scheme.” I’d really hoped that Ward Blanton’s new position there would mean that my project on Saint Paul and identity politics would be really attractive to them. I guess it was, but that it wouldn’t be to Leverhulme. This means that if I don’t get the permanent Bristol position, I no longer have the consolation that I might still get a three-year research position at Kent.

I really enjoyed my interview day at Bristol today.

Yesterday I felt really sick and nervous because I really want this job opportunity to work out. I’d love to be based near my immediate family and many of my school friends, but the more I researched the department itself the more connections I found between the expertise and interests of the staff members and my own aspirations for both teaching and research. In particular, the Department has strengths in philosophical and theological reflection on religious concepts as well as in textual studies, which connects with my work on the notions of truth and subjectivity and my focus on Paul’s letters. They also have the Centre for Christianity and Culture, where my work on emerging Christianity would neatly fit. Also, Bristol has two university-wide research themes that my future research on the reception of Paul’s letters amongst contemporary continental philosophers and on implications for identity politics would contribute towards (Identities and Reception). My work with the “Philosophy and Religious Practice” Impact Network would also contribute to reception studies, since our impact events will explore theories for understanding and methods for measuring the reception of philosophical texts within faith communities.

But the day went great. I felt relaxed and confident, able to articulate myself properly and to show my sense of humour. During my presentation (on “Zizek and Actually Existing Christianity”), the staff and students were really receptive to my research and really interested that I’m holding philosophy of religion together with religious studies. Rita Langer was especially passionate about trying to get undergraduate students to connect the study of texts with the study of how faith communities use texts and about encouraging them to undertake fieldwork. I also really liked chatting with Carolyn Muessig about her research on medieval female mystics and stigmata, since I did work during my Masters degree on a mystic called Benedetta Carlini (she was the topic of my very first conference paper!). And I thought Rupert Gethin’s work on Buddhism, the philosophy of the mind, and mental health would make him a great speaker for our forthcoming “Philosophy and Religious Practices” Network event on “Buddhism and Human Flourishing”. I also really enjoyed talking with a number of other staff, including George Ferzoco, Jonathan Campell and Jon Balserak, as well as some of the department’s current and recent research students.

I usually dread the “interview by lunch” portion of the day, but the staff all seemed really friendly and warm. So now I’m feeling even more nervous, because I really want to work with all these lovely people! 

In preparation for my interview at Bristol, I’m drafting outlines for undergraduate and postgraduate modules in philosophy of religion and ethics and writing handouts about my impact work (as the “Philosophy and Religious Practices” network was funded after I was shortlisted).

I’ve planned taught units that would enable me to both collaborate with colleagues and supplement existing provision, and I’m really excited about the opportunity to work on them further.

For the undergraduate programmes at Bristol (Religion & Theology, Theology & Philosophy, and Theology & Sociology), I’m going to pitch the following units:

Introduction to Philosophy of Religion (Year 1, 20 credits)

• Enables students to consider some of the key issues in the philosophy of religion, including the relationship between faith and reason; the concept and attributes of God; arguments for the existence of God; the nature of religious knowledge, language and experience; human freedom and the problem of evil; human identity, death and the afterlife; and the possibility of divine action in the world.
• Stretches students’ understanding of philosophy of religion (which students may have studied at A Level) through a deeper exploration of the Greek and medieval philosophical backgrounds to this discipline and encouraging the use of key primary texts. 
• Challenges students’ preconceptions of the philosophy of religion by introducing alternative approaches, including theories of religion; feminist philosophy of religion; continental philosophy of religion; and philosophical issues in world religions.

Texts include Copan, Philosophy of Religion; Classic and Contemporary Issues (Willey-Blackwell, 2007); Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion (Routledge, 2009); Meister and Copan, eds, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion (Routledge, 2012); and Taliaferro and Griffiths, eds, Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (Willey-Blackwell, 2003).

I’ve just sent off my Expression of Interest to Gordon Lynch at the University of Kent, which is a kind of application to apply through Kent to the Leverhulme Trust for a three year Early Career Fellowship. My proposed project is entitled “Saint Paul and the Politics of Identity Suspension”, so I’m really excited that Ward Blanton will be moving to Kent in January. He’s really interested in my project and hopes it gets funded. Fingers crossed others in the department agree and that I get to apply to the Leverhulme Trust through them. Here’s the proposal:

Having driven down to my Mum’s to celebrate her 60th birthday, I just got an email saying I didn’t get the Nijmegen post-doc job on Paul and continental philosophy. I’m really disappointed. It was such a good fit with my own research experience and trajectory. Gutted. Apparently another candidate had “a better profile” for Nijmegen, whatever that means. I thought I performed okay in the interview, although there was one academic there who just look like he found everything amusing all the time which unnerved me quite a lot. 

I’ve been quiet this last few weeks as I’ve been preparing for a job interview. I’m off to Radboud University in the Netherlands today, where I’ve got an interview for a post-doc position in Theology and Philosophy, working on a project on faith and reason in Paul’s Letters and continental philosophy. The post-doc sub-project is on how readings of Saint Paul enable reassessments of the notions of attestation and conviction, as well as related concepts like truth by Heidegger, Derrida, Agamben, Badiou and Ricoeur. I’m really excited about this project and really hope I do well in the interview on Thursday. It would be a fantastic opportunity for me. I couldn’t imagine a better post-doc topic unless I wrote it myself, as I’ve already done a lot of work on the concept of truth in European philosophy of religion and philosophical theology, as well as on the relationship between contemporary political philosophy and Saint Paul.