My Smart Friend Dan (a sorta kinda interview. . . if you squint)

My smart frind Dan is in the religion department at Syracuse, specializing in Continental Philosophy and Theology. I'm not sure how many people have heard me mention my smart friend dan in comments or in posts, but here's an excerpt of one of our recent conversations.

---

dufflehead: is there a way you can sum up what you think Christ was about in like a page? was there a political philosophy that Christ was pointing to? or something close?

Dan: Christ dies for contesting various structures of power. Through the experience of resurrection, an indication was given that his actions were affirmed by God. In addition, he identified with both God and "the least of these," and I hold that that indicates an identification of God with "the least of these." So my view is that participating in acts such as those of Christ, more extended and radicalized, is a participation in the divine.

We follow Christ's example to play a role in "bringing low" what Paul called "the Principalities and Powers"

I don't think Jesus had anything like a political philosophy. But that doesn't matter to me. I think it's a fallacy to hold that all Christianity can be is a simple repetition of a carpenter from an imperial backwater and his limited perspective on the world. I think an identification of Jesus with God allows the kind of radicalization and extension of his practices that he himself would never have foreseen

Jesus could never have dreamed of the kind of world we live in, and he was focused almost solely on the Jews. If people want to affirm some kind of "NT Christianity" or "primitive Christianity," then in my view they're going to be extremely disappointed in what they can actually do, say, or believe. Insofar as they actually believe much more, they've gone far beyond "Jesus of Nazareth." But I think that's fine. Christianity involves much more than simply holding to the limited teachings of a Jewish peasant. It has to be, or it is utterly irrelevant.

dufflehead:
ah, ok

Dan:
You have to bear in mind that i am far from "orthodox" in a lot my thought, so it's cool if you disagree

dufflehead:
no, i don't think i disagree. it seems to make a lot of sense, actually. i just need small words.

Dan:
I think Jesus of Nazareth was an advent, not a simple completion, of something powerful, and his followers are responsible for carrying forward that advent. It's risky, there are no sure answers, and we have to take responsibility for what we do with that. But all this slipperiness is, for me, captured well in the very ephemeral image of the "holy spirit," who's as difficult to "grab a hold of" as fire, water, breath, wind, etc. Christianity is, for me, about a risk sort of extension of the advent (pictured by the still forthcoming "coming" of Christ) into an open, risky, and unforeseen future.

That openness and lack of assurance in our actions is precisely what makes us truly responsible for what we do

That's a Derridean theme. Which he takes from Kierkegaard

dufflehead:
what you’re saying seems to make more sense than what i've heard from countless sunday morning (and wednesday nights and sunday nights . . .)

Dan:
But it is freaky. Orthodoxy, assured doctrines, a "finished work" that simply has to be reaffirmed, all give a sort of assurance to life that is lacking in a formulation like mine (and Caputo's). But I would argue that such "assurance" is the opposite of "faith" (another Derridean theme).

dufflehead:
yeah, i can see that

Dan:
On one hand, I will be dogmatic: To be "in Christ" is to challenge structures of domination and oppression. But also non-dogmatic: How do we determine what those are? How do we recognize our own culpability in such structures? What if we're wrong? Etc., Etc. There are no sure answers to these questions

dufflehead:
still makes sense

Dan:
But it's a risk: if the evangelicals are right in their vision of the Gospel, I may be SOL

dufflehead: : )

Dan:
And there are churches and denominations where such views are welcomed and affirmed

dufflehead:
such views being yours?

Dan:
Sure. Not formulated exactly like mine, but open to the formulations of individual church members. Here's a statement of faith we recited at church, which you might like:

"I do not believe God wills hunger and poverty for the planet's children. I do not believe God organizes the death of anyone, young or old. I do not believe God hates our questions and detests our doubts. I do not believe God wishes us to accept anything without debate. I do not believe God likes the status quo that denies people liberty and freedom. I do not believe God is silent about the councils of government. I do not believe God approves what we have done to religion. I do not believe God speaks only through words. I do not believe God can be understood only through the interpretation of scholars. I do not believe God is limited by human description. I do believe God loves us. I believe what I can grasp, and hold, and touch, and also what I cannot grasp but know deep within. I have not seen the empty tomb but I believe in the Risen Christ. I believe. God, help my unbelief. Amen."

---

Let me know what you think about all this. If I can find a Church with that kind of soul, I think I just might start participating in a congregation again.

And, in my opinion, everybody needs a smart friend Dan; somebody that encourages and helps you as you work out your faith. I've got two of them; the other's a nun . . .who's a ninja.