Theological Epistemology in Emergent Church - A Form of Paul Ricoeur's Relational Attestation.pdf

8/14/2019 Theological Epistemology in Emergent Church - A Form of Paul Ricoeur's Relational Attestation.pdf

1/23

1

Theological Epistemology in The Emergent Church:A Form of Paul Ricoeur's Relational Attestation

Callid [email protected]

Boston University School of Theology

This paper is an effort to employ Paul Ricoeur's conception of attestationfor the

purposes of categorizing and focusing a maor thematic element of the discourse !ithin

the emergent church"1# suggest that a num$er of social and theological practices !ithin

the emergent church function so as to reveal that the primary form of interpretive !or%

$eing engaged in is that of attestation" &s a peculiar( type of poetic) hermeneutical

%no!ing) attestation is a rich resource for e*ploring of the !ays in !hich individuals and

communities practice naming +od and e*periences of the ,ivine"

# intend to provide t!o primary outcomes $y reading some of the emergent church's

practices through the lens of Ricoeur" irst) # suggest that more than ust a social

phenomenon) in their radical emphasis upon relationality) emergent church participants

em$ody a category of %no!ing !hich is $oth distinct from traditions rooted in ,escartes)

and one !hich can $e systematically considered !ithout demanding an a$solute

articulation of theological certainty" Second) # offer that over and against more

1 # am !ell a!are of the pro$lematic nature of referring to the .mergent Church( using the definitearticle and the compounded pro$lem of assuming that this linguistically unified category then hassuch a thing as a position( on anything" Regardless) # !ill proceed in spite of this) hoping that myattempts at descriptive categorization are sufficient for at least some large portion of those !ho

!ould identify as part of the emerging church or the emergent church conversation/s0" or thoseloo%ing for a more detailed contrast and comparison regarding the various interpretations on thenature and e*tent of !hat e*actly it is that the emergent church is) # particularly commend thesecond chapter of +raeme ancourt's 1234 $oo%) Brand New Church?) !hich does a very good o$ ofculling together most of the availa$le secondary literature on topic"

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church Eplorations


2/23

2

ontotheological truth-claims) attestational %no!ing( is perfectly suited for a Christian

theological epistemology 7 especially as is commonly articulated in emergent church

circles 7 $ecause of its inherently relational and incarnational 8ualities"

# $egin $y discussing Ricoeur's concept of attestation) e*plicating the idea 7 !hich

he primarily employs in the conte*t of addressing su$ectivity 7 and ho! it is $roadly

applica$le to epistemological conversations as !ell" # then pause the conversation

pertaining to Ricoeur and move into a section $riefly conte*tualizing my o!n involvement

!ith the emergent church" 9oving from this framing # e*amine several articulations of

emergent church theology)( proposing a schema !hich # suggest is $roadly descriptive of

the epistemological position of many participants in emergent church conversation" # then

return to the previously paused conversation) sho!ing ho! the schema developed can $e

sho!n to $e highly resonant !ith the attestation model" # conclude !ith an argument as to

!hy the category of attestation might $e a useful interpretive and categorical tool in the

emergent church conte*t) pointing to the !ays in !hich it clarifies and intensifies its

tendencies to!ard relationality and social ustice !hile simultaneously suggesting a more

rigorous frame!or% for assessing theological developments"

Attestation and its Implications

#t is $eyond the scope of a piece of this length to !or% through the minutely precise)

incremental) and systematic thought of Ricoeur" #ndeed) anyone !ho has spent any

significant time !ith a Ricoeur te*t !ill %no! it is laugha$le to attempt to trace the fullness



3/23

3

of his arguments !hile attempting to do much of anything else at all" #nstead) # !ill s%etch

the $road contours of Ricoeur's position regarding attestation) slightly conte*tualize it so

as to clarify its location) and then dra! parallels to that contour line"

&s a specific term of interest) attestation( arises most profoundly in the Tenth

Study of Ricoeur's !neself as Another. 9ore $roadly though) and as !ill $e sho!n) topics

of similar content can $e found throughout his !or% on testimony and hermeneutics"

#ndeed) the issue leading to the development of attestation as a category is one !ith !hich

Ricoeur !as perennially grappling6 namely) if !e must choose $et!een philosophy of

a$solute %no!ledge and the hermeneutics of testimony( /Ricoeur 3:;2) 3ith attestation

he is trying to allo! for a discussion of the a$solute $y means of a type hermeneutics that

calls for constant revision and reassessment even !hile it al!ays 7 and purposefully so 7

falls short of the claims of an ontological necessity of the 5ther

1

"

1 Ricoeur is clear that !hile as a person he may !ell have faith commitments hisphilosoph" as suchremains necessarily agnostic"( #n the closing pages of !neself as&nother he cedes this point directly)noting that) Perhaps the philosopher as philosopher has to admit that one does not %no! andcannot say !hether this 5ther) the source of the inunction) is another person !hom # can loo% inthe face or !ho can stare at me) or my ancestors for !hom there is no representation) to so great ane*tent does my de$t to them constitute my very self) or +od?living +od) a$sent +od?or an emptyplace" >ith this aporia of the 5ther) philosophical discourse comes to an end( /Ricoeur 3::1) 4


4/23

4

@RicoeurA sta%es out a position $et!een ,escartes and ietzsche) Kant and egel"""#t reects the hegemony of a$solutist reason that eliminates the mystery andtranscendence of religion from one perspective and a s%eptical) even nihilist

position) from another perspective that also eliminates transcendence""" #n pointingto!ards a postcritical conviction#he reected the alternatives of o$ectivism andrelativism""" as part of the false dilemma of modernity $ut pointed to a genuine)al$eit hermeneutical) %no!ledge /Stiver 1231) 3140"

&ttestation is the result of Ricoeur detailing a strategy to help deDne the sort of

certainty that hermeneutics may claim)( a method that is critical $oth of the epistemic

e*altation of the cogitoin ,escartes( as !ell as the cogito's $humiliation in ietzsche and

his successors(/Ricoeur 3::1) 130" Situating attestation as a hermeneutic response to the

epistemologies of ,escartes and ietzsche) he !rites that it re8uires less than one and

more than the other( /#$id"0" #t is a method for a type of philosophy in !hich the 8uestion

of the a$solute is a proper 8uestion) a philosophy !hich see%s to oin an e*perience of the

a$solute to the idea of the a$solute( /Ricoeur 3:;2) 33:0"

Ricoeur sets up the analogy that ust as %no!ledge is tied together !ith truth""" so is

attestation !ith truthfulness( /Eythgoe :0" o!ever) rather than address the apparent issue

at hand directly 7 that is) rather than $egin $y discussing the nature of %no!ledge or

epistemological ustification 7 in a move that is typical of Ricoeur) he steps $ac% to suggest

that the proper site of initial in8uiry is actually one !hich undergirds any pro$lematic

concern !ith %no!ledge6 su$ectivity and the self)( or more particularly) one's self as an

5ther"



5/23

5

#nterdependent Su$ectivity

ollo!ing the hermeneutic heuristic that interpretation goes all the !ay do!n)( for

Ricoeur) selfhood is a tas% not a given( /Stiver 1223) 1220" That is) the Ricoeurian Su$ect(

!hich can possess %no!ledge of the >orld( outside of itself is itself an action.Rather

than posit the human !ill as a sovereign) 'noumenal' freedom)( Ricoeur is clear he

understands it to $e incarnate) that is) em$odied) freedom( /all) 120" urthermore) the

primary 8uality of this su$ect's freedom is not its independence $ut its interdependence)

that is) it is the %ind of freedom open to incarnate agents as initiative) that is) as the a$ility

to initiate a series of events !ithin a causal structure""" @#Anitiative is the nature of human

activity( /#$id"0"

Ricoeur's Su$ect is necessarily a su$ect-in-the-!orld( and $eing in-the-!orld(

entails materiality) historical conte*t) and /narrated0 action through time" 5r) in Ricoeur's

language) attestation is the movement from the certainty of $eing the author of oneFs o!n

discourse and of oneFs o!n acts( to!ard the conviction of udging !ell and acting !ell in a

momentary and provisional appro*imation of living !ell( /Ricoeur 3::1) 3;20"

&ttestation is mainly attestation of the self" Through attestation the self presentsitself as a $eing !ith the po!er to say) the po!er to do) the po!er to have an identityand to $e responsi$le for its actions""" ere !e have the epistemological sense ofattestation !hich helps to ans!er the 8uestion6 >hat %ind of %no!ledge does the

self have a$out itself= The self is thus the $eing that is certain that it is an agent anda patient" o!ever) attestation also has an ontological import and in that sense itcan $e defined as the assurance 7 the credence and the trust 7 of e*isting in themode of selfhood"( #n this sense attestation helps to ans!er the 8uestion6 >ho isthe self=( The self is the confidence of e*isting in the mode of selfhood" >hat dothese t!o senses have in common= #n $oth cases it is a confidence) a trust) acredence) $ut in a sense other than that of a scientific certainty" &s !e can see)attestation possesses a very peculiar epistemological status /Kaufmann


6/23

6

&s Kaufmann helpfully points out there are at least t!o significant implications regarding

attestation and su$ectivity" irst) that the self is the confidence of e*isting in a mode of

selfhood)( and second) that the self is that !hich is an agent and a patient"( .*perientially)

it is $y acting and suffering in and !ith the !orld /including others0 that the su$ect arises"

&t no time) ho!ever) does the self %no!( itself as a self as such" #t has only a confidence) a

trust) a credence)( and this is sufficient for a sense of selfhood" #n response to the vast !a%e

of ,escartesFs epistemology and ietzsche's response to it) Ricoeur specifically constructs

a sense of self that does notre8uire a concept of a prioriselfhood !hose essence precedes

its e*istence"

Because ,escartes needed his su$ect to $e the point of origin and the guarantor of

the certainty of %no!ledge( so as to argumentatively overcome the hypothetical demon

controlling his sense-perception) he had to resort to the guarantee of +od's veracity)

verified $y the proofs for the e*istence of +od( /Gan ,en engel) HI20" Ricoeur's

attestation ma%es no claims to any such certainty"

The self) in other !ords) e*ists as a $elief) as a JfianceJ as an assurance oftruthfulness" Ricoeur calls it a Jmode al%thi&ueJa truthful mode) !hich e*presses notso much J# $elieve that"""J $ut) as in the creedal formula) J# $elieve inJ #nattestation the self e*presses the assurance that) in spite of suspicion) meaning andthe self are possi$le" Truth here is not necessarily verifia$le truth /Gan ,en engel)HI30"

5f particular concern for my consideration of attestation is the !ay that Ricoeur

addresses the relationship of %no!ledge) $elief) dou$t) and suspicion" Because no proper

and direct claim to truth is made in attestation) it is not categorically something !hich one



7/23

7

counters or refutes4" That is) if # attest to love for my daughter) ahar) there is no direct

means of ustifying that claim" 9oreover) Ricoeur says that it is not merely that # have

made some truth-claim !hich is unverifia$le) $ut that in attesting to it) # am doing

something categorically different than claiming to %no! # love her" #n my attestation # am

saying that # trust that !hat # e*perience in doing and saying !hat # identify is love is love"

# cannot verify this) $ut # attest to it" #n this sense) attestation is a !ea% type of assertion6 it

is forthrightly uncertain and !holly a!are of the contingency of the spea%er's situatedness

in the !orld" &s as result of its epistemological humility) it is al!ays vulnera$le and

this vulnera$ility !ill $e e*pressed in the permanent threat of suspicion) if !e allo!that suspicion is the specific contrary of attestation" The %inship $et!eenattestation and testimony is verified here6 there is no true( testimony !ithoutfalse( testimony" But there is no recourse against false testimony than another thatis more credi$leL and there is no recourse against suspicion $ut a more relia$leattestation /Ricoeur 3::1) 110"

.ven in its vulnera$ility though) there is no outright procedure that may allo! us to reect

a suspicious $elief)( merely !ays in !hich attestations seem more /or less0 fully oriented

and e*pressed to!ard truthfulness /Eythgoe) :0" urthermore) not only are !e ustified in

our suspicion of attestational claims) $ut suspicion itself is constitutie of attestation"

Suspicion is not simply the contrary of attestation"""@$utA also the path to!ards) the

crossing !ithin attestation" #t haunts attestation( /Ricoeur 3::1) 410"

3 In his essay, "Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation," Ricoeur is clear that his hermeneutical approach

to philosophy opposes not only the notion of an autonomy of the thinking subect, but also, more broadly, any

!concept of reason which claims to be its own master and transparent to itself #Ricoeur 1$%&, ''()



8/23

8

ragile-Self .thics and .pistemology

ollo!ing from the a$ove) !e are rightfully suspicious of our attestational claims

$ecause as claims made $y a su$ect-in-the-!orld they are statements of faith) and faith in

something entails an un%no!ing /cf" e$" 33"30" Thus) $arring direct divine intervention

andMor the permanent and complete arrival of the eschaton) attestational claims cannot $e

su$stantiated $y proof as such" #nstead) they $ecome more /or less0 seemingly oriented

to!ard truthfulness as they are supported /or not0 $y further action and speech6

attestation impels action-in-the-!orld as needed to corro$orate the claims made" That is)

attestation is the self in its commitment to the !orld( /Gan ,en engel HI30"

Put another !ay) e*cepting situations of psychopathology) !e do not dou(t that !e

can act) spea%) or respond toMin the !orld" >e might very !ell $e suspicious of the

appropriateness of our actions) language) and responsiveness) $ut !e do not dou$t our

capacity to enact them" or Ricoeur it is precisely this suspicion of insufficiency that helps

us move from a certain-$ut-disem$odied su$ect to!ard self-in-the-!orld) indeed) a

social self( /Stiver 1231) 3110" The attested-to self is fragile $ecause it depends on 5therness

Jto so intimate a degree that the one cannot $e thought !ithout the other) that one passes

rather into the other) as one !ould say in egelian languageJ /Ricoeur 3::1) 3H0"

Thus it is that Self( is $est understood as one self as an other)( in dialogue and

interdependence) mutually calling upon one another such that the ethical enoinder arises

not from a Eevinasian &$solute 5ther) $ut from !ithin the fragility of the Self oined !ith

another" #n fact) this overlap is perhaps !hy Ricoeur routinely asserts the importance of



9/23

9

poetic discourse for communicating the nature of su$ectivity and the a$solute" Nust as the

%no!ing self is simultaneously not-self)Hit is the case that hermeneutic %no!ledge is a

form of seeing-as and saying-as" &ttestation) then) suggests that

there is a !ay of $eing in relation to reality that is more fundamental than the modethat constructs the self as a udging su$ect essentially separated from a !orld ofo$ects under its gaze" #t is to this more originary !ay of $eing that poetic discourserefers" Poetic reference is counterintuitive for moderns $ecause !e have em$racedan epistemology that %eeps us closed off from the realities to !hich poetic discoursegives access /Pape) O;0"

#n his !ounding of the Cartesian cogito)( Ricoeur ma%es the demarcation $et!een Self

and 5ther more porous" 5ne of the conse8uences of this is an epistemological opening to

the realities to !hich poetic discourse gives access"( #n turn) once access has $een granted)

poetic discourse""" calls into 8uestion the reduction of the referential function to

descriptive discourse and opens the Deld of a nondescriptive reference to the !orld(

/Ricoeur 3::


10/23

10

#n advocating for a model that encompasses an articulation of the peculiar( type of

hermeneutical %no!ledge that attestation $rings) Ricoeur not only manages to settle

himself $et!een ,escartes and ietzsche and Kant and egel) $ut also upon !hat 9artin

Bu$er called the narro! ridge( $et!een the gulfs !here there is no sureness of

e*pressi$le %no!ledge $ut the certainty of meeting !hat remains undisclosed( /Bu$er)

3;H0" &ttestation insists upon the su$ect's e*istence as $eing at least co-causal !ith the

5ther and suggests that constitutive of its very nature is a call from the 5ther recognized

$ecause it is that same 5ther !hich co-causes the Self to $e" &s language e*pressed $est in

poetic discourse) attestation challenges our criterion of %no!ledge and affirms the

importance of our $elonging-to the !orld and to each other"

The Emergent Church

To $egin this section it is !orth situating myself in the conte*t of the .mergent

Church as # understand myself to $e a participant in it via a num$er of entry points" #

identify as emergent through my association !ith a denominational grouping of

Convergent riends( !ithin ua%erism) regular participation at .mergent Gillage events)

and the online communities encompassing .mergent Cohort Eeaders) listeners of the

ome$re!ed Christianity Podcast) and the Trans5R9 net!or%" Thus) !hile # !ill

sparsely cite some te*tual references for claims # ma%e a$out the nature of the emergent

church and its theological orientation) # have underta%en no thorough sociological in8uiry

$eyond hundreds of personal conversations) email e*changes) lectures) and t!eets"



11/23

11

The PR#S9 Schema

>hat # intend to do here is to provide a descriptive frame!or% that ade8uately

captures the theological foci of a $road section of those !ho !ould self-identify as

someho! part of the emergent church" or the sa%e of $revity # !ill cite $rief e*cerpts from

a num$er of te*ts a$out /or used $y0 the emergent church that pertain to this topic and

then reflect on them together as a grouping" Gia that reflection # !ill suggest a $road tool-

$y-!ay-of-language intended to help more succinctly categorize the area/s0 of concern for

emergent church participants"

@TAhe emerging movement calls the church to reect modernism and em$race thepostmodern proect of deconstructing the .nlightenment" Though most are nothard postmodernists 7 that is) they still $elieve in revelation 7 they value thenegative proect of postmodernism6 the part that dismantles rationalism(/Belcher)H20"

@TAhe .merging Church !as founded to get the evangelical church to ta%e art)social ustice and other !hat might $e considered progressive issues more seriously(

/Bailey0"

@Aor almost everyone !ithin the movement) this !or%s out in an emphasis onfeelings and affections over against linear thought and rationalityL on e*perienceover against truthL on inclusion over against e*clusionL on participation over againstindividualism and the heroic loner(/Carson) 1:0"

#n a centered-set church it is recognized that !e are all sinners) all struggling to $ethe $est people !e can $e" But !e also $elieve that the closer one gets to the center/Christ0) the more Christli%e oneFs $ehavior should $ecome""" o one is considered

un!orthy of $elonging $ecause they happen to $e addicted to to$acco) or $ecausetheyFre not married to their live-in partner( /rost Q irsch) H:0"

The emerging church is an irreverent ne! !ave of grassroots ecumenism)propelled from !ithin lo! church Protestantism $y a mi* of longing) curiosity anddiscontent" #t cares not for institutional protocols) $eing engendered $y 'innovationand e*perimentation""" in response to the Spirit's prompting'( /+ay) :4-H0"



12/23

12

.mergent Gillage is""" a net!or% of Christians see%ing to find authentic e*pressionsof the gospel in the t!enty-first century""" 9any o$servers $elieve that Christianinstitutions are losing relevance outside their o!n structures" #nstead of reacting

negatively to this development) emergent churches em$race a future that is open-ended""" ,ra!ing on 'post-modern' philosophy and literary theory) emergencetheologians and pastors see% to dismantle those church structures that impedefaithful living( /&t!ood0"

>hile there are certainly other !ays in !hich the emergent church might $e

categorized) $ased on my o!n e*perience 7 present here $y pro*y and in condensed form

via the selections a$ove 7 # !ant to propose the acronym PR#S9 to identify the primary

domains of engagement for those in the emergent church"

ersonal .*pression Communal ,isciplineRealized .schatology 9illenialismInnovation TraditionSocial Nustice Personal Piety!ystery Certainty

Rather than vie! these domains as a chec%list) # see them more as a heuristic

assessment tool" That is) it is not that someone has to have a mar%ed personal investment

in Personal .*pression) Realized .schatology) Theological #nnovation) etc" to count as

.mergent)( $ut rather that most people !ho !ould identify as emergent are often

concernedMinvested in issues and discussion pertaining to the tensions $et!een the

freedom for personal e*pression versus the desire to $e part of a strong community etc"

urthermore) # !ould additionally specify that the maority of those in the emergent

church !ould tend to!ard the left-hand side of that list /hence using PR#S9 and not

C9TPC0) $ut again) it is not meant to serve as a strict litmus test6 the primary mar%er of

the model for identification purposes is engagement in interactionMdialogueMprayer



13/23

13

around issues pertaining to the five continua) not a particular doctrinal position"

&n &ttestational Church=

# !ould li%e to $egin this section $y noting that # am certainly not the first to

connect Ricoeur's thought !ith that of the .mergent Church" & num$er of other thin%ers hat ,oes the Postmodern Turn Contri$ute to theChristian Passion for Nustice=(!here he addresses Ricoeur as developing a hermeneutic ofhumilityL(and Peter Rollins' )he Fidelit" of Betra"al) !hich) !hile it does not cite Ricoeur directly)does have an an entire su$-section /H


14/23

14

attestation and its implications as previously addressed"

>hile Ricoeur's framing of attestation is primarily an attempt to address

/inter0su$ectivity) # thin% that its gesture 7 and its epistemological conse8uences 7 are

more than slightly applica$le to issues regarding the naming of +od and ho! !e might

more fruitfully understand the category of religious %no!ledge( and the areas of concern

for the emergent church" Consider first the tension $et!een personal e*pression and

communal discipline" This domain is engaged e*plicitly $y the conversation surrounding

attestation) recognition) and mutuality

That attestation is mediated through recognition $ecomes even more clear !hen !eloo% up the topic of mutual recognition" Ricoeur states that the capacities need to$e recognized $y others in order that !e may attest to them" This is so) $ecausecapacities are $asically social capacities" Thus) it is not enough for attestation to $emediated $y a simple self-recognition of capacities) $ut it needs to $e mediated $ythe recognition of the other" That recognition is in need of social mediation $yothers in order to attest to oneFs o!n capacities can $e easily seen $y noting thatcapacities are mainly social capacities /Kaufmann 14


15/23

15

$ound up !ith the veracity of attestation( /Ricoeur 3::1) 4H30)

The Christian is someone !ho discerns conformity to the image of Christ( in the

call of conscience" This discernment is an interpretation" &nd this interpretation isthe outcome of a struggle for veracity and intellectual honesty" & synthesis( is notgiven and never attained $et!een the verdict of conscience and thechristomorphism of faith" &ny synthesis remains a ris%) a lovely ris%( /Ricoeur 3::


16/23

16

epistemology6 some trace of that !hich is come 7 $e it eschaton or hermeneutic 7 is

already present at hand !aiting to unfold" That does not mean that Ricoeur denies an

ontological realityO7 or a fully realized eschaton 7 rather) through interpretation and

attestation) the one !ho attests unfolds a previously unnoticed reality in front of( the te*t

of her life) living into it al!ays a!are that it is not final) that it is !orth $eing suspicious of)

and that its calls for the 5ther to testify to its truthfulness"

The testimony of Christ is his !or%s) his suffering) and the testimony of the discipleis) analogously) his suffering" & strange hermeneutic circle is set in motionL thecircle of 9anifestation and of Suffering" The martyr proves nothing) !e say) $ut atruth !hich is not strong enough to lead a man to sacrifice lac%s proof( /Ricoeur3:;2) 3HO0"

This is is not the ietzschean claim that all that e*ists consists of interpretation(

/)he -ill to Power) &ph" H;30) !hich asserts something a$out ontology /or its lac%0) $ut

something li%e its soft reversal6 !hether e*perience) tradition) scripture) or reason) !e

interpret all that e*ists) never settling on proof $ut coming to see that something

su$stantially enough appearsto $e the case that !e have confidence in attesting to its

truthfulness"

#n the conte*t of religious %no!ledge) this means that even e*perience is mediated

$y hermeneutics) suggesting that for the purposes of technical precision in theological

- In regards to Ricoeur.s ontology in Oneself as Another,/amela 0ue nderson rightly notes that !Ricoeur

elaborates a partial ontology on the basis of a hermeneutics of an acting and suffering self) The ontology is called

partial because, unlike Hegel.s, it is supposed to be unfulfilled2 that is, the two aspects of self, acting and

suffering, remain in tension without being brought together in an ontology that would culminate in a final

synthesis of sameness and otherness) This tension in Ricoeur.s hermeneutics of selfhood creates endless aporia

for the self who is not simply passive in being determined by the other nor fully active in autonomouslydetermining oneself) Instead, selfhood must confront both responsibility in action and uncertainty in reception of

the ineplicably given) That is, Ricoeur does deny a fufilled ontological claim, but in a way that that keeps the

4uestion in view, not one that disregards the category entirely)



17/23

17

epistemology it is perhaps $est not to discuss an e*perience of +od)( $ut our

interpretation of an e*perience of +od"( &s rancis Schssler iorenza !rites) even

e*periences of transcendence""" ta%e place !ithin a living tradition""" and it its narrative

and rituals has imprinted the religious imagination of a specific community that has

socialized the mem$ers of that community in specific !ay of living and e*periencing(

/iorenza) 3;40" This is also precisely Ricoeur's insight6 even our o!n su$ectivity and

epistemology is conte*tualized $y our historical situatedness" This language of

attestation)the language of testimony) !itness) and martyrdom 7 rather than sense)

reference) and meaning)( represents a more nearly appropriate idiom for Christians !hen

it comes to their self-descriptions of truth and truth-telling( /odor 44;0"

>e attest not in an attempt at detailed positivism) $ut to!ard !hat iorenza calls a

hermeneutical e*perience of transcendence""" @!hichA see%s to ta%e into account the

interpretive milieu of that e*perience and its ethical responsi$ility( /iorenza 3;4-H0" #n

this paradigm) conversations pertaining to the tension/s0 $et!een novelty and tradition

are not only !elcome) $ut essential" >e must continue to reassess and revise our

interpretations of e*perience $ecause other than in the eschaton) the veracity of

attestation's truthfulness is only $orne out in further speech and action-in-the-!orld"

&ttestational claims can never rest completed $ecause $ound up in their very nature are

threads of suspicion !hich impel us to further action and investigation"

9y o!n conviction is that !e are al!ays caught in this oscillation $et!een ideologyand utopia""" !e must try to cure the illnesses of utopia $y !hat is !holesome inideology""" and try to cure the rigidity) the petrification) of ideologies $y the utopianelement" #t is too simple a response) though) to say that !e must %eep the dialectic



18/23

18

running" 9y more ultimate ans!er is that !e must let ourselves $e dra!n into thecircle and then must try to ma%e the circle a spiral" >e cannot eliminate from asocial ethics the element of ris%" >e !ager on a certain set of values and then try to

$e consistent !ith themL verification is therefore a 8uestion of our !hole life" oone can escape this /Ricoeur 3:;O) 4310"

#t is in the sense of ever spiraling to!ards a completed-interpretation-never-to-

arrive) the sense in !hich !e ta%e the lovely ris%( on consistency !ith values !e hold dear)

and the sense in !hich attestation affirms the aporetic and poetic that Ricoeur holds

mystery together !ith certainty" #n an oscillation $et!een the e*treme interiority of a

Schleiermacherian feeling( and the e*teriority of Barthian revelation only through +odFs

self-revelation in Nesus Christ) attestation paces a slo!) steady and ris%y spiral to!ard hope

and trust" #t is here that a highly technical and philosophical position might open up to a

vista at !hich an emergent faith might $e a$le to arrive"

Conclusion

About half an hour later or it might have been half a hundred yearslater, for time there is not like time here Lucy stood with her dearfriend, her oldest Narnian friend, the Faun Tumnus, looking down overthe wall of that garden, and seeing all Narnia spread out below... Lucy looked hard at the garden and saw that it was not really agarden at all but a whole world, with its own rivers and woods and seaand mountains. ut they were not strange! she knew them all. "# see,$ she said, "this is still Narnia, and more real and more

beautiful than the Narnia down below. ... # see...world within world,Narnia within Narnia.$ "%es,$ said &r. Tumnus, "like an onion! e'cept that as you continue togo in and in, each circle is larger than the last...$

(.). Lewis, The Last attle, *+



19/23

19

&n act of attestation is $ound up comple*ly !ith a parallel claim of self-

identification" &ttesting to +od is not an affirmation of the positive e*istence of a $eing

!e call +od that e*ists as its o!n su$ect $eing outside of us" Rather) it is an affirmation

that our understanding of our o!n sense of self is $ound up in the understanding of this

5ther" # am reminded of a line from 9eister .c%hart6 # am as sure as # live that nothing is

so near to me as +od" +od is nearer to me than # am to myselfL my e*istence depends on

the nearness and the presence of +od"(

#n their interest and engagement of the domains of PR#S9) emergent church

thin%ers have a ripe opportunity to e*plore the implications for a more sustained reflection

on attestation and its possi$le implications for theological thought" Too often # hear

conversation in the emergent church !hich conflates t!o categories of concern in

theological epistemology6 the e*istence of truth and access to truth" >hat attestation does

is affirm the difference$et!een these concerns !ithout necessitating things li%e a priori

Kantian faculties of universal reason and distinctions $et!een noumena and phenomena"

&ttestation affirms that it does not follo! from the fact that humans have no

independent o$ective access to the truth) that truth must therefore $e a su$ective human

construction" or does it follo! that a lac% of guaranteed and demonstra$le certainty

a$out the truth !e $elieve !e %no! undermines the validity of our natural conviction that

!e do indeed have at least appro*imate %no!ledge of the o$ective truth( /,iller) O;0"

>hat attestational epistemology holds open is the invitation to continue to !or%

!ith one another) enacting a hermeneutic of relationality6 reecting the notion that +od's



20/23

20

nature and movement can ever $e monophonically articulated in full accuracy) yet

nevertheless affirming the possi$ility of meaningful +od-tal% $y means of dialogical

communication" # !ould $e interested in o$serving !hat !ould shift in emergent

conversation if instead of merely mar%ing up the e*terior of traditional claims of

%no!ledge !ith a sufficient 8uantity of dou$t and suspicion to allo! them to pass as

reasona$le !ithin the present %pistme) attestational epistemology !as ta%en up as its

theological lingua franca6 an acceptance of the need to continually see% testimony

supporting the truthfulness of our claims $y means of interpreting our speech) action) and

reception of the !orld" &ttesting that our selves are Christian selves) do !e spea% in the

!orld as !e say Christians do= ,o !e act in the !orld as say Christians do= ,o !e suffer in

the !orld as !e say Christians do= There may $e !or% yet to $e done"""

>orlds !ithin !orlds""" each circle larger than the last"



21/23

21

"i#liography

&nderson) Pamela Sue" &gnosticism and &ttestation6 &n &poria concerning the 5ther in

Ricoeur's !neself as Another)J )he *ournal of Religion.IH6 3" 3::H6 O" Paul Ricoeur and the Poetic 8mperatie6 )he Creatie )ension Between ;oeand *ustice.State University of e! Wor% Press) 122I"

ust!it) N" R" J#s Ricoeur a Process Philosopher= #nterpretation and Becoming"JProcess 3tudies. 4I63) 122;6


22/23

22

Nones) Tony" /,e0constructing Nustice6 >hat ,oes the Postmodern Turn Contri$ute to theChristian Passion for Nustice=( #n The Nustice Proect" Brian 9cEaren) .lisa Padilla)and &shley Bunting See$er /.ds"0" +rand Rapids6 Ba%er Boo%s) 122:"

Kaufmann) Se$astian" JThe &ttestation of the Self as a Bridge Bet!een ermeneutics and5ntology in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur"J /12320" ,issertations /122: -0" Paper4H" http6MMepu$lications"mar8uette"eduMdissertationsXmuM4H

Ee!is) C"S" )he ;ast Battle.e! Wor%6 arperCollins) 3:allace /.d"0" 9inneapolis6 ortresss Press) 3::hich

http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/34http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/34


23/23

23

the #nternet to Unite Churches - in Boston Soon" .piscopal ,ivinity School PressRelease" http6MM!!!"pr!e$"comMreleasesM1233M1Mpr!e$;3H:13:"htm

Stiver) ,an" )heolog" After Ricoeur6 New 1irections in /ermeneutical )heolog".Eouisville) KW6 >estminster Nohn Kno* Press) 1223"

XXXXXXXXX" Ricoeur and )heolog".e! Wor%6 TQT Clar%) 1231"

Gan ,en engel) Nohn" Paul Ricoeur's !neself as Anotherand Practical Theology"(#n )heological 3tudies

Documents

Theological Epistemology in Emergent Church - A Form of Paul Ricoeur's Relational Attestation.pdf