Why should I read DeLeuze?

I listen to a Christian hipster podcast called Homebrewed Christianity. They were recently part of a conference called Subverting the Norm where the topic was radical theology, the theology of people like John Caputo and Peter Rollins. It’s hard to tell what exactly radical theology is claiming about God. It descends from the “God is dead” theology of 50 years ago which apparently isn’t atheistic so much as it is apophatic, saying that we can’t know as much with certainty about God as we would like. Anyway, listening to the podcast today, I heard a guy talking about how the French theorist Gilles DeLeuze had opened his eyes. So I wanted to pose the question to any of my hipster theory-head readers: why should I read DeLeuze or Malabou or other contemporary European continental philosophers or for that matter Nietzsche, Heidegger, or Hegel?

I’ve read two different books that trash people like DeLeuze and say basically that any form of thought outside theology is fatally flawed: Theology and Social Thought by John Milbank and Beauty of the Infinite by David Bentley Hart. Hart was particularly brutal with DeLeuze. Milbank and Hart have complex, intelligent sounding arguments deconstructing the premises of postmodern thought (yes, I’m using the word as a catch-all).

Do I just let Milbank and Hart have the final word and rest satisfied that two guys much smarter than me have kicked secular theory’s ass so hard that it can never be resurrected (as long as you accept the terms by which they claim victory which I don’t completely understand)? One thing that bothered me about both Milbank and Hart was their lack of charitable hermeneutics. The screaming irony with regard to Hart in particular is that he argues for a theology of beauty in which God’s truth allows for an infinite array of symphonic harmonies as opposed to being a single note absolute univocity, but then Hart betrays his theory by how he treats thinkers who don’t come to univocity with his premises instead of seeing the potential for complementary harmonies despite starting from different places.

In particular, Hart’s moralistic vendetta against Immanuel Levinas was very troubling to me. Levinas gets lampooned from all sides, but I think the basic principle of his ethics is very sound. I am imposed upon by the presence of the other (any other person in my field of perception who forces me to grapple with the fact that I am not the only relevant being in the universe). Many things that we do are strategies to avoid looking into the other’s eyes, which would likely compel us to respond with empathy. Ethics, to Levinas, is how we cope with the discovery that we are not the only beings in the universe; other people exist who think they’re the center of the universe too and we’re just planets in orbit around them from their vantage point. Levinas’ ethics were critical to my discovery of the way that we make up myths to justify ourselves and our lack of compassion for others, and that this self-justification is what the justification of Jesus’ blood is supposed to kill.

So there you have it: an example of how an atheist philosopher helped me discover how to reframe an important theological problem. There have been quite a few others. Foucault’s critique of Victorian sexuality helped me to understand that the suburban American church’s obsession with sex is not only lopsided; it directly opposes our justification by faith in Christ insofar as it generates the self-justification myth we use to reassure ourselves that people who “keep it in their pants” before they’re married deserve to be wealthy, while knocked up teenage moms can’t blame anyone but themselves for their poverty. Derrida and Benjamin helped me with translation and hermeneutics. Foucault, Baudrillard, and Zizek have given me an appreciation for the demonic “world” that the gospels talk about which we project through humanity’s synergy of self-interest (aka the invisible claw of the market) but which takes on a life of its own and imposes an oppressive script on our lives for “the way things are done.” I actually talked about this last concept in a prayer meeting earlier today, so I busted out Zizek (without naming him) in an ecclesial context.

So I’ve benefited from some of these thinkers, but when I see what the enthusiasts of radical theology are writing and doing, I don’t see ekklesia. I don’t see a gathering of people whose incorporation into a mysterious story makes them a single body that exists to bring God’s love into the world. I don’t see a liturgical foundation for a movement which makes possible the society in which “those who are despised and those who are nothing bring to nothing the things that are” (1 Corinthians 1:28). I hate to say it but what I’ve seen looks like intellectual masturbation.

“To believe is human; to doubt is divine.” Yes, God is mysterious, and fundamentalists are hating God when they hate mystery. Yes, when Christians love Kant more than they love Jesus, it results in all sorts of ugliness. But how does “giving up God for Lent” make you a person more likely to stop to help a bleeding man on the side of the road or a person more likely to get goose bumps when you receive the body and blood of Christ?

In the past, a basic hypocrisy of mine is that I’ve pursued knowledge out of a furious zeal to conquer and own more truth. I’ve wanted to know more just to know more. I’m wanting to do better than that now. If DeLeuze can give me an insight that will help me better tell the story of Christ and inspire greater ekklesia and missio dei in the community that I serve, then he’s worth reading. If he’s just going to make me more arrogant and conflicted, then I’m going to pass.

Seriously though, who among the secular thinkers would be beneficial to my theological development? I’ve started hearing about Catherine Malabou. What’s the deal with her? Are there others? I got Alain Badiou’s Theory of the Subject and I can’t get through it. I understand maybe 20% of Zizek’s new beastly book on Hegel.

15 thoughts on “Why should I read DeLeuze?

  1. I’ve only recently started to read Deleuze (A thousand Plateaus) and as yet can’t say I’ve understood very well his concepts of multiplicity, body without organs or rhizomes. However, what I think he’s suggesting is a model without an ultimate direction or authority over it. That seems to describe the mind frame of a soul not under God’s authority (i.e. an unsaved person). In contrast, a believer (and by extension the church model) has Christ as it’s head, origin and completer. The model of a tree which Deleuze is arguing against is the same model that Jesus uses to describe the church when He says ,”I am the vine, you are the branches”. And again, when Paul uses the olive tree as a picture of what Gentile believers are grafted into. I would argue that ultimately Deleuze is presenting us with a model which should not and need not be one a Christian uses.

  2. Great stuff. I found this post while looking to see if any Christians have responded to Deleuze. I found it a really interesting read, as I am also wrestling with what role secular theory can have in our theology. There’s some things that Deleuze says which I find really beautiful and inspiring. The last chapter of his book on Foucault, for instance, has some lovely passages about the richness that lies in the “in-between” of living. He’s a dense read, though, and there’s some serious issues with his theology, which is almost as pantheistic as it is atheistic. I’d love to see more Christians grappling with this stuff, though. It’s so valuable. I’ve written a few poems in response to Deleuze that you might like you check out on my blog, if that’s of any help!

  3. give john d caputo a shot. his lectures (any of which are online) from seminars he taught at syracuse will give you a great overview of the continental philosophy scene, as well as how milbank, etc. oppose parts of it. you’ll get zizek, badiou, deleuze, derrida, malabou, hegel… all of them and you can judge for yourself what is of further interest or what merits the time it’ll take to read them. fyi: caputo is a catholic who rightly passes for an atheist, but his project is considerate of a full spectrum of beliefs (even though he may deconstruct them out from under you!).

  4. “I’ve pursued knowledge out of a furious zeal to conquer and own more truth. I’ve wanted to know more just to know more.”

    I’ve walked the world in those shoes. Then, realizing the involvement of egoism in this pursuit – that it is for me more than for others – I still walk in those shoes… but find them increasingly deficient, and try to cast them off, along with the dust that has accumulated upon them. A quote by Rudolf Steiner comes to mind, which exemplifies the sentiment: “The student of higher knowledge considers enjoyment only as a means of ennobling himself for the world. Enjoyment is to him like a scout informing him about the world; but once instructed by enjoyment, he passes on to work. He does not learn in order to accumulate learning as his own treasure, but in order that he may devote his learning to the service of the world.”

    The Talmud presages such words. In Judaism, an Israelite is to keep the whole of Torah (‘Instruction,’ most often [mal-]translated as ‘Law’), all of the mitzvot (‘commandments’), and all of this was revealed at Sinai through Moses, in part due to his unparallelled humility (Numbers 12:3), and what’s more – and perhaps relatedly – the very revelation through him is ultimate. Now why do I say this? Before was mentioned the Talmud, in the Talmud (sorry, can’t quote right now) it is said that greater than the whole of the mitzvot and Torah, are acts of loving-kindness (Chesed, or perhaps gemilut chesed), meaning that all of one’s duties are subservient to good deeds. Another thing, and this can be related back to your pursuit of knowledge from this paragraph – according to Torah it is incumbent upon the chosen of G-d to study.

    There’s literature on this whole matter from two thousand years ago, detailing kavannah (intention), and the great ability of Torah study to take one from selfish study (lo lishma) to study for the sake of study itself, which is at the same time study for the sake of the Creator (lishma) [if that makes sense]. Reflection upon the truths which G-d has revealed through His Words of Torah (which is “perfect, converting the soul”) is capable of converting the soul from baseness to grandeur, to endless service, and service not just for the sake of oneself, but for the sake of all and All.

    “If DeLeuze can give me an insight that will help me better tell the story of Christ and inspire greater ekklesia and missio dei in the community that I serve, then he’s worth reading.”

    Deleuze had a greater understanding of the glory of G-d than do many Christians. His intensive vitalism (er… ontology…) is testimony to a world governed by the Creator, to the Deterritorializer, to the Liberator (from the house of bondage, from Egypt, from suffering), further, the ever-present potential of liberation is nothing other than the story of salvation writ cosmically, ontologically. His was a view wherein “the trees of the field clap their hands,” “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord,” and “all flesh shall know [Him]” – in this world. And inasmuch as he believed in the efficacy and necessity of good deeds in this life, he is that much closer to the faith of Jesus (Yeshua) than Jesus’ Christian followers, in that Christ preached the Kingdom of Heaven “on earth,” and that we may do (and are to do) His will _here_, that we are to live salvation, rather than wait on it (like some Greco-Roman Deus ex Machinae).

    What do the Body of Christ and the Body Without Organs have in common?

    • Thank you so much for these thoughts. I will check out DeLeuze. He sounds worth my while. Do you recommend a starting place? That thing you said about the Talmud reminded me of my favorite verse, “I desire mercy not sacrifice.” Jesus translates hesed as eleos which is huge because Hosea 6:6 is talking about steadfast faithfulness to YHWH and Jesus “midrashes” it to mean mercy to your neighbor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s