katharinesarahmoody-blog
Katharine Sarah Moody
Research Associate in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, working on the Philosophy and Religious Practices Network (http://philosophyreligion.wordpress.com/). My research centres on the relationship between continental philosophy, radical theology and lived religion, and especially between John D. Caputo, Jacques Derrida, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Zizek, and emerging Christianity. Get in touch with me via Twitter @KSMoody and follow the work I'm doing with the Philosophy and Religious Practices Network via @PhilRelPractice
313 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
mira-rose
Please unravel my dreams...
alapest1
names relevantinclude
dentalwisdoms
Dental Wisdoms
kevin1sworld
Без названия
snvaladez
@snvaladez
Photo
I haven’t posted to this blog for a long time now. Here’s why! I’m still researching and writing whilst looking after this little character (you can see details of my new book, Radical Theology and Emerging Christianity, here), but it’s exhausting and I’m not updating this blog much any more. At some point, I’ll get my publications list uptodate but then I’ll probably leave it as that. You can follow me on Twitter @KSMoody though.
0 notes
Photo
A photo of the organisers and presenters at the second Philosophy and Religious Practices network workshop, "Buddhism and Human Flourishing" (University of Chester, June 25 2013).
The back row, left to right: Prof. Peter Harvey, Ratnaguna, Dr Chris Baker, Dr Dan Whistler, and Dr Paramabandhu Groves
The front row, left to right: Caroline Brazier, Dr Patrice Haynes, Dr Katharine Sarah Moody, Dr Wendy Dossett, Gina Clayton, Dr Mary Welford.
1 note
·
View note
Video
youtube
A talk by Slavoj Zizek, entitled "The Buddhist Ethic and the Spirit of Global Capitalism", delivered in 2012, and mentioned by Wendy Dossett, Peter Harvey, and John Reader at the second Philosophy and Religious Practices network workshop, "Buddhism and Human Flourishing" (University of Chester, June 25th 2013).
#slavoj zizek#buddhism#john reader#wendy dossett#peter harvey#philosophy and religious practices network#western buddhism#video
0 notes
Link
Stemming from the second Philosophy and Religious Practices network workshop, "Buddhism and Human Flourishing", John Reader reflects on understandings of the human. In particular, he writes about the differences between Buddhist concepts of the human, found in contemporary Buddhist psychotherapy, and the concepts of the human that arise in the work of psychoanalysts like Jacques Lacan and of political philosophers influenced by him, including Slavoj Zizek.
#john reader#philosophy and religious practices network#buddhism#human#human being#humanity#human flourishing#flourishing#psychoanalysis#jacques lacan#lacan#slavoj zizek#zizek#psychotherapy#buddhist psychotherapy#buddhist psychology#psychology#lacanian psychoanalysis#terry eagleton
0 notes
Link
Report by Wendy Dossett on the second Philosophy and Religious Practices networks workshop, "Buddhism and Human Flourishing" (University of Chester, June 25th 2013) with keynotes from Ratnaguna and Peter Harvey.
#philosophy and religious practices network#buddhism#wendy dossett#humanity#human being#human flourishing#flourishing#philosophy#religion#religious practice#religious studies
0 notes
Video
youtube
Jack Caputo's keynote, "Apocalyptic Nihilism", at the 18th Villanova philosophy conference, "Apocalyptic Politics: Framing the Present", Apr 13 2013.
1 note
·
View note
Audio
Homebrewed Christianity podcast of Jack Caputo's keynote, "Can Postmodern Theology Live in the Churches? Perhaps", from "Subverting the Norm II" (Drury University, Springfield, Missouri, Apr 5-6 2013) and of Tony Jones' "response".
#john caputo#jack caputo#john d caputo#john d. caputo#caputo#tony jones#subverting the norm#stn#stn2#stn2013#homebrewed christianity#postmodern theology#radical theology#theology#church practice#The Church#church#perhaps
2 notes
·
View notes
Link
Link to a post I wrote for the PCN Britain blog, "The Church That Dies", Part Two of a series on "Dying to the Law". Part One is here.
1 note
·
View note
Link
Link to a piece I wrote for the Progressive Christian Network (Britain) blog on "The God Who Dies".
0 notes
Text
New Paul, New Perspectives, New Praxis
Today I was in Swindon for a community learning day put on by John Skinner, founder of the Northumbria Community, and Emigre Connexion - a new monasticism guru. He's interested in the intersection of new monasticism, eastern orthodoxy and radical theology.
The learning day was about starting a conversation about new theological perspectives that could lead to new praxis, and my talk, entitled "Subverting the Norm: New Paul, New Perspectives, New Praxis", was about new philosophical interpretations of Paul's Letters. I talked about Paul on the relationship between sin and the law, our split subjectivity (split between the law and the desire to transgress the law), dying to the law, the suspension of socio-symbolic identity or selfhood, and the creation of a new universal community of love.
At the end of my talk, I asked the audience to think about the following questions:
What are this community's markers of identity?
Might they need to be suspended and subverted in order to enable the transformation of others?
What are some of the norms, identities and roles within this community?
And how can they be temporarily suspended in order to
Encounter one another apart from our existing social identities and role?
Experience each other in our uniqueness or 'singularity'?
And encourage each other to create new forms of subjectivity and selfhood?
I really enjoyed the day, getting to know John and the Kingshill Community in Swindon, and testing out whether, as I wondered in a previous post (here), I can "speak to the churches" as well as to academics.
A lot of what John had to say really resonated with my thinking recently about not only intellectually engaging but also existentially experiencing (here, here and here). Here are some of my tweets from today:
KatharineSarahMoody @KSMoody 1 Jun
At a New Monasticism learning day. John Skinner using Zizek to say Rob Bell is a pervert.
Whereas @PeterRollins is an hysteric.
Peter Rollins @PeterRollins 1 Jun
@KSMoody nice!
@KSMoody I think that I force myself into the register of the neurotic when I write as a means of trying to unsettle myself & the reader
KatharineSarahMoody @KSMoody 1 Jun
Skinner: New Monasticism lacks a theological perspective.
Skinner: Fresh Expressions legitimizes New Monasticism but thereby neutralizes, domesticates it.
Skinner: The key to New Monasticism is nothing. You are nothing. You are waste. A waste of space. A waste of space for God and others.
Skinner: This requires the laying aside of identity. Stop needing to be anything. Be nothing.
Skinner: New Monasticism is about laying down identity. But how would this work in a church context? This is what this comm is exploring.
John Skinner just said I use my beautiful soft voice to say some hard and radical things. #blushing
Skinner: How radical theology sees the universalism of Paul is very close to the orthodox tradition.
Skinner: In radical theology, we are the being of God. We are the existence of God.
Skinner: You don't think your way into a new kind of living. You live your way into a new kind of thinking.
Skinner: Paul had an encounter with God. An event of transformation happened to him. That probably won't ever happen to us.
Skinner: We are stuck with "wax on, wax off", learning by doing rather than thinking about it. Live it until we get it. #karatekid
Skinner: New Monasticism is a long walk towards anonymity.
Skinner: New Monasticism as availability, vulnerability, authenticity.
#new monasticism#eastern orthodoxy#radical theology#saint paul#john skinner#emigre#emigre connexion#the northumbria community#northumbria community#subverting the norm#kingshill community swindon#peter rollins#pete rollins#rob bell#perversion#hysteria#pervert#hysteric#slavoj zizek#zizek#fresh expressions#identity#identity suspension#subjectivity#transformation#twitter
1 note
·
View note
Link
I just posted a piece by Clayton Crockett and Jeff Robbins on responses to their book, Religion, Politics and the Earth: The New Materialism over at Political Theology's blog.
#clayton crockett#Jeffrey W. Robbins#jeff robbins#materialism#radical theology#political theology#radical political theology
0 notes
Link
Marika Rose's guest post over at Homebrewed Christianity on privilege.
#marika rose#racism#sexism#privilege#emerging christianity#emerging church#emergent church#emergence christianity#tony jones#peter rollins
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
A Plea for Seeing Ourselves as Strange (and probably Racist and Misogynist)
Seeing yourself through the eyes of others can be transformative, but only if you let their critiques lead you to serious self-reflection rather than dismissal or denial.
A few days ago, Christena Cleveland - the Center for Diversity and Reconciliation keynote speaker at the recent Subverting the Norm II conference - wrote a post in her blog series "Diversity Repellent" (a series about "the subtle but powerful things that we do and say that make diverse people think twice about building community with us"), which reflected on part of what Tony Jones said at that conference.
Under the 5th ("Be loyal to this tribe") of his 13 points, Tony said, "We have a better version of the gospel than the regnant view of the gospel in the West today".
Just as Christena did, I took Tony's "we" to indicate those gathered at this conference - academics and practitioners interested in the relationship between postmodern or radical theology and church practice. But, this form of theology is located within a specific trajectory in western thought. And this heritage means that neither it (postmodern or radical theology) nor we (those gathered at the conference) are particularly diverse (see also this post here where I reflected on the question of diversity after the STN2 conference).
In her post, Christena asks,
How can a gospel that is mostly (if not entirely) interpreted and articulated by a homogenous group of people (in this case, white, well-educated males) be the “better version”? But in a more subtle way, his statement sent a clear and powerful message to all of the diverse people in the room (e.g., women, people of color, people without advanced degrees, etc.). No need to join our movement; we don’t need diverse voices. We’ve already got the best version of the Gospel and we only needed white, well-educated men to figure it out. Diverse people need not apply.
She concludes that,
people of all cultures run the risk of alienating diverse people if they mistakenly believe that their homogenous group has basically figured out how to think, worship and live.
We might say we want diverse people to participate in our group but we are often too enamored with our own culture (e.g., our version of the Gospel) to invite diverse people to influence it. Rather, than actively seeking input from diverse people, we require them to assimilate to and bow down to the dominant culture. This approach might work to attract people who look diverse (in terms of race/ethnicity, etc.) but it will repel people who offer culturally-diverse perspectives.
Responding more to Christena's choice of visual illustration than perhaps to the substance of her critique, Tony then said, 'I'm Tired of Being Called a Racist". He wrote, "Are her words, combined with that image, meant to imply that I am a racist? The answer can only be yes."
Through social media, I've had a few different conversations with friends (most of whom were at STN2) about Tony's response to Christena's post and, at various points in this post and in his original talk, Tony is patronising ("everyone at the conference - except, it seems, Ms. Cleveland"), presumptuous (as a friend of mine said, "Tony had just gotten off the airplane, and already he was ready to speak for everyone in the room?") and self-contradictory (as another friend said, "it was funny that Tony's response [to Christena] was concerned with the grammar he used at STN2. What with all the shit he gives people like [John D.] Caputo over "grammatology" - see Tony's third point here about language).
In his post, Tony clarifies that, in the STN2 talk,
I was developing a critique of one particular version of American Christianity — one that is, I might say, dominated by men and exclusionary of women — and I was attempting to rally the crowd to fight against that version in the public square with our more progressive, open, inclusionary version.
Both here and here he presents his remarks about being loyal to "this tribe" as referring to the need to "stick together" in the face of conservative Christian theologies: those within progressive/emergent/incarnational Christianities needs to "stick together in spite of our doctrinal/theological/philosophical differences".
But this reference to sticking together was also in response to fellow (more radical) emerging church figures' critiques of his work. As another friend pointed out on Facebook,
Sticking together as a theological movement should not preclude critique. Indeed, being part of a postmodern, subversive, radical theological community should be all about welcoming debate, constructive critique, diversity, dissent, and doubt. That's the difference between an interpretive community that is willing to rework and deconstruct old symbols and signs vs. a tribal or natural community stuck in a defensive posture committed more to loyalty than to radical change. This was not an issue of misheard grammar [which is what it feels like Tony is trying to turn it into], but of what was the affective sentiment felt by at least two of us who did not feel as welcome to the tribe by Tony Jones.
After Tony's response to Christena's blog post, others wrote some great pieces about responding to critiques with vehement denials.
In "Tony Jones, Peter Rollins, and the trend of 'don't call me racist!'", Sarah Moon begins by saying,
I’ve noticed a trend among white, straight, academic cis men in so-called progressive or emergent Christianity where calling someone racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a bigger problem than the existence of racism, sexism, and homophobia.
She points readers to the comments section of Tony's post, where Tony replies to a comment about systemic racism by saying that these structures of racism can be dismantled if we "1) stop calling each other racists and 2) stop lecturing people who are just like us". Sarah is incredulous:
Good news, people of color. Tony Jones has single-handedly solved racism. You all can go home now–Tony’s got this.
And it turns out, people of color, that YOU were the cause of systemic racism the entire time! Who’d have thought? If only you’d quit naming your oppression and speaking your mind, systems of oppression would just crumble to the ground!
As Sarah notes, Tony is not only tired of being called a racist but also of being called a misogynist. At the end of his post, he writes,
Cleveland responded [to my talk at STN2] by painting me as a racist — or at least as someone who “idolizes” my own “cultural group identity.” And anyone who is paying attention knows that calling someone a racist is the most discrediting of all epithets these days.
Except maybe calling someone a misogynist, which I’m also sick of. I’ll post about that next week.
And Sarah also writes about Pete Rollins' response to her critique of his stance on identity politics (which takes significant cue from what I call "philosophers of identity suspension" like Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou - I'm writing a lot about this at the moment, see this recent post here and the research project I'm trying to get funded here). She wonders,
What’s with this idea that it is calling someone a sexist or a racist or a homophobe that is the problem? These are people who claim, vehemently, that they are not sexist, racist, or homophobic. People who consider themselves progressive, contrast themselves with fundamentalist tendencies toward blatant misogyny, racism, and homophobia.
You’d think hearing someone direct the word “racism” toward them would be a wake-up call. A reminder to practice the humility that they preach, do some introspection, and repent so that they could continue building the radically inclusive kingdom of God.
But so often, it’s not.
Recently I was in Belfast for Pete's Idolatry of God retreat, invited as an academic who could place Pete's work in a wider philosophical, theological and political context to help participants explore the significance of pyrotheology and practice (see my reflections on the retreat here). At one point, I was chatting with a member of Ikon (the Belfast-based collective that Pete founded) about times when Pete has been accused of misogyny and sexism. The person I was speaking to said that the "better/best" response would be for him to say, "I probably am".
This is the kind of approach that Dianna Anderson takes herself, saying in her post in response to Tony Jones that,
Everybody's a little bit racist... I am white. I grew up in America. Because of that, I am racist and I benefit from racist structures.
She concludes by saying that,
There’s a lot more to be said about the reception and inclusion of people of color within the modern post-evangelical/evangelical/”Incarnational” spheres, but this needs to be the baseline starting point: if you are a white person, you are going to do and say things that are racist. It is a fact of existence. And you are not the arbiter of whether or not something you did was racist (or sexist or homophobic or transphobic or ableist) – the people from those marginalized groups on that privilege are. This feels bad, I know. It's supposed to.
This understanding of one's own privilege is the baseline for communicating about race, sexuality, gender, and everything surrounding marginalization. Your privilege will give you blind spots. And you don’t get to determine the lengths of that privilege.
Calling something racist doesn’t halt discussion. Being unwilling and unable to accept it does.
Pete often talks about the importance of seeing yourself and your own beliefs and practices through the eyes of others. Several of the practices that he writes about - and the Evangelism Project especially - are designed to enable participants to see themselves as others see them: "by seeing themselves through the others eyes, they might begin to see things in themselves that were previously repressed". As Pete says in "I Have Met the Stranger, And He Is Me", a "genuine encounter with the other" occurs not when we try to domesticate the encounter by making the other a version of me or by excluding the other (or by only focusing on matters of agreement), but rather when we start to see ourselves as other:
we start to see ourselves through their eyes, and instead of seeing their beliefs as monstrous, we start to see our beliefs as monstrous. We see our beliefs as contingent, and historical, and alien, not just to them but to ourselves.
In The Idolatry of God, Pete uses the example of an instance when he was part of a group of friends who were using the word "gay" to mean effeminate, embarrassing or rubbish. When a friend who was also part of that group later told Pete that he was gay and had been deeply hurt by the use of the term over the course of that night, he reflects that:
At that moment I was undone. I wanted to defend myself by pointing out my disgust with homophobia. Yet I could not in all honesty do it. Instead I was brought to silence. I saw myself through the eyes of my friend, and I was shocked by what I saw.
It was only because I was given grace and understanding that I was able to face myself. This was a moment of crisis in which I had to chose whether to defend myself or to acknowledge the truth of what had been presented to me, horrible though it was.
So often we avoid confronting our own prejudices by covering them over and avoiding anyone who might expose them. But it is the other who so often holds the key to our development...
So even though being accused of racism, homophobia, misogyny and sexism might hurt, perhaps the best response is to say,
I probably am those things. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I should really engage with this critique and explore why you think that about me. When/where/how am I being racist/homophobic/misogynist/sexist? How can I address that? How can I change? I hadn't seen that in myself, but seeing myself through your eyes has helped me to see something that I had repressed.
If seeing ourselves through the eyes of others is to be truly transformative, then we have to let their critiques lead us to serious self-reflection rather than dismissal or denial.
#racism#sexism#misogyny#emerging christianity#emergence christianity#emergent church#emerging church#peter rollins#tony jones#christena cleveland#sarah moon#dianna anderson#stn2#stn#subverting the norm#diversity#the evangelism project#ikon#idolatry of god#idolatry of god retreat#homophobia#gay#homosexuality#transformation
3 notes
·
View notes
Link
John Reader's post at the Philosophy and Religious Practices blog about the first network workshop, The Humanities and Lived Religion: Philosophy, Religious Studies and the Impact Agenda (May 9th 2013, hosted by the University of Liverpool).
#philosophy and religious practices network#john reader#lived religion#humanities#conference#conferences#philosophy#religious studies#impact#bruno latour#actor network theory#Quentin Meillassoux
0 notes
Link
Link to the text of Liam Jones' talk on Catherine Malabou, plasticity and lived religion, presented at the first workshop from the Philosophy and Religious Practices network, “The Humanities and Lived Religion: Philosophy, Religious Studies and the Impact Agenda” (May 9th 2013, hosted by the University of Liverpool).
#liam jones#catherine malabou#plasticity#lived religion#humanities#philosophy#impact#philosophy and religious practices network#conference#conferences
0 notes
Link
Rebecca Catto summarises her talk on Religion and Public Policy, presented at the first workshop from the Philosophy and Religious Practices network, “The Humanities and Lived Religion: Philosophy, Religious Studies and the Impact Agenda” (May 9th 2013, hosted by the University of Liverpool).
#rebecca catto#philosophy and religious practices network#public policy#policy#philosophy#religious studies#humanities#lived religion#impact#research impact#conferences#conference
0 notes
Link
Roger Trigg summarises his keynote talk, "The Privatisation of Religion: Is Philosophy of Religion to Blame?", presented at the first workshop from the Philosophy and Religious Practices network, "The Humanities and Lived Religion: Philosophy, Religious Studies and the Impact Agenda" (May 9th 2013, hosted by the University of Liverpool).
#philosophy and religious practices network#conferences#conference#roger trigg#philosophy#lived religion#humaities#impact#religious studies
0 notes