“Something There is That Doesn't Love a Wall”: Queer Theologies and Reparative Readings

A set of recent conversations among scholars working in queer cultural and literary theory has focused on the trope of reparative reading. Reparative readings, usually contrasted with the “paranoid” criticism of those working in the Butlerian tradition, are often informed by the writings of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. This article explores the “reparative turn” in the context of Christian queer theologies, and suggests that it may include practices of “sociability with the dead”: both listening to and honouring the abjected past of queer ancestors, and continuing to be in conversation with the damaging and hurtful parts of the Christian tradition as a means of holding them accountable.     

Reproductive loss: toward a theology of bodies

ABSTRACT

Reproductive loss—the loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks—is estimated to occur in 20-50% of all pregnancies. It is a common human experience. However, it is an experience that is shrouded in silence and mystery. Not only is reproductive loss culturally taboo but given the marked absence of theological reflection on the experience, it would seem to be theologically taboo as well. The experience of reproductive loss raises profound theological questions about what it means to be (a gendered) human, issues of suffering, the providence of God, and eschatology. This research considers some of the reasons for this theological silence and begins to examine the experience of reproductive loss with the aim of taking the embodied experience of the miscarrying woman seriously as a site for theological reflection.     

A Paradoxical Theology of Biology

Abstract

This article examines a sermon in which Desmond Tutu advocates for gay rights in light of his activism against apartheid in South Africa. In doing so it uncovers a paradoxical theology of biology that enables him to advocate universal notions of justice simultaneously with love for particular persons and bodies. This advocacy, however, is susceptible to the critiques of queer theorists and theologians who worry that liberationist frameworks unwittingly reinscribe injustices against a variety of queer persons. The article concludes by raising new questions to be asked about Desmond Tutu’s theology, and liberation theologies in general, about the potential of liberationist and prophetic frameworks for achieving social justice. It also raises questions for queer theology about the possibility and political efficacy of queering the act of preaching.     

Fewell,Dana Nolan,and Gunn,David M., Gender,Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible's First Story

Abstract

This brief review article traces the intertwined themes of seduction and theology in philosopher Karmen MacKendrick’s work.     

Afterword: some reflections on implicit religion and ordinary theology

This brief piece relates Edward Bailey's concept of implicit religion, together with some themes from the papers published in this special issue, to Astley's concept of ordinary theology. In particular, it attends to their different, but overlapping, focal concerns and their shared emphasis on a spiritual core of personal meaningfulness.     

Response to Stuart Kurtz and Ann Pederson

I respond herein to reviews of my recent book by Ann Pederson and Stuart Kurtz. With respect to Pederson's concerns, a constructive theology formulated from the ideas of communication theory need not necessarily neglect pressing historical issues of the poor and powerless. The potential for such relevance remains strong. This is true as well for the application of the system to particular myths and rituals. Also, while I speak positively of computers as instruments of disclosure and the theories upon with they are based as resources for theological construction, this should not be construed as an endorsement of just any application of information technology in a world that tends to distort all good things. With respect to Kurtz's concerns, while thermodynamics plays a role in discussions of the primordial chaos, notions from communication theory are far more central. Also, the use of the language of the theory for theology does not necessarily require theological relevance for all of Claude Shannon's technical conclusions. My uses of infinity are taken from traditional theology and analytic geometry rather than from pure mathematics, although fruitful development along those lines is entirely possible. Pederson and Kurtz are generous with both their praise and concerns. The praise will encourage me to further this project along lines provided by the concerns.     

Sacred Indwelling and the Electromagnetic Undercurrent in Nature: A Physicist's Perspective

Wolfhart Pannenberg has related the concept of the physical field to the idea of God's divine cosmic field in all of creation. In this article I proffer a physicist's viewpoint by treating the subject from a more specific and focused perspective. In particular, I describe how electromagnetic interactions underlie the operation of all earthly nature, including human beings and their brains. I argue that this ubiquity constitutes a compelling physical analogy for the ubiquity of God's indwelling. The discussion includes the role of electromagnetism in quantum theory, concepts of time, and the evolution of life. I suggest the value of such analogical thought as an area of study to be exploited in the development of a theology of nature as well as a significant datum in the pursuit of a tenable natural theology. This article is intended to clarify, refine, and considerably expand upon an earlier article published in Zygon (Fagg 1996). Included also are discussions on the role of electromagnetism in our sense of evil and eternity.     

From Noosphere to Theosphere: Cyclotrons, Cyberspace, and Teilhard's Vision of Cosmic Love

Two theme–setting quotations introduce this essay—that of Yeats's falcon, deaf to the falconer's call, adrift in space above the blood–dimmed tide, counterpoised to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's call to abandon old nationalistic prejudices and build the earth. With primary references to the thought of Teilhard, along with, among others, to Ewert Cousins, Andrew M. Greeley, Karl Jaspers, Marshall McLuhan, Ilya Prigogine, Karl Rahner, Leonard Swidler, David Tracy, and Alfred North Whitehead, I argue that the most crucial intellectual paradigm shift of the twenty–first century will challenge humanity to take the turn from uncritical attachment to rigid absolutism or atomistic fragmentation toward a sense of open–ended, off–centered centeredness and fluid connections—from a static to a dynamic model of reality. Central to my argument is the Teilhardian reinterpretation of the Christian metaphors of creation, fall, incarnation, salvation, and the eschaton in the evolutionary terms of the emergence of cosmic consciousness from the chrysalis of the world of the past—from chaos to order, from biosphere via noosphere to theosphere. Facilitated by the exponential growth of populations, collaborative research, science, technology, and global communication (most dramatically manifested by the Internet), this emergent understanding of what it means to be human can, first, foster the awareness that in humanity evolution has become conscious of itself, and then, gradually, precipitate the formation of “the global village” (the mystical body of Christ), as respectful dialogue replaces diatribe and the dualistic pugilism of Samuel Huntington's “Clash of Civilizations” is gradually transformed into a nonadversarial mentality that values shared humanity and a common purpose. Thus, eons hence, empowered by love–energy, the transmutation of the human into the ultra–human can take the ultimate quantum leap into a yet higher dimension where spirit/energy is no longer in need of flesh/mass, and Earth can be safely left behind.     

Protecting God from Science and Technology: How Religious Criticisms of Biotechnologies Backfire

Many religious critics argue that biotechnology (such as cloning and genetic engineering) intrudes on God's domain, or plays God, or revolts against God. While some of these criticisms are standard complaints about human hubris, I argue that some of the recent criticism represents a "Promethean" concern, in which believers unreflectively seem to fear that science and technology are actually replicating or stealing God's special deity–defining powers. These criticisms backfire theologically, because they diminish God, portraying God as an anthropomorphic superbeing whose relevance and special nature are increasingly rivaled by human power.