Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: August 12, 2003
Latest Update: August 12, 2003
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

When Religion Insists on Non-Answerability

Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, August 2003.
"Fair use" encouraged.

These two stories, coming right on top of each other, serve to bring us face-to-face with the problematic of non-answerability. Granted that many churches consider their leaders infallible in the knowledge of what God wants. But that understanding requires interpretation, hermeneutics, by humans, whose intelligence and knowledge are fallible. (Actually, that assumes that God "wanted" something, and that for some reason he chose not to create whatever it was he "wanted." I have a lot of trouble with anthropomorphizing God to that extent.)

Also, in modern bureaucracies, hierarchy prevails. But hierarchy is socially constructed, and has no tie to infallibility. Monologic titular authority within a given hierarchy is still impressive, and it takes a lot for the one who "should" be silenced by the monologic utterance to answer. But the aesthetic process of community requires that answer. This means that the answer is not just in the interest of the one who has been "silenced," but also in the interest of the community itself and its ability to grow and encourage such growth in its other members.

The old democratic joke about how Democrats never get anything done because they're all so busy answering each other's ideas needs to be balanced by the recognition that getting something done, making decisions, doesn't mean that we should silence those who think differently. We still need the answering. Thinking outside the box has become the motto of the post-X generation: but you can't get anything done with thoughts outside the box, if the monologic titular authority insists on keeping everyone else inside the box. Don't ask. I have no clue as to what the "post-X" generation is; it just seemed like time to have one. Isn't that how all those other post-generations started out?

I remember a discussion on cheap grace between a priest and a protestant theologian, forgiveness in which the sinner did not feel or exhibit proper remorse. The theologian was arguing against cheap grace, when the priest intervened. If God wants to forgive, I can't see any reason why he can't. He's God. He can do what he wants. Now the argument got all mixed up on theologian grounds with concerns for heresy amongst other issues. But having very seriously studied commentators of the Bible, like Rashi, I can't for the life of me see why God can't do what he wants, including forgive unrepenting sinners. I was amazed at being privileged to take part in this thinking, even though one theologian's views came only from our reading of his book on the issue. These are messy theological issues. I'm sure the priest understood his reference to and concern about heresy, even if I didn't. But I remain confident that such issues will only be successfully laid to rest in a climate of aesthetic production of community, in which all may answer the utterance of each other.

The following two stories involve positions of which some titular authority in the churches disapproves: the position for a nun of possessing power, financial and ministerial, in Sister Kenneth's case, and the position of claiming power over one's own private feelings and actions toward another, in the case of Bishop Gene Robinson. I don't claim to know what God wants in either case, if, indeed God wants, but I do claim to hear both Sister Kenneth and Bishop Robinson answering the monologic titular authority of the churches involved.

Whether their validity claims are right or wrong, the very answering of the monologic titular authority is creating a new church/member relationship in a public space, and creating a new vision of community in the process, a community that listens in good faith to its members. There will be more utterances opposing their views and their needs, but answerability has changed the community in which all this will now happen. For that I thank them.

(Gary Kazanjian / For The Times)

"Sister Kenneth Quinn at her home in Three Rivers. She must leave her home, and the charity she founded."
August 12, 2003

Church Demands Power of Financial Control

• Bishop Forces Out Beloved Nun Los Angeles Times article by Mark Arax, Tuesday, August 12, 2003. Backup

Church Demands Power over Sexual Preference

• First Out Gay Elected Episcopal Bishop . . . Backup
• Openly gay priest elected Episcopal bishopStory from AFP / David Anderson, Sunday, 3-Aug-2003 9:50PM CDT. Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse. Backup.
• Q&A: The election of a gay Episcopal bishop Jane Lampman is the religion and ethics correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor. She was interviewed about the election of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as an Episcopal bishop by csmonitor.com's Tom Regan: "What is the significance of this vote?" Backup

Discussion Questions

1. What evidence does the article offer in support of jeanne's reading of this as an example of monologic titular authority?

   Consider "The bishop's supporters, on the other hand, say the real problem was the cult of personality surrounding Sister Kenneth. "She may have done a lot of good work but he's still the boss. He's still the bishop," said one supporter."

2. Does the summation of the bishop's argument by a supporter that "He's still the bishop" fit with the dictates of most religions that their leaders practice humility?

   Consider that the argument draws concisely on titular authority.

3. Why doesn't Sister Kenneth just acknowledge the bishop's authority.

   Consider that when utterances of the monologic non-answerable authority seek power or control that may cause harm to those to whom one ministers to tolerate that monologic authority in silence is to be complicit. That means that in any kind of colonization, and this is a kind of colonization of the small community center by the larger hierarchical church, the colonized who do not answer, are complicit in the colonization. That means that as the community which includes both the church and the little community center is aesthetically produced, silence on the part of the little community center permits a different kind of community to emerge, one that does not meet their needs, their validity claims. I don't have a clue as to why Sister Kenneth stood up for her little community. But the theoretical foundations we are exploring could explain her decision.

4. Would you suppose that Sister Kenneth and Bishop Robinson can win the battles posed in their respective environments?

   Consider that the issues we discuss on this site are not usually about winning. In both these cases, this is about the aesthetic production of a community more sensitive to the needs and wishes of all its members. They have won already, in the sense that they have moved their dialogic answerings into a public sphere, altering the awareness of many of us who would never have been privy to their work and their goals otherwise.

   Consider that they have also already paid a tremendous price for daring to refuse complicity and stand up for their answers.