Thinking of God
39
demand to make general claims of meaning and truth. They do so not only on conservative, religious grounds, but sometimes also on highly sophisti-cated postmodern grounds.within “neo-tribal” communities, affirming a “fideism of the faithful, the (^1) Churchly theologies are content to remain
committed ones, in a world of possibilities.”a/theologiesbeliefs or ritual practices of religious communities for the sake of liberating On the other hand, we see a profusion of radical ). (^3) These theologians deconstruct supernatural and mythological^2 post-theistic theologies (or
people from unjust prejudices and institutional power structures. Suspicious of unifying metanarratives which tyrannize human differences, these theo-logians embrace the autonomous power of critical interpretation. There are no unmediated points of contact with the divine. Nothing – neither the
self ’s presence to itself in so-called immediate self-consciousness, nor God in some kind of religious or spiritual consciousness – can assume real presence. Religion, for them, is a social production, the effect of heterogeneous of discursive, technological, and institutional relations. 4 systems
tion of the theologians in culture has consequences, however. The wider public is losing the ability to speak meaningfully about what is “divine” or of utmost importance and reality within a situation of endangerment to the The plight of theology trivializes it and renders it mute. The marginaliza-
entire life-system. Theological humanism proposes another way, and for two reasons. First, when churchly theologies and popes make openly exclusive claims (“There is no salvation outside the church,” or “The only way to God is by accepting Jesus as your personal Savior”), they become forms of hyper-
theismformance of thought, belief, and action to the divine will as their own special community discerns it. Yet if every group, or individual, retreats into a “fideism of the faithful,” an infinite regress opens up, dividing humanity : my faith and the divine are one and the same. They demand con-
into smaller units, each claiming to be the one true religion and selling its wares of salvation in the global marketplace. Truth is reduced to being truthful to one’s sacred story, practice, or community (whether real or virtual), but with no possibility of understanding why this lifestyle (this
religion) is true among others.genuine theological thinking, they become forms of celebrate the creative capacities of autonomous human beings by decon-Second, when post-theistic a/theologies substitute unending critique for overhumanization. They
structing what is considered sacred. Amid the wreckage, they testify to a negative presence – the presence of difference that instantiates ultimate undecidability. Undecidability reduces signs linguistic, political, technological, or social oppression. Divine nothingness of the sacred to signs of systemic