In my 2008 book Witness to Dispossession, I argued that an honest confrontation with the kinds of domesticating and dangerous power that circulate through Christianity (including the kinds of power that lead to abuse or to the over-stable construction of religious subjects who find themselves unable to change or grow when they need to), the kinds of power that keep people silent about their own internal dissent or simply their felt multiplicity and complexity, that this kind of awareness and confrontation makes possible, and theologically defensible, a state of “dispossession.” By this, I meant that those who picture themselves as Christian can continue their Christianity by and through the risk of continuing out of it; that one tests and defines the kind of Christianity one has had, and the relation to “God” that one has been allowed, by what and how one is willing to hand over that identity, parcel by parcel, and eventually, all of it.

This has been read by some reviewers as too radical (or perhaps too undialectical) for anything that might count as theology. Other reviewers, like Jeremy Carrette (Theology Today, Jan 2010) and Gerard Mannion (Theological Studies, Dec 2009), while critical of some aspects, have positively reviewed the overall approach. I understand that it can be hard to see how such a position comports with a traditional theological perspective, because so much Christian theology is oriented rhetorically toward affiliation and emplacement in religious communities and institutions.

But recently a graduate student called to my attention a nice quotation from a commentary on John’s gospel that illustrates something of the theological-spiritual conviction underlying my approach. Glossing John chapter 11, the raising of Lazarus, the authors make a point that others might find useful: “Real love for God includes the willingness to sacrifice everything to God, without knowing whether or how one will get it back.” (Ernst Haenchen, Robert Walter Funk, Ulrich Busse, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984, p. 57)

So it is with dispossession. Indeed, a more radical conceptualization than this is opened by this very conceptualization: one can keep this “God” space open, so that one is finally not sure what one loves, or rather, with Augustine’s great question, one allows oneself the wonder of asking “What do I love when I love my God?”

This approach of dispossession is different from a theological approach that advocates that one “hold on to” essentials of the faith in order to get into conversation with others or to be a religious self per se. I believe this is also consistent with mystical trajectories inside and outside of Christianity. Dispossession is not a mandate, but an opportunity for those who find themselves beyond their tradition’s resources in coming to terms with the shadow sides of what we call religion.

Tommy Beaudoin, New York City

1 Comment »

1. 

   I am going to read your book. I am drawn to your description of dispossession. I would be truly grateful to read why, how, or if you maintain your “membership” or identity in the Catholic Church. What holds you?

   Comment by nicoler — August 8, 2011 @ 10:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree