Discovering the Other: A Theological Ménage à Trois
December 2, 2004
I was sitting in my Speech Communication class a few weeks back and was struck by something my professor said. We were reading poetry and he was critiquing someone’s reading when he said, “You must have the ability to ‘other yourself’ into the life of who you are portraying.” A few weeks later, I began reading David Tracy’s little collection of essays in “Naming the Present” - and began to read about the “other” and about the polycentrism in our world today. Something made me think that maybe it was time to muse about the Other.
Tracy writes:
“…there is emerging a new polycentric world and a world church where the most concrete others - the poor and oppressed - speak and act. For the Western center…cannot and should not hold as the center…A fact seldom admitted by the moderns…even with all the talk of otherness and difference - is that there is no longer a center with margins. There are many centers…[T]he others are not marginal to our centers but centers of their own.”
It is simply a fact that we live in a pluralist society, it’s not something that is open to debate. There is - and should be - no center. It’s not the USA, it’s not the Conservative Evangelical agenda, it’s not the Western world, it’s not the educated, suburban, upper-middle-class. There should be no center; rather, our world is a polycentric world, a world where we need to learn to encounter the Other, and encounter them as they are their own centers.
What does this mean for us today? Especially for those of us who are white, upper-middle-class, American Christians? What would it look like for our faith, for our churches today to try and ‘other ourselves?‘ What would it mean for our churches to place ourselves fully into the lives of many Others…with the Others who we disagree with? To the Others we’re prejudiced against…to the Others we don’t think we can live with, or be in community with? I don’t know all the implications of ‘othering ourselves’ - but I know that more and more, I’m realizing that this is one of our calls as members of humanity and especially as followers of Christ…
Another quote from Tracy: “They mean that the central theological question today is not the question of the nonbeliever but the question of the nonperson - those forgotten ones, living and dead, whose struggle and memory are our history.” So, what are the implications for discovering the Other…?
Continue reading “Discovering the Other: A Theological Menage a Trois”
Tags: Levinas, Other, Theology
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
December 2nd, 2004 at 11:13 am
Adam, these remarks are wonderful, and I think the otherness, and center, of the “poor and oppressed” requires ongoing, consistent attention in the lives of western Christians. I guess my question is, given the realities of power, money and military might, Is it true that the world is as polycentric as Tracy claims? How do we keep the financial capital(s) of the world from also becoming the epistemological capitals? In other words, isn’t it true that the perspective and center of the empire(s) will de facto serve as a global center of gravity, and thus prohibit true polycentrism? These are troubling question that I think we have to place at the heart of our Christian pursuit of God in the 21st century.
December 2nd, 2004 at 11:41 am
Talk of the Other or otherness is often, in my mind, too quickly appropriated without the sort of rigor required that either necessarily shapes a politic or that is at least clear about where that has been appropriated from. For example, a Derridean Other is quite different than the Other in Levinas, which begs the question of why use that language at all. It is not that it is impossible to be both theological and participate in a discourse or otherness, but if one is intentionally theological why not use ’stranger’ or something like that which is already intelligible within Christian discourse. I really enjoyed this post, and applaud its thrust, but I‚Äôm not sure that Christian appropriations always come with a level of requisite understanding to make that appropriation intelligible….and if that’s the case, then why not just stick to the internal resources of one’s own tradition to argue for why on Christian terms we must care about the creation of such discursive spaces. Keep up the good work.
-DRM-
The space between the letters is as necessary and inviolable as the letters themselves. The turn to that space is not a preferencing of the hyphen in Buber‚Äôs I-Thou over the ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ but a silent shudder at how long it has been missed.
December 2nd, 2004 at 11:55 am
Adam, you’ve got some good stuff here. I think that if emergent wants to be truly different (i.e. not just a baby-boomer or gen-X marketing ploy) we must consider the other. Emmanuel Levinas speaks to this issue at length in his philosophical works. He argues that we cannot understand the other until we fully encounter the face of the other, without totalizing. I’m still trying to think through what this might look like for ministry in a post-colonial world. Tracy’s work seems to be mostly descriptive as opposed to levinas’ work, which is more prescriptive. Levinas goes so far as to say that if we are really serious about “othering ourselves” in Tracy’s terms, we must be a messiah to the other (and he conceives of messiah with all of its messy implications)!
My fear is that we, as future ministers, will parade around under a guise of “embracing the other” when, in praxis, we will maintain our bourgeois apathy to the plight of the other and retreat to our posh suburban Starbucks-churches and ignore those who we might have a difficult time embracing.
December 2nd, 2004 at 12:49 pm
Jake, that’s my fear too. And that is why we must talk about praxis (which is what Steve’s part of this post is trying to do). We must talk about what it really does look like to embrace the other. It does sound very great to talk about, to blog about, to think about - but when it really comes down to standing face to face with the Other, looking in her eyes, deep into them…
That’s hard…
…and what we’re called to do.
December 2nd, 2004 at 4:16 pm
One problem/question (of many)… How many congregants in the average PCUSA church want to sit next to the “Other” on a Sunday morning? My guess‚Ķvery few. Its just not part of the DNA of most congregations (of course there are exceptions). Even generous churches with big ‚Äúmissions‚Äù budgets have few of the Other attending (I speak from my context). I’m just wondering…Do we beat our heads against a wall for our whole careers or do we start something new? I know what Tony Jones would say, but I’m not ready to jump ship just yet (I’m in the ordination process as well). Good post, Adam.
December 2nd, 2004 at 5:09 pm
One funny thing about considering “the Other,” which I think is a valid and important thing to do, is that it is often a class-bound luxury. I guess, if you classify things in a hierarchy of need, survival comes first (food, water, air, shelter, etc.)…a person who survives can care for their loved ones and dependents, then develop friendships with the like-minded, maybe pursue an education or a career goal…and then FINALLY be at a place to consider cultures or perspectives that are different from their own. One of the ironies of a poly-centric culture is that only certain cultures have the luxury to devote time and energy to understanding other ones, even within the good ole USA. Once again we are back to questions of praxis.
Hey this is my first post!
Peace Tim
December 2nd, 2004 at 5:43 pm
In response to Tim’s wording of “often a class-bound luxury”. I think it really is interesting to look at the issue through a socio-economic eyepiece. When I think or hear of congregations that are more comfortable with the idea of “other” I usually think of large urban spralls and urban based churchs such as the brooklyn tabernacle. I think what we face is a unique structure in America of segregation to our own white middle class churches where we go out of the way, sometimes driving miles and miles (I know this happens here in LA) to avoid being where we consider the “other” to be, even if that means that there aren’t enough “Luxury” cars in the parking lot of the church down the street.
On a side note, take a look around your church parking lot on a given sunday and I think it speaks wonder about what kind of people are attending your church.
I hate to sound “critical” or “stand off ish” but I really have a problem with the over-all infatuation of money that resides within our congregations. Are we not preaching, “sell all that you have and follow me”, loud enough, or are we not emphasizing “give to the poor”???
I realy cherish my times that I’ve had with YWAM (youth with a mission) in San Francisco. Looking people in the eye, praying with them, taking the time to listen to them, finding myself enjoying the sweet smell of urine soaked clothes. If only our fellow congregants could experience this, I think it would bring the sense of the other into perspective. I only wish I had more time myself to do it more and more.
December 2nd, 2004 at 6:29 pm
Kudos to all 3 of you, Reno, Adam, & Steve! I appreciate all that you three have said. I especially agree with those who have already commented that it’s important to talk about the practical ways to encounter the “other.” I also think it’s important, especially when we are speaking to other Christians, that we make it clear what we are saying. I think Steve’s comment hits it right on the head, “In encountering the Other in a moment of disagreement, we must avoid the arrogant attitude that presumes “I’m right, you’re wrong.” We must also avoid the admirable but wishy-washy relativism of “I’m right, you’re right.” Instead we must practice the vulnerable generosity of “I believe I’m right, but I might be wrong.”
It is so important that we make this clear. I think many Christians (myself included) are very aware and disagree very much with the ultra-relative “I’m right, you’re right” everybody’s right philosophy.
As for John’s comment about the reluctance of those in the pews…I think it’s a valid point. But are we supposed to abandon them there, or are we supposed to call them to something better?
December 2nd, 2004 at 9:17 pm
Wow! It is somewhat disturbing to me that when we as the white-suburban church in america thinks about encountering the ‘other’ in our brothers and sisters who are materially poor the mentality often seems to be us-to-them relationship rather than approached with any mutuality or equality. How we can pray for them, lead them, nurture them, be gracious about their urine-smelling clothes. This gracious giving on our part builds up in us a kind of pride in ourselves. That we are not the ones materially or spiritually poor and that we in our wholeness can minister to the ‘poor other’. Rather than realizing that we are all pilgrims along the way we end up setting up another system in which both ourselves and others are bound to sin instead of free of the chains. I am not proposing a glorification of the materially poor however I am proposing that suburbaners begin to know how spiritually poor they have become because of their ‘worship’ of their material wealth. We are all impoverished and we can only help each other along the journey inthat we recognize this. The white-suburban church might be rich monetarily but we are spiritually bereft of God just as all people’s are, however our culture that we buy into drives our mammon lusts and moves us even farther from the presence God. So the question is how can we as the people of God envision and create a Church capable of bringing people together to function as the body of christ in relating in love to one another? How can we as the Church create a place for people of different sub-cultures to meet each other and in love form the body of Christ? For me the system of american culture and that the church continues to believe it can and should operate within this system seems to be the biggest problem. If we recognize our citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven and the in-breaking of Christ in our world should we not operate as if we are ‘resident aliens’ (Willimon & Haurwas) in this world? If we claim this God’s promise perhaps we can begin to envision a model that will offer the world soem salt and light? A true alternative to the sadness and violence experienced by those in inner cities in America and those who experience loss and separation in the ‘Burbs? Perhaps one way to envision this is to start listening to our brothers and sisters in the church worldwide? Any thoughts?
December 3rd, 2004 at 12:36 am
A,
Greetings. It is amazing how these three posts had no reference to sex or embodiment issues. Adam, you ask “How can we have a church for Other?” Only the church born out of eros can be truly “for Other” — don’t you agree?
Embracing,
O.
December 3rd, 2004 at 12:41 am
I have read all of these comments and I appreciate all of their insight within a very significant topic. Often in times like this I think that it is important to show your inteligence and ability to strand together theological and social arguments. I can do all of that, but I have one question for this discussion. Have you thought about what “the other” might feel like being called “the other” or are we so caught up in thinking about it that we have forgotten that we are talking about people? People.. not terms.. not ideas.. not just creatures.. not sitting in a classroom pondering life because we have been given the luxury to do so, but people.
December 3rd, 2004 at 2:24 am
I think this whole argument misses the point completely, in that each one of us is the center of our own circle by definition and not even our closest friends overlap entirely. Even if we cluster together with people of like (but not identical) minds, the notion of “center” gets kind of fuzzy. To believe that we could ever truly know what it means to be other than ourselves in more than trivial ways is futile.
In many ways this seeing “us” as a bloc, and “them” as a different bloc is just so simplistic and wrong, whether it be west and east, north and south or suburban and urban (and “Me”, please tell me you don’t really mean to tar all urban dwellers as piss-soaked losers…)
So the real question is how do we acknowledge that we can never truly know what it is to be “other” than ourselves, yet still learn and grow to work with and respect each other?
December 3rd, 2004 at 4:46 am
I come into this conversation really feeling like the ” other ” I hear all the academia, and knowledge behind your words, which is wonderful, but I can’t offer that as I don’t have much of it.
But I am amazed by a God whose creativity is never ending…his palette never seems to run out of color and beauty. But we in a sense have forgotten that, we have forgotten the beauty of diversity…we like people like ourselves, we like to talk about what the group likes to talk about, we like the popular places.But we are so beautifully, and uniquely different…as different as snow flakes.
I love the beauty behind the thought of putting yourself fully in the other…without the intent of changing the other. But with the intent of experiencing something much deeper…to have some of the diverse beauty of the other placed in you…and some of you in the other. We each leave with something we didn’t have before…a little less of ourselves…and a little more of the other.
Again, I know this is very simple…not a whole lot of depth…but I really want to thank the 3 for sharing thier thoughts and making me realize how much I am missing in others.
December 3rd, 2004 at 7:27 pm
I’m most troubled by your Prof’s comment that you need to “other yourself;” that you need to try and read the poem as the poet would want it. That is simply impossible.
In complete contradistinction to that, all 20th century hermeneutics are based on the injunction that we must claim ourselves (Gadamer calls it our “preunderstanding”) before we can interpret anything. Gadamer goes on to say that we must claim and acknowledge our own “horizon of meaning,” then we let that rub against the horizon of the text we are interpreting — as a result, our horizon is permanently altered.
Confronting and appreciating someone else’s (or some text’s) “otherness” comes not from abandoning my own subject-ivity (which is impossible) but from claiming it, opening it up to the other, and allowing it to be altered by the other.
December 4th, 2004 at 8:04 am
I find this conversation interesting and stimulating but wonder if the foundation is not seriously flawed. I fully understand the motive of being interested and compassionate with the ‘other’. but does not such a designation inherently inply that my ‘centre’ has some degree of superiority or authenticity?
May I be radical? I suggest that we will never honestly be capable of viewing, interacting with, understanding or ministring to ‘the other’ until we are able to understand that in light of God’s love for us through Christ, we are the ones in need - in need of radical transformation in our thinking, in our understanding of what God has called us to be in living, in need of how to translate the goodness of God into the incarnate love of Christ for others.
From a mission and Canadian perspective, this blog seems to be another example of talking around issues while not owning up to the fact that the greatest need in meeting the other is the openness to the possibility that we are the other!
Adam, you are closest to the truth, not so much in the quotes of Bonhoeffer, but in understanding his life!
December 4th, 2004 at 6:19 pm
David Sloss,
I agree. I find this conversation, although understandable, uncomfortable. This terminology smells of superiority. In addition, I also wonder how this line of thinking will change along with all the other seminarians I have known. Once buildings, staffs paychecks, lighting, and everything else that is paramount to the running of some program (emergent or not), this view tends to wan and the exigency shifts towards pragmatism, towards keeping the paying company happy. And that seems to find fashion with the masses lending a helping hand two or three days a year, on the most sacred of holidays. I mean, people need turkeys and parishioner’s need to feel clean.
Well, this has been my experience - time and time again. I am with David, this discourse makes me feel ill-at-ease with the seminary and it’s continued jaded perspective. This perspective that they are entering the world to do ministry. As if they are the do-gooder’s sent to save the world; to be the light; to teach the “other” what is actually means to be loved and the “in” how to love. I hope you seminarians turn from the tendencies of your predecessors, and learn to see the church as a collective, where each is able to discern the Spirit of God, not just the pastor who is in school to do ministry. Ministry is a way of life. Not a job. I like Paul and his refusal to except payment. I know what he says about the ox, but it is his example I admire.
December 4th, 2004 at 11:11 pm
Thanks for keeping the dialogue going friends…a few comments:
Tony: I don’t think my speech prof. meant that I needed to try and other myself as in figure out exactly how the poet would have wanted it performed…he just encouraged us to other ourself INTO the poem, the subject, the feelings, etc., and we were open to interpret as we would…
David: I don’t know if you continued along with the other posts in the menage a trois (which was the point), but there was some conversation on Reno’s blog (the 2nd post) about the other, and I, in fact, did say that we must realize that we are all, EACH, actually, marginalized, and the Other.
Joel, well, I guess since that’s been the trend of pastors post-seminary to just get into the old ruts, we might as well stop challenging people and teaching/encouraging them to NOT DO THAT! I think there are many of my friends here at PTS who will not want to just get into the traditional pastor rut that you are talking about - they are those will want to push the envelope, to REALLY think and experience their own individual Otherness and the Others around them. Wait, WTF? Ministry is a way of life…???
I’ve never heard that before…
December 6th, 2004 at 9:14 am
You may need the poor to pray for your spiritual state. God may be calling them to speak truth into your hearts, to set you free, to show you how to love. Benefactors to the poor isn’t an attitude the materially poor are going to appreciate folks. Stop looking on them as people who need your benevolent charity, and start seeing them as humans who need a saviour, just like you.
Then perhaps there would be less patronisation of the poor amongst christians?
December 6th, 2004 at 9:19 am
Lucy, was this directed at me? If so, this is just a good example of how people can read one blog entry and make some pretty huge generalizations. I believe strongly that the poor can teach me something. During my time doing ministry with street kids and spending time among the most poverty-stricken people in Honduras, I grew immensely, because of THEIR love, because of THEIR hospitality, because of THEIR generosity…it’s not just about me serving them as “the Other” - it is about making sure their voice is heard and making sure others have the chance to be touched and changed by their lives…
Let’s not make judgments about my spiritual state based on one blog entry. Thanks.
December 6th, 2004 at 9:39 am
The comment was deliberately left open, not aimed at any specific person. I read the comments and most of them displayed an attiude of benevolent arrogance IMHO.
The comment was intendd to convey that dealing with materially poor people isn’t about wealthy christians helping those less fortunate. God may well have things he wants those people to do in the wealthier christians lives, which if an attitude of benevolence is maintianed can prevent people being open to mutual assistance.
I hope this clarifies the point.
December 6th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
Adam, did you take the photo?
December 6th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
Joy, I wish I did - no I didn’t. It’s part of a Youth Specialties resource called “Every Picture Tells a Story.”