1

Theological Epistemology in The Emergent Church: A Form of Paul Ricoeur's Relational Attestation Callid Keefe-Perry Callid@theopoetics.net Boston University School of Theology This paper is an effort to employ Paul Ricoeur's conception of attestation for the purposes of categorizing and focusing a ma or thematic element of the discourse !ithin the emergent church"1 # suggest that a num$er of social and theological practices !ithin the emergent church function so as to reveal that the primary form of interpretive !or% $eing engaged in is that of attestation" &s a 'peculiar( type of poetic) hermeneutical %no!ing) attestation is a rich resource for e*ploring of the !ays in !hich individuals and communities practice naming +od and e*periences of the ,ivine" # intend to provide t!o primary outcomes $y reading some of the emergent church's practices through the lens of Ricoeur" -irst) # suggest that more than ust a social phenomenon) in their radical emphasis upon relationality) emergent church participants em$ody a category of %no!ing !hich is $oth distinct from traditions rooted in ,escartes) and one !hich can $e systematically considered !ithout demanding an a$solute articulation of theological certainty" Second) # offer that over and against more
1 # am !ell a!are of the pro$lematic nature of referring to 'the .mergent Church( using the definite

article and the compounded pro$lem of assuming that this linguistically unified category then has such a thing as 'a position( on anything" Regardless) # !ill proceed in spite of this) hoping that my attempts at descriptive categorization are sufficient for at least some large portion of those !ho !ould identify as part of the emerging church or the emergent church conversation/s0" -or those loo%ing for a more detailed contrast and comparison regarding the various interpretations on the nature and e*tent of !hat e*actly it is that the emergent church is) # particularly commend the second chapter of +raeme -ancourt's 1234 $oo%) Brand New Church?) !hich does a very good o$ of culling together most of the availa$le secondary literature on topic"
2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

ontotheological truth-claims) 'attestational %no!ing( is perfectly suited for a Christian theological epistemology 7 especially as is commonly articulated in emergent church circles 7 $ecause of its inherently relational and incarnational 8ualities" # $egin $y discussing Ricoeur's concept of attestation) e*plicating the idea 7 !hich he primarily employs in the conte*t of addressing su$ ectivity 7 and ho! it is $roadly applica$le to epistemological conversations as !ell" # then pause the conversation pertaining to Ricoeur and move into a section $riefly conte*tualizing my o!n involvement !ith the emergent church" 9oving from this framing # e*amine several articulations of 'emergent church theology)( proposing a schema !hich # suggest is $roadly descriptive of the epistemological position of many participants in emergent church conversation" # then return to the previously paused conversation) sho!ing ho! the schema developed can $e sho!n to $e highly resonant !ith the attestation model" # conclude !ith an argument as to !hy the category of attestation might $e a useful interpretive and categorical tool in the emergent church conte*t) pointing to the !ays in !hich it clarifies and intensifies its tendencies to!ard relationality and social ustice !hile simultaneously suggesting a more rigorous frame!or% for assessing theological developments"

Attestation and its Implications #t is $eyond the scope of a piece of this length to !or% through the minutely precise) incremental) and systematic thought of Ricoeur" #ndeed) anyone !ho has spent any significant time !ith a Ricoeur te*t !ill %no! it is laugha$le to attempt to trace the fullness

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

of his arguments !hile attempting to do much of anything else at all" #nstead) # !ill s%etch the $road contours of Ricoeur's position regarding attestation) slightly conte*tualize it so as to clarify its location) and then dra! parallels to that contour line" &s a specific term of interest) 'attestation( arises most profoundly in the Tenth Study of Ricoeur's !neself as Another. 9ore $roadly though) and as !ill $e sho!n) topics of similar content can $e found throughout his !or% on testimony and hermeneutics" #ndeed) the issue leading to the development of attestation as a category is one !ith !hich Ricoeur !as perennially grappling6 namely) if '!e must choose $et!een philosophy of a$solute %no!ledge and the hermeneutics of testimony( /Ricoeur 3:;2) 3<40) ho! are !e to develop a hermeneutic that su$stantially addresses the a$solute= Put another !ay) though Ricoeur !as entirely uneager to engage in the production of a 'philosophy of a$solute %no!ledge)( neither !as he interested in the !or% of eternal linguistic 'slippage( !ithout referent" &ttestation is his attempt to develop a !ay to systematically 'allo! for a conviction of truth that is not controlled $y foundations or methods)( $ut one that yet maintains 'reasons or grounds( outside of metaphysics /Stiver 1223) 3:<0" >ith attestation he is trying to allo! for a discussion of the a$solute $y means of a type hermeneutics that calls for constant revision and reassessment even !hile it al!ays 7 and purposefully so 7 falls short of the claims of an ontological necessity of the 5ther 1"
1 Ricoeur is clear that !hile as a person he may !ell have faith commitments his philosoph" as such remains necessarily 'agnostic"( #n the closing pages of !neself as &nother he cedes this point directly) noting that) 'Perhaps the philosopher as philosopher has to admit that one does not %no! and cannot say !hether this 5ther) the source of the in unction) is another person !hom # can loo% in the face or !ho can stare at me) or my ancestors for !hom there is no representation) to so great an e*tent does my de$t to them constitute my very self) or +od?living +od) a$sent +od?or an empty place" >ith this aporia of the 5ther) philosophical discourse comes to an end( /Ricoeur 3::1) 4<<0"
2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

@RicoeurA sta%es out a position $et!een ,escartes and Bietzsche) Kant and Cegel""" #t re ects the hegemony of a$solutist reason that eliminates the mystery and transcendence of religion from one perspective and a s%eptical) even nihilist position) from another perspective that also eliminates transcendence""" #n pointing to!ards a postcritical conviction# he re ected the alternatives of o$ ectivism and relativism""" as part of the false dilemma of modernity $ut pointed to a genuine) al$eit hermeneutical) %no!ledge /Stiver 1231) 3140" &ttestation is the result of Ricoeur detailing a strategy to help 'deDne the sort of certainty that hermeneutics may claim)( a method that is critical $oth of 'the epistemic e*altation of the cogito in ,escartes( as !ell as the cogito's $humiliation in Bietzsche and his successors(/Ricoeur 3::1) 130" Situating attestation as a hermeneutic response to the epistemologies of ,escartes and Bietzsche) he !rites that it 're8uires less than one and more than the other( /#$id"0" #t is a method for a type of philosophy in '!hich the 8uestion of the a$solute is a proper 8uestion) a philosophy !hich see%s to oin an e*perience of the a$solute to the idea of the a$solute( /Ricoeur 3:;2) 33:0" Ricoeur sets up the analogy that ust as '%no!ledge is tied together !ith truth""" so is attestation !ith truthfulness( /Eythgoe :0" Co!ever) rather than address the apparent issue at hand directly 7 that is) rather than $egin $y discussing the nature of %no!ledge or epistemological ustification 7 in a move that is typical of Ricoeur) he steps $ac% to suggest that the proper site of initial in8uiry is actually one !hich undergirds any pro$lematic concern !ith %no!ledge6 su$ ectivity and the 'self)( or more particularly) one's self as an 5ther"

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

#nterdependent Su$ ectivity -ollo!ing the hermeneutic heuristic that interpretation 'goes all the !ay do!n)( for Ricoeur) 'selfhood is a tas% not a given( /Stiver 1223) 1220" That is) the Ricoeurian 'Su$ ect( !hich can possess %no!ledge of the '>orld( outside of itself is itself an action. Rather than posit the human !ill as a 'sovereign) 'noumenal' freedom)( Ricoeur is clear he understands it to $e 'incarnate) that is) em$odied) freedom( /Call) 120" -urthermore) the primary 8uality of this su$ ect's freedom is not its independence $ut its interdependence) that is) it is the %ind of freedom 'open to incarnate agents as initiative) that is) as the a$ility to initiate a series of events !ithin a causal structure""" @#Anitiative is the nature of human activity( /#$id"0" Ricoeur's Su$ ect is necessarily a 'su$ ect-in-the-!orld( and $eing 'in-the-!orld( entails materiality) historical conte*t) and /narrated0 action through time" 5r) in Ricoeur's language) attestation is the movement from 'the certainty of $eing the author of oneFs o!n discourse and of oneFs o!n acts( to!ard 'the conviction of udging !ell and acting !ell in a momentary and provisional appro*imation of living !ell( /Ricoeur 3::1) 3;20" &ttestation is mainly attestation of the self" Through attestation the self presents itself as a $eing !ith the po!er to say) the po!er to do) the po!er to have an identity and to $e responsi$le for its actions""" Cere !e have the epistemological sense of attestation !hich helps to ans!er the 8uestion6 >hat %ind of %no!ledge does the self have a$out itself= The self is thus the $eing that is certain that it is an agent and a patient" Co!ever) attestation also has an ontological import and in that sense it can $e defined as the 'assurance 7 the credence and the trust 7 of e*isting in the mode of selfhood"( #n this sense attestation helps to ans!er the 8uestion6 '>ho is the self=( The self is the confidence of e*isting in the mode of selfhood" >hat do these t!o senses have in common= #n $oth cases it is a confidence) a trust) a credence) $ut in a sense other than that of a scientific certainty" &s !e can see) attestation possesses a very peculiar epistemological status /Kaufmann <0"
2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

&s Kaufmann helpfully points out there are at least t!o significant implications regarding attestation and su$ ectivity" -irst) that 'the self is the confidence of e*isting in a mode of selfhood)( and second) that the self is that !hich is 'an agent and a patient"( .*perientially) it is $y acting and suffering in and !ith the !orld /including others0 that the su$ ect arises" &t no time) ho!ever) does the self '%no!( itself as a self as such" #t has only 'a confidence) a trust) a credence)( and this is sufficient for a sense of selfhood" #n response to the vast !a%e of ,escartesFs epistemology and Bietzsche's response to it) Ricoeur specifically constructs a sense of self that does not re8uire a concept of a priori selfhood !hose essence precedes its e*istence" Because ,escartes needed his su$ ect to $e 'the point of origin and the guarantor of the certainty of %no!ledge( so as to argumentatively overcome the hypothetical demon controlling his sense-perception) he 'had to resort to the guarantee of +od's veracity) verified $y the proofs for the e*istence of +od( /Gan ,en Cengel) HI20" Ricoeur's attestation ma%es no claims to any such certainty" The self) in other !ords) e*ists as a $elief) as a JfianceJ as an assurance of truthfulness" Ricoeur calls it a Jmode al%thi&ueJa truthful mode) !hich e*presses not so much J# $elieve that"""J $ut) as in the creedal formula) J# $elieve inKJ #n attestation the self e*presses the assurance that) in spite of suspicion) meaning and the self are possi$le" Truth here is not necessarily verifia$le truth /Gan ,en Cengel) HI30" 5f particular concern for my consideration of attestation is the !ay that Ricoeur addresses the relationship of %no!ledge) $elief) dou$t) and suspicion" Because no proper and direct claim to truth is made in attestation) it is not categorically something !hich one

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

counters or refutes4" That is) if # attest to love for my daughter) Bahar) there is no direct means of ustifying that claim" 9oreover) Ricoeur says that it is not merely that # have made some truth-claim !hich is unverifia$le) $ut that in attesting to it) # am doing something categorically different than claiming to %no! # love her" #n my attestation # am saying that # trust that !hat # e*perience in doing and saying !hat # identify is love is love" # cannot verify this) $ut # attest to it" #n this sense) attestation is a !ea% type of assertion6 it is forthrightly uncertain and !holly a!are of the contingency of the spea%er's situatedness in the !orld" &s as result of its epistemological humility) it is al!ays vulnera$le and this vulnera$ility !ill $e e*pressed in the permanent threat of suspicion) if !e allo! that suspicion is the specific contrary of attestation" The %inship $et!een attestation and testimony is verified here6 there is no 'true( testimony !ithout 'false( testimony" But there is no recourse against false testimony than another that is more credi$leL and there is no recourse against suspicion $ut a more relia$le attestation /Ricoeur 3::1) 110" .ven in its vulnera$ility though) there is no outright 'procedure that may allo! us to re ect a suspicious $elief)( merely !ays in !hich attestations seem more /or less0 fully oriented and e*pressed to!ard truthfulness /Eythgoe) :0" -urthermore) not only are !e ustified in our suspicion of attestational claims) $ut suspicion itself is constituti'e of attestation" Suspicion 'is not simply the contrary of attestation"""@$utA also the path to!ards) the crossing !ithin attestation" #t haunts attestation( /Ricoeur 3::1) 410"

3 In his essay, "Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation," Ricoeur is clear that his hermeneutical approach to philosophy opposes not only the notion of an autonomy of the thinking sub ect, but also, more broadly, any !concept of reason which claims to be its own master and transparent to itself" #Ricoeur 1$%&, ''() 2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

-ragile-Self .thics and .pistemology -ollo!ing from the a$ove) !e are rightfully suspicious of our attestational claims $ecause as claims made $y a su$ ect-in-the-!orld they are statements of faith) and faith in something entails an un%no!ing /cf" Ce$" 33"30" Thus) $arring direct divine intervention andMor the permanent and complete arrival of the eschaton) attestational claims cannot $e su$stantiated $y proof as such" #nstead) they $ecome more /or less0 seemingly oriented to!ard truthfulness as they are supported /or not0 $y further action and speech6 attestation impels action-in-the-!orld as needed to corro$orate the claims made" That is) 'attestation is the self in its commitment to the !orld( /Gan ,en Cengel HI30" Put another !ay) e*cepting situations of psychopathology) !e do not dou(t that !e can act) spea%) or respond toMin the !orld" >e might very !ell $e suspicious of the appropriateness of our actions) language) and responsiveness) $ut !e do not dou$t our capacity to enact them" -or Ricoeur it is precisely this suspicion of insufficiency that helps us move from a certain-$ut-disem$odied su$ ect to!ard 'self-in-the-!orld) indeed) a social self( /Stiver 1231) 3110" The attested-to self is fragile $ecause it depends on 5therness Jto so intimate a degree that the one cannot $e thought !ithout the other) that one passes rather into the other) as one !ould say in Cegelian languageJ /Ricoeur 3::1) 3H0" Thus it is that 'Self( is $est understood as 'one self as an other)( in dialogue and interdependence) mutually calling upon one another such that the ethical en oinder arises not from a Eevinasian &$solute 5ther) $ut from !ithin the fragility of the Self oined !ith another" #n fact) this overlap is perhaps !hy Ricoeur routinely asserts the importance of

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

poetic discourse for communicating the nature of su$ ectivity and the a$solute" Nust as the %no!ing self is simultaneously not-self)H it is the case that hermeneutic %no!ledge is a form of seeing-as and saying-as" &ttestation) then) suggests that there is a !ay of $eing in relation to reality that is more fundamental than the mode that constructs the self as a udging su$ ect essentially separated from a !orld of o$ ects under its gaze" #t is to this more originary !ay of $eing that poetic discourse refers" Poetic reference is counterintuitive for moderns $ecause !e have em$raced an epistemology that %eeps us closed off from the realities to !hich poetic discourse gives access /Pape) O;0" #n his '!ounding of the Cartesian cogito)( Ricoeur ma%es the demarcation $et!een Self and 5ther more porous" 5ne of the conse8uences of this is an epistemological opening to 'the realities to !hich poetic discourse gives access"( #n turn) once access has $een granted) 'poetic discourse""" calls into 8uestion the reduction of the referential function to descriptive discourse and opens the Deld of a nondescriptive reference to the !orld( /Ricoeur 3::<) 1110"The result is neither a s%epticism-spoo%ed silence nor a stream of syncretistic sophistry6 the poetic is employed $ecause it simultaneously refers to the !orld as an actuality and employs language that presumes a surplus of meaning !hich oversaturates language's capacity to scientistically account for its referent" Poetic discourse is a$out the !orld) $ut not a$out the manipula$le o$ ects of our everyday environment" #t refers to our many !ays of $elonging to the !orld $efore !e oppose ourselves to things understood as 'o$ ects( that stand $efore a 'su$ ect"( #f !e have $ecome $lind to these modalities of rootedness and $elonging-to /appartenance0 that precede the relation of a su$ ect to o$ ects) it is $ecause !e have) in an uncritical !ay) ratiDed a certain concept of truth) deDned $y ade8uation to real o$ ects and su$mitted to a criterion of empirical veriDcation and falsiDcation /i$id"0"
* 5r perhaps more precisely) 'self( is the dialogue $et!een one interpretation of that self !ith that

!hich is received as 5ther than it "

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

10

#n advocating for a model that encompasses an articulation of the 'peculiar( type of hermeneutical %no!ledge that attestation $rings) Ricoeur not only manages to settle himself $et!een ,escartes and Bietzsche and Kant and Cegel) $ut also upon !hat 9artin Bu$er called the 'narro! ridge( $et!een 'the gulfs !here there is no sureness of e*pressi$le %no!ledge $ut the certainty of meeting !hat remains undisclosed( /Bu$er) 3;H0" &ttestation insists upon the su$ ect's e*istence as $eing at least co-causal !ith the 5ther and suggests that constitutive of its very nature is a call from the 5ther recognized $ecause it is that same 5ther !hich co-causes the Self to $e" &s language e*pressed $est in poetic discourse) attestation challenges our criterion of %no!ledge and affirms the importance of our $elonging-to the !orld and to each other"

The Emergent Church To $egin this section it is !orth situating myself in the conte*t of the .mergent Church as # understand myself to $e a participant in it via a num$er of entry points" # identify as emergent through my association !ith a denominational grouping of 'Convergent -riends( !ithin Pua%erism) regular participation at .mergent Gillage events) and the online communities encompassing .mergent Cohort Eeaders) listeners of the Come$re!ed Christianity Podcast) and the Trans-5R9 net!or%" Thus) !hile # !ill sparsely cite some te*tual references for claims # ma%e a$out the nature of the emergent church and its theological orientation) # have underta%en no thorough sociological in8uiry $eyond hundreds of personal conversations) email e*changes) lectures) and t!eets"

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

11

The PR#S9 Schema >hat # intend to do here is to provide a descriptive frame!or% that ade8uately captures the theological foci of a $road section of those !ho !ould self-identify as someho! part of the emergent church" -or the sa%e of $revity # !ill cite $rief e*cerpts from a num$er of te*ts a$out /or used $y0 the emergent church that pertain to this topic and then reflect on them together as a grouping" Gia that reflection # !ill suggest a $road tool$y-!ay-of-language intended to help more succinctly categorize the area/s0 of concern for emergent church participants" '@TAhe emerging movement calls the church to re ect modernism and em$race the postmodern pro ect of deconstructing the .nlightenment" Though most are not hard postmodernists 7 that is) they still $elieve in revelation 7 they value the negative pro ect of postmodernism6 the part that dismantles rationalism(/Belcher) H20" '@TAhe .merging Church !as founded to get the evangelical church to ta%e art) social ustice and other !hat might $e considered progressive issues more seriously( /Bailey0" '@-Aor almost everyone !ithin the movement) this !or%s out in an emphasis on feelings and affections over against linear thought and rationalityL on e*perience over against truthL on inclusion over against e*clusionL on participation over against individualism and the heroic loner(/Carson) 1:0" '#n a centered-set church it is recognized that !e are all sinners) all struggling to $e the $est people !e can $e" But !e also $elieve that the closer one gets to the center /Christ0) the more Christli%e oneFs $ehavior should $ecome""" Bo one is considered un!orthy of $elonging $ecause they happen to $e addicted to to$acco) or $ecause theyFre not married to their live-in partner( /-rost Q Cirsch) H:0" The emerging church is 'an irreverent ne! !ave of grassroots ecumenism) propelled from !ithin lo! church Protestantism $y a mi* of longing) curiosity and discontent" #t cares not for institutional protocols) $eing engendered $y 'innovation and e*perimentation""" in response to the Spirit's prompting'( /+ay) :4-H0"
2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

12

.mergent Gillage is""" 'a net!or% of Christians see%ing to find authentic e*pressions of the gospel in the t!enty-first century""" 9any o$servers $elieve that Christian institutions are losing relevance outside their o!n structures" #nstead of reacting negatively to this development) emergent churches em$race a future that is openended""" ,ra!ing on 'post-modern' philosophy and literary theory) emergence theologians and pastors see% to dismantle those church structures that impede faithful living( /&t!ood0" >hile there are certainly other !ays in !hich the emergent church might $e

categorized) $ased on my o!n e*perience 7 present here $y pro*y and in condensed form via the selections a$ove 7 # !ant to propose the acronym PR#S9 to identify the primary domains of engagement for those in the emergent church" ersonal .*pression Communal ,iscipline Realized .schatology 9illenialism Innovation Tradition Social Nustice Personal Piety !ystery Certainty Rather than vie! these domains as a chec%list) # see them more as a heuristic assessment tool" That is) it is not that someone has to have a mar%ed personal investment in Personal .*pression) Realized .schatology) Theological #nnovation) etc" to 'count as .mergent)( $ut rather that most people !ho !ould identify as emergent are often concernedMinvested in issues and discussion pertaining to the tensions $et!een the freedom for personal e*pression versus the desire to $e part of a strong community etc" -urthermore) # !ould additionally specify that the ma ority of those in the emergent church !ould tend to!ard the left-hand side of that list /hence using PR#S9 and not C9TPC0) $ut again) it is not meant to serve as a strict litmus test6 the primary mar%er of the model for identification purposes is engagement in interactionMdialogueMprayer

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

13

around issues pertaining to the five continua) not a particular doctrinal position"

&n &ttestational Church= # !ould li%e to $egin this section $y noting that # am certainly not the first to connect Ricoeur's thought !ith that of the .mergent Church" & num$er of other thin%ers < have made various connections here and there) !ith the primary reference usually his notion of the second naivete" >here # thin% there is room for further investigation is the overlap $et!een understanding the emergent PR#S9 orientation as a one !hich arises from a proclivity to!ard attestation over and against traditional theological epistemologies" #f this is the case then those interested in the emergent church may have a theological organizing principle in the concept of attestation" -urthermore) as N"R" Cus!it has sho!n) there is significant reason to associate Ricoeurian hermeneutics !ith Process Philosophy) at least to the e*tent that Ricoeur's Su$ ect can $e understood to $e 'engaged in an unending transformative dialectic process !ith its environment( /Cus!it) <<0" This suggests that the Process Thought emphasis on $ecoming over against $eing is also ripe for more systematically grounding emergent theological thought" To consider this possi$ility # !ill compare the five PR#S9 domains to

+ See) for e*ample) Non Stanley's )he !ther *ournal intervie! !ith Brian 9cEaren in !hich 9cEaren notes he has spent pending 'huge amounts of my spiritual attention""" trying to understand Nesus again and trying to read the Bi$le !ith as much of a second naRvetS( as possi$leL Ted Camp$ell's )he +ospel in Christian )raditions ,!ith a for!ard from 9cEaren0 that employs RicoeurFs hermeneutic methodL Tony Nones' '/,e0constructing Nustice6 >hat ,oes the Postmodern Turn Contri$ute to the Christian Passion for Nustice=(!here he addresses Ricoeur as developing a 'hermeneutic of humilityL(and Peter Rollins' )he Fidelit" of Betra"al) !hich) !hile it does not cite Ricoeur directly) does have an an entire su$-section /H<-H;0entitled 'Second Baivete"(
2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

14

attestation and its implications as previously addressed" >hile Ricoeur's framing of attestation is primarily an attempt to address /inter0su$ ectivity) # thin% that its gesture 7 and its epistemological conse8uences 7 are more than slightly applica$le to issues regarding the naming of +od and ho! !e might more fruitfully understand the category of 'religious %no!ledge( and the areas of concern for the emergent church" Consider first the tension $et!een personal e*pression and communal discipline" This domain is engaged e*plicitly $y the conversation surrounding attestation) recognition) and mutuality, That attestation is mediated through recognition $ecomes even more clear !hen !e loo% up the topic of mutual recognition" Ricoeur states that the capacities need to $e recognized $y others in order that !e may attest to them" This is so) $ecause capacities are $asically social capacities" Thus) it is not enough for attestation to $e mediated $y a simple self-recognition of capacities) $ut it needs to $e mediated $y the recognition of the other" That recognition is in need of social mediation $y others in order to attest to oneFs o!n capacities can $e easily seen $y noting that capacities are mainly social capacities /Kaufmann 14<0" That is) !hat Ricoeur offers in attestation is an understanding of the social e*perience/s0 of 'humiliation) frustration) and e*clusion( /i$id) 1120 as more than ust psychological) $ut as factors that influence su$ ectivity and therefore epistemology" #n a similar vein) attestation addresses the dynamics $et!een social ustice and personal piety that often occupy the conversation of those grappling !ith a personal history of Billy +raham-inspired 'commitments to Christ( that sometimes !ere held in simultaneity !ith practices that !ere later interpreted to $e oppressive and e*clusive" #ndeed) Ricoeur claims that the pang of 'conscience is""" that place par e cellence in !hich illusions a$out oneself are intimately

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

15

$ound up !ith the veracity of attestation( /Ricoeur 3::1) 4H30) The Christian is someone !ho discerns 'conformity to the image of Christ( in the call of conscience" This discernment is an interpretation" &nd this interpretation is the outcome of a struggle for veracity and intellectual honesty" & 'synthesis( is not given and never attained $et!een the verdict of conscience and the christomorphism of faith" &ny synthesis remains a ris%) a 'lovely ris%( /Ricoeur 3::<) 1IH-<0" Because attestation asserts that all self-understanding is mediated $y signs) sym$ols) and te*ts /Ricoeur 3::1) 33H0) any understanding of the 'Christian self( as such must $e understood as the present ape* of an infinitely turning gyre of interpretation ta%ing up self-reflective reason) $i$lical te*ts) the culture in !hich the self arises) and the particular narrative/s0 of the self in 8uestion" &s !e 'read( these together they oin 7 one as another 7 to function as a te*t !hich !e interpret and attest to as 'self"( This process is ongoing $ecause as !e are 'e*posing ourselves to the te*t and receiving from it an enlarged self( /Ricoeur 3::3) ;;0) !e are simultaneously 7 perhaps in a hermeneutic parallel to Ceisen$erg's Uncertainty Principle 7 altering the self !hich is interpreting" #f # am to attest to my identity as a Christian) if # am to $ecome a!are of the !ays in !hich # am contri$uting to my o!n discourse and actions) # !ill also $ecome a!are that my acts of interpretation and $eing in the !orld are not separate from that identity6 for Ricoeur reality is something that unfolds in front of a te*t) not something inaccessi$ly 'out there"( To the e*tent that attestation is the process of interpreting self) the reality of our self opens in the face of our actions in the !orld" This is !hy # suggest that theological conversation pertaining to eschatology !ill find resources in attestational models of

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

16

epistemology6 some trace of that !hich is come 7 $e it eschaton or hermeneutic 7 is already present at hand !aiting to unfold" That does not mean that Ricoeur denies an ontological realityO 7 or a fully realized eschaton 7 rather) through interpretation and attestation) the one !ho attests unfolds a previously unnoticed reality 'in front of( the te*t of her life) living into it al!ays a!are that it is not final) that it is !orth $eing suspicious of) and that its calls for the 5ther to testify to its truthfulness" The testimony of Christ is his !or%s) his suffering) and the testimony of the disciple is) analogously) his suffering" & strange hermeneutic circle is set in motionL the circle of 9anifestation and of Suffering" The martyr proves nothing) !e say) $ut a truth !hich is not strong enough to lead a man to sacrifice lac%s proof( /Ricoeur 3:;2) 3HO0" This is is not the Bietzschean claim that 'all that e*ists consists of interpretation( /)he -ill to Power) &ph" H;30) !hich asserts something a$out ontology /or its lac%0) $ut something li%e its soft reversal6 !hether e*perience) tradition) scripture) or reason) !e interpret all that e*ists) never settling on proof $ut coming to see that something su$stantially enough appears to $e the case that !e have confidence in attesting to its truthfulness" #n the conte*t of religious %no!ledge) this means that even e*perience is mediated $y hermeneutics) suggesting that for the purposes of technical precision in theological
- In regards to Ricoeur.s ontology in Oneself as Another, /amela 0ue 1nderson rightly notes that !Ricoeur elaborates a partial ontology on the basis of a hermeneutics of an acting and suffering self) The ontology is called partial because, unlike Hegel.s, it is supposed to be unfulfilled2 that is, the two aspects of self, acting and suffering, remain in tension without being brought together in an ontology that would culminate in a final synthesis of sameness and otherness) This tension in Ricoeur.s hermeneutics of selfhood creates endless aporia for the self who is not simply passive in being determined by the other nor fully active in autonomously determining oneself) Instead, selfhood must confront both responsibility in action and uncertainty in reception of the ine3plicably given)" That is, Ricoeur does deny a fufilled ontological claim, but in a way that that keeps the 4uestion in view, not one that disregards the category entirely) 2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

17

epistemology it is perhaps $est not to discuss 'an e*perience of +od)( $ut our 'interpretation of an e*perience of +od"( &s -rancis SchTssler -iorenza !rites) even 'e*periences of transcendence""" ta%e place !ithin a living tradition""" and it its narrative and rituals has imprinted the religious imagination of a specific community that has socialized the mem$ers of that community in specific !ay of living and e*periencing( /-iorenza) 3;40" This is also precisely Ricoeur's insight6 even our o!n su$ ectivity and epistemology is conte*tualized $y our historical situatedness" This language of attestation)'the language of testimony) !itness) and martyrdom 7 rather than sense) reference) and meaning)( represents 'a more nearly appropriate idiom for Christians !hen it comes to their self-descriptions of truth and truth-telling( /-odor 44;0" >e attest not in an attempt at detailed positivism) $ut to!ard !hat -iorenza calls 'a hermeneutical e*perience of transcendence""" @!hichA see%s to ta%e into account the interpretive milieu of that e*perience and its ethical responsi$ility( /-iorenza 3;4-H0" #n this paradigm) conversations pertaining to the tension/s0 $et!een novelty and tradition are not only !elcome) $ut essential" >e must continue to reassess and revise our interpretations of e*perience $ecause other than in the eschaton) the veracity of attestation's truthfulness is only $orne out in further speech and action-in-the-!orld" &ttestational claims can never rest completed $ecause $ound up in their very nature are threads of suspicion !hich impel us to further action and investigation" 9y o!n conviction is that !e are al!ays caught in this oscillation $et!een ideology and utopia""" !e must try to cure the illnesses of utopia $y !hat is !holesome in ideology""" and try to cure the rigidity) the petrification) of ideologies $y the utopian element" #t is too simple a response) though) to say that !e must %eep the dialectic
2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

18

running" 9y more ultimate ans!er is that !e must let ourselves $e dra!n into the circle and then must try to ma%e the circle a spiral" >e cannot eliminate from a social ethics the element of ris%" >e !ager on a certain set of values and then try to $e consistent !ith themL verification is therefore a 8uestion of our !hole life" Bo one can escape this /Ricoeur 3:;O) 4310" #t is in the sense of ever spiraling to!ards a completed-interpretation-never-toarrive) the sense in !hich !e ta%e the 'lovely ris%( on consistency !ith values !e hold dear) and the sense in !hich attestation affirms the aporetic and poetic that Ricoeur holds mystery together !ith certainty" #n an oscillation $et!een the e*treme interiority of a Schleiermacherian 'feeling( and the e*teriority of Barthian revelation only through +odFs self-revelation in Nesus Christ) attestation paces a slo!) steady and ris%y spiral to!ard hope and trust" #t is here that a highly technical and philosophical position might open up to a vista at !hich an emergent faith might $e a$le to arrive"

Conclusion

About half an hour later or it might have been half a hundred years later, for time there is not like time here Lucy stood with her dear friend, her oldest Narnian friend, the Faun Tumnus, looking down over the wall of that garden, and seeing all Narnia spread out below... Lucy looked hard at the garden and saw that it was not really a garden at all but a whole world, with its own rivers and woods and sea and mountains. ut they were not strange! she knew them all. "# see,$ she said, "this is still Narnia, and more real and more beautiful than the Narnia down below. ... # see...world within world, Narnia within Narnia.$ "%es,$ said &r. Tumnus, "like an onion! e'cept that as you continue to go in and in, each circle is larger than the last...$ (.). Lewis, The Last attle, *+,

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

19

&n act of attestation is $ound up comple*ly !ith a parallel claim of selfidentification" &ttesting to +od is not an affirmation of the positive e*istence of a $eing !e call +od that e*ists as its o!n su$ ect $eing outside of us" Rather) it is an affirmation that our understanding of our o!n sense of self is $ound up in the understanding of this 5ther" # am reminded of a line from 9eister .c%hart6 '# am as sure as # live that nothing is so near to me as +od" +od is nearer to me than # am to myselfL my e*istence depends on the nearness and the presence of +od"( #n their interest and engagement of the domains of PR#S9) emergent church thin%ers have a ripe opportunity to e*plore the implications for a more sustained reflection on attestation and its possi$le implications for theological thought" Too often # hear conversation in the emergent church !hich conflates t!o categories of concern in theological epistemology6 the e*istence of truth and access to truth" >hat attestation does is affirm the difference $et!een these concerns !ithout necessitating things li%e a priori Kantian faculties of universal reason and distinctions $et!een noumena and phenomena" &ttestation affirms that it 'does not follo! from the fact that humans have no independent o$ ective access to the truth) that truth must therefore $e a su$ ective human construction" Bor does it follo! that a lac% of guaranteed and demonstra$le certainty a$out the truth !e $elieve !e %no! undermines the validity of our natural conviction that !e do indeed have at least appro*imate %no!ledge of the o$ ective truth( /,iller) O;0" >hat attestational epistemology holds open is the invitation to continue to !or% !ith one another) enacting a hermeneutic of relationality6 re ecting the notion that +od's

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

20

nature and movement can ever $e monophonically articulated in full accuracy) yet nevertheless affirming the possi$ility of meaningful +od-tal% $y means of dialogical communication" # !ould $e interested in o$serving !hat !ould shift in emergent conversation if instead of merely mar%ing up the e*terior of traditional claims of %no!ledge !ith a sufficient 8uantity of dou$t and suspicion to allo! them to pass as reasona$le !ithin the present %pist.me) attestational epistemology !as ta%en up as its theological lingua franca6 an acceptance of the need to continually see% testimony supporting the truthfulness of our claims $y means of interpreting our speech) action) and reception of the !orld" &ttesting that our selves are Christian selves) do !e spea% in the !orld as !e say Christians do= ,o !e act in the !orld as say Christians do= ,o !e suffer in the !orld as !e say Christians do= There may $e !or% yet to $e done""" >orlds !ithin !orlds""" each circle larger than the last"

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

21

"i#liography &nderson) Pamela Sue" '&gnosticism and &ttestation6 &n &poria concerning the 5ther in Ricoeur's !neself as Another)J )he *ournal of Religion. IH6 3" 3::H6 O<-IO" &t!ood) Craig" /and(oo0 of 1enominations in the 2nited 3tates. 45th Edition. Bashville6 &$ingdon Press) 1232" Bailey) Sarah Pulliam" 'Be!est UGalues GotersF adversary to &merica6 The .mergent Church"( Religion News 3er'ice. &ug 1I) 1234" http6MM!!!"religionne!s"comM1234M2;M1IMne!est-values-voters-adversary-toamerica-the-emergent-churchM Belcher) Nim" 1eep Church6 A )hird -a" Be"ond Emerging and )raditional. ,o!ners +rove) #E6 #nterGarsity Press) 122:" Bu$er) 9artin" Between 7an and 7an. Ronald +regor Smith /trans"0 Eondon6 Kegan Paul) 3:HI" Carson) ,"&" Becoming Con'ersant with the Emergent Church6 2nderstanding a 7o'ement and 8ts 8mplications. +rand Rapids6 Vondervan) 122<" ,iller) Kevin" )he )heolog" of Re'elation and the Epistemolog" of Christian Belief" ,octoral ,issertation" University of St" &ndre!s) 122;" -iorenza) -rancis SchTssler" 'The .*perience of Transcendence of the Transcendence of .*perience6 Begotiating the ,ifference"( #n Religious E perience and Contemporar" )heological Epistemolog". E" Boeve) W" ,e 9aeseneer) and S" Gan den Bossche /.ds"0 Eeuven6 Peeters Pu$lishers) 122O" -rost) 9ichael Q &lan Cirsch" )he 3haping of )hings to Come# )he6 8nno'ation and 7ission for the 94st:Centur" Church. +rand Rapids6 Ba%er Boo%s) 122H" +ay) ,oug" Remi ing the Church6 )oward an Emerging Ecclesiolog". Eondon6 SC9 Press) 1233" Call) ,avid >" Paul Ricoeur and the Poetic 8mperati'e6 )he Creati'e )ension Between ;o'e and *ustice. State University of Be! Wor% Press) 122I" Cust!it) N" R" J#s Ricoeur a Process Philosopher= #nterpretation and Becoming"J Process 3tudies. 4I63) 122;6 <<-I1"

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

22

Nones) Tony" '/,e0constructing Nustice6 >hat ,oes the Postmodern Turn Contri$ute to the Christian Passion for Nustice=( #n The Nustice Pro ect" Brian 9cEaren) .lisa Padilla) and &shley Bunting See$er /.ds"0" +rand Rapids6 Ba%er Boo%s) 122:" Kaufmann) Se$astian" JThe &ttestation of the Self as a Bridge Bet!een Cermeneutics and 5ntology in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur"J /12320" ,issertations /122: -0" Paper 4H" http6MMepu$lications"mar8uette"eduMdissertationsXmuM4H Ee!is) C"S" )he ;ast Battle. Be! Wor%6 CarperCollins) 3:<O" Eythgoe) .ste$an" 'RicoeurFs Concept of Testimony( #n Analecta /emeneutica G"46 1233" Bietzsche) -rederich" 'The >ill to Po!er"( in )he Complete -or0s of Frederich Niet<sche) v"3<" Be! Wor%6 Russel and Russel) 3:OH" Pape) Eance B" )he 3candal of /a'ing 3omething to 3a"6 Ricoeur and the Possi(ilit" of Postli(eral Preaching" Baylor University Press) 1234" Ricoeur) Paul" 8nterpretation )heor"6 1iscourse and the 3urplus of 7eaning" Te*as Christian University Press) 3:IO" XXXXXXXX" Essa"s on Bi(lical interpretation" Ee!is S" 9udge /.d"0 Philadelphia6 -ortress) 3:;2" XXXXXXXX" ;ectures on 8deolog" and 2topia" Colum$ia University Press) 3:;O" XXXXXXXXX" From )e t to Action. .vanston) #E6 Borth!estern University Press) 3::3" XXXXXXXX" !neself as Another" Translated $y Kathleen Blamey" Chicago6 University of Chicago Press) 3::1" XXXXXXXX" Figuring the 3acred6 Religion# Narrati'e and 8magination " 9ar% >allace /.d"0" 9inneapolis6 -ortresss Press) 3::<" XXXXXXXXX" )he Course of Recognition" ,avid Pellauer /Trans0" Cam$ridge) 9&6 Carvard University Press) 122<" Smith) Charlene" #nternational Eeader of the U.mergent ChurchF 9ovement 7 >hich
2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations

23

the #nternet to Unite Churches - in Boston Soon" .piscopal ,ivinity School Press Release" http6MM!!!"pr!e$"comMreleasesM1233M1Mpr!e$;3H:13:"htm Stiver) ,an" )heolog" After Ricoeur6 New 1irections in /ermeneutical )heolog". Eouisville) KW6 >estminster Nohn Kno* Press) 1223" XXXXXXXXX" Ricoeur and )heolog". Be! Wor%6 TQT Clar%) 1231" Gan ,en Cengel) Nohn" 'Paul Ricoeur's !neself as Another and Practical Theology"( #n )heological 3tudies <<6 3::H" Gessey) ,avid" 'The Polysemy of 5therness6 5n RicoeurFs 5neself as &nother"( #n 8pseit" and Alterit"6 8nterdisciplinar" Approaches to 8ntersu(=ecti'it". Stephen >atson and Philippe Brun2 /.ds"0 Pu$lication Univ Rouen Cavre) 122H"

2013 Session of the American Academy of Religion 5pen and Relational Theologies +roup6 Emergent Church E plorations