An Interview with Norman Wirzba on Food, Agrarianism, and Ecology (for the "Contemporary Thinkers You Should Read" series)

  Dr. Norman Wirzba is a professor of theology, ecology and rural life at Duke Divinity School.  He trained as a phenomenologist at Loyola University under Adriaan Peperzak, but since then has produced some very helpful writings on Wendell Berry, Ecology, Agrarianism, Food, and the concept of the Sabbath.  Readers of this blog will, no doubt, recognize his name, because his work has been influential for my research concerning ecology and my practice as a community gardener. Dr. Wirzba is a humble and gracious man, this comes out very clearly in his interview on Duke's "Office Hours" concerning his new book Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating.   

One of the great things about Wirzba's work is that it is clear and sober; he does not go in for wild and impractical strategies for dealing with our societal woes.  Rather, when you read Wirzba, you get the sense that you are hearing a wise, faithful, and learned pastor...but don't let this fool you, his work is rigorously researched and very relevant.  (From here, the blog will be in bold, and Dr. Wirzba will be in regular type.  Also TAOTGL represents the blog's name)

1.)    Dr. Wirzba, I find the trajectory of your work quite interesting.  You studied philosophy (Levinas, phenomenology, etc) at Loyola University under Adriaan Peperzak, but most of your writings seem to reflect more on agrarianism, ecology, and food.  When asked about your work, I tell people that you are a theologian reflecting on creation, which means you think about food, agriculture, culture, ecology, and interestingly, the Sabbath.  Also I often describe your work as bringing Wendell Berry to the attention of theologians and philosophers.  Could you describe for us your intellectual trajectory?  Is there continuity between your philosophical work and your agrarian work etc? 

As I try to make sense of my admittedly unusual work path I say that I am a phenomenologist who has made a theological turn only to realize that I also needed to make an agrarian and ecological turn. I love many aspects of the histories of philosophy and theology, but what I am most interested in writing about are the forms of a faithful life that are attuned to the beauty and pain of our world. I want to explore what fidelity to God means and requires of us. For a long time I thought that meant paying attention only to human relationships. I now think that focus was much too narrow. Fidelity extends to the whole creation. And if we want to realize fidelity in a non-gnostic way we have to move into fundamental practices like eating and food production, practices that take seriously our embodiment in relation to all the bodies of creation.

2.)    Do you describe yourself more as a philosopher or theologian?  Since you are a Christian, what is your theological background/worshipping tradition? 

Lately I have been writing more as a theologian. In part this is because I want to see what the grammar of Christian faith looks like when creation is given more serious consideration. By creation I do not simply mean a teaching about how the world began. I mean creation as the realm of soil, water, plant, and animal through which God’s love and delight are revealed. At some point I hope to return to more explicitly philosophical kinds of writing because I think too much philosophy neglects basic ecological truths.

I write consciously as an agrarian. I grew up farming with Anabaptists in Western Canada and witnessed many of the sensitivities that I think make for an honest and decent life. The life of my forebears was hardly perfect, but it did show me things about what it means to live responsibly with fellow creatures. At my church we did not speak the language of sacraments, but if I had to say what we believed most fundamentally it was that Christ invites us to eat and work together in ways that manifest God’s love in the world. My fondest memories are times of “Kaffee und Kuchen/Coffee and Cake” shared after worship.

3.)    Do you situate yourself within a particular school of theological thought?

One of the joys of my teaching and writing life is that I have had the freedom to range widely among schools of thought, reading wherever my interests took me. I have never felt the need to become a Levinas or Barth scholar, even while recognizing their great influence on my ways of thinking. I am discovering more of the Orthodox theological tradition these days (from Maximus to Staniloae and Yannaras and Zizioulas) and finding it immensely helpful. Though I was raised Anabaptist I go frequently to the classical traditions of philosophical and theological thought. There is so much to learn and digest!

4.)    In your pursuit to develop answers and a social imagination to combat ecological degradation, you suggest the worldview/lifestyle of agrarianism.  Could you tell us what agrarianism is, and why it is such a helpful way to live given our current problems?

I describe agrarianism as the set of priorities and responsibilities that seek the health of people and land together. The last word is important. For much of our history progress has depended on the exploitation of the land and its workers. I want to help us imagine what genuinely mutual flourishing would look like. This is a very tall order because it means we have to talk about the wide domains of culture including economics, politics, education, built environments, food systems, public and ecological health … the list goes on and on.

For this work we need to learn from traditions of animal husbandry and land care that have been practiced around the world through time. We need the diversity of these traditions to address the complexity of the social and ecological issues we face today. I think it is important to remember that a “cultured” person used to mean someone who had the affection and skill to take care of a field. Now it refers to person who would never have soil in their hands.

5.)    Is Agrarianism a direct rejection of capitalism or can it fit into a capitalist structure?  Many who read its literature tend to dismiss it as socialism or add to it any other number of ideological labels.  What is your take on agrarianism and economics? 

This is a huge question! I don’t think agrarianism amounts to a rejection of markets. Nor is it an affirmation of centralized, “socialist” forms of production. James Scott’s book Seeing Like a State is very helpful here. Agrarians, as I understand them, are for economies that do a better job counting the costs of our production and consumption. There are clearly forms of capitalism and socialism that because of their centralization and obsession with bigness are going to be very destructive. Scott describes very well how this happens. What we need are economies in which producers and consumers clearly see and then live with (correct and modify) the effects of their decisions. I think this means that local economies in which the distance between consumers and producers is shortened are to be preferred. When the strawberries you eat come from several thousand miles away, you can’t know if they were grown in ways that honor the land, its workers, or its eaters. Scott described how large bureaucratic efforts (one of the fruits of modernity) lead to catastrophe. The same applies to large corporations. They can be very destructive if they lose the capacity for detailed, honest vision and the requirements of local adaptation.

6.)    If the agrarian vision were realized would all people move away from the city and become farmers?  Can the agrarian vision be practiced in an urban environment?  If so, how?

Absolutely not. I make the case that a viable future agrarianism is going to depend on cities. More specifically, it is going to depend on urbanites and suburbanites who recognize the importance of clean water, healthy soil, contented animals, and justly treated agricultural workers, and then reflect those commitments in the consumer decisions they make. The last thing we need are ill-prepared folks trying to romanticize farming. Farming is hard work. It requires an incredibly complex and nimble intelligence.

I am encouraged to see that so many young people are wanting to learn to farm again. That is great. But you don’t need to move to the country to do that work. You can grow food in your back yard or in community gardens. Urban agriculture is taking off in many cities now. I am hoping that the walls between cities and country can become more porous like they once were.

7.)    Are you familiar with “Freeganism” (modern day foragers, scavengers…dumpster divers)?  What do you make of their attempts at living a non-consumerist lifestyle? 

I am afraid I don’t know much detail here.

8.)    In your book The Paradise of God: Renewing Religion in an Ecological Age you write about the modern ecological crisis.  In your understanding what is the cause of this crisis? 

The heart of the crisis is that with modern urbanization and industrialization we have forgotten that land matters. We don’t love the land nor do we have much sustained or practical engagement with it. Add to that the fact that as urbanites we often live insulated lives that shield us from the destructive effects of our choices and you have the perfect recipe for ignorant destruction.

9.)    It is quite vogue to say that Christianity is to blame for positing an ideology of domination that has enabled modern ecological degradation, is this a fair reading of history? 

Lynn White’s essay (TAOTGL: "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis") has been incredibly influential. It has led many environmentalists to turn Christianity into a scapegoat. This is most unfortunate because it enables them to take their eyes off changes in modern economic life that have played a profound role. To read the work of someone like Gus Speth is helpful in this regard because he shows how our ever growing economy (along with the multiple religious and non-religious elements that nurture it) is really where we need to put our attention.

10.) Does your work on agrarianism, food, ecology etc. speak to other social ills besides the ecological crisis? 

I think so. We have not thought deeply enough about what it takes to be a community. Community is not simply an idea but a social and economic reality that can only be sustained with the right kinds of patience, humility, attention, skill, and affection. I think agrarians have a lot to teach us on all these points.

11.) You have written, in a very insightful way, that moderns (supposedly those shaped by naturalism) are not “natural” enough.  You argue that modern people need to be re-naturalized, can you explain what you mean by that? 

“Nature” is a very tricky word. I think it has become code for various kinds of idolatry. I think it more useful to say that we have not yet learned what it means to be a creature. What would it take to live deeply into our creatureliness, sharing a life with other creatures ranging from humans to earthworms? That is a great question. It is one that is often in my mind as I write. It was certainly central in my food book.

12.) Your most recent book Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating deals with spiritual and social issues surrounding food.  Could you summarize your main concerns with the way modern society views food?  Dr. Wirzba, is food a topic that theology should address? 

I know there are many Christians who think the whole topic of eating irrelevant. They are not reading their Bibles very carefully. Eating shows up all the time. Why? Because it is through eating that fellowship and communion happen. The fellowship is not only with other people. If you are involved in food’s production you invariably find yourself thinking about the community or fellowship of creation too.

One of our biggest problems is that we have been trained to think of food as a commodity. It hardly registers as the gift from God that it is. As a result our eating is often a desecration. I think it is significant that Christian formation happens around the Eucharistic table. That is where we learn to be reconciled with each other. It is where we learn to be witnesses to God’s love in the world. I think kitchen tables and backyard gardens should be similar witnesses.

13.) If theology should address food, how should the church address it especially when most western churches live in under the hegemony of industrialized food complex? 

I think one of the best things to do is for church members to work together to grow food. Right now many churches have valuable land that could be converted into gardens and orchards. As people grow food together their eyes and sensitivities will open. They will begin to see scripture in new ways. The potential for ministry will expand. The church is not only in the soul business. It is also in the soil business. We should never forget how much time Jesus spent feeding and eating with people.

14.) Should Christians be “locavores?”

That has become a loaded term for folks. I believe that if you have a personal relationship with the people growing your food, that is a good thing. I know it is not an option for everyone.

15.) Who are some of your greatest influences: theologically, philosophically, ecologically?

The list would be very long. Here are just a few: Plato, Aristotle, Irenaeus, Augustine, Maximus, Bonaventure, Gregory Palamas, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Buber, Wittgenstein, Levinas, Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Luc Marion, Jean-Louis Chretien, Henry Bugbee, Rowan Williams, Nicholas Lash, Fergus Kerr, Graham Ward, Charles Taylor, Ed Casey, Pierre Hadot, Balthasar, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Stan Rowe, Aldo Leopold, Wes Jackson, and Wendell Berry. I know I have left out very important people.

16.) Since you enjoy Wendell Berry, I have to ask, which novel is your favorite?  Which book of essays? 

Hard to pick: Jayber Crow (novel), A Timbered Choir (poems), and The Art of the Commonplace (essays!) (TAOTGL: this last book was edited by Dr. Wirzba, and I count it as a good introduction into Berry's thought as an agrarian).

17.) Do you have a personal relationship with Berry? 

Yes, we are friends. (TAOTGL: I AM SO JEALOUS)

18.) Berry’s work is loved by a broad audience, and it is gaining in popularity…why do you think a writer/farmer from Kentucky who writes about rural life is so intriguing for contemporary audiences?

Berry writes beautifully, clearly and with more honesty than most. He is bringing our attention to fundamental truths.

19.) If someone wanted to get into food studies where should they begin?  How about ecological and agrarian studies? 

For those interested in food, start reading the work of Michael Pollan, Barbara Kingsolver, Marion Nestle, and Vandana Shiva. For those interested in agrarian studies, start with the collection I edited called The Essential Agrarian Reader. From there, get into the work of Berry, Wes Jackson, Gene Logsdon, and Fred Kirschenmann.

20.) I am very impressed that much of your work seems to come back to or at least engage in the doctrine of creation.  This includes your book on the Sabbath.  How is the concept of the Sabbath important for our understanding of food, culture, agriculture and the doctrine of creation? 

I am seeing that Sabbath is absolutely central. It really is a matter of life and death as the Bible says. Sabbath is not simply about taking a break or checking out. It is about learning our proper orientation in life, an orientation that has attention, gratitude, and celebration (worship) at its heart. So much of what harms us and our world stems from an inability to attend to where we are and who we are with. Sabbath compels us to slow down and stop so we can ask what all our frantic and often destructive striving is for.

21.) Do you garden?  What is your favorite thing to grow and eat?

I do garden. I have much to learn. I love growing tomatoes and peppers so I can make salsa and spaghetti sauce. My most favorite crop, however, is raspberries.

22.) If someone wanted to start reading your work today, where should they begin?  How should they proceed?

Probably with Living the Sabbath. It all depends on where you are in life and what your particular interests are, though.

23.) What is next for your personal research and writing?

I am thinking of some book projects now that I have just finished a book on reconciliation with the land that I wrote with my good friend Fred Bahnson (coming out with InterVarsity next spring). I would like to explore more what human creatureliness is and what it practically entails. I would also like to develop how agrarianism helps us rethink fundamental theological and philosophical categories. I am not sure yet what forms those projects will take.

Other good places to start encountering Wirzba's thought are: "Duke's Office Hours" that is linked above, his essay "Gardening With God" in the Huffington Post, or his work in The Gift of Creation: Images from Scripture and Earth.

Thank You Dr. Wirzba for your time and insights! 

9/11 Prayer

This week has been full of reflection upon 9/11 and how it has shaped our current world.  I thought it best, at first, to stay silent on this matter.  I know, full well, that many churches will reflect on the tragedy when they gather in remembrance and celebration of Christ tomorrow...which in some way gives me pause!  Will our reflection on this tragedy be nationalistic?  Will we pray for the lost?  Will we honor the heros?  Depending on the community you are part of, at least one, if not all, will happen.  While some this is good, and some of it is, no doubt, theologically wrong, I ask myself, what should we do tomorrow?  Certainly, I'd agree with many that we ought to honor the dead and those who risked their lives for the lives of others, but we should not forget to pray for those who were behind this act of violence.  Prayer for enemies, hoping for those who cause such acts of violence is part of our Christian call...is is not?  With that, I offer this prayer:

God of all creation,
maker of all good things,
please be with the victims of violence.
Forgive us, Savior, Son of God, for
the violence and hate we cause.

We confess that the world is not ours to save.

We confess that we, the world, belong only to you;

this world is yours to save, and yours only.

Help us to be faithful to your will for our lives: to

partner with you in the redemption of all things.
Father, be with those who are the cause of such
unspeakable violence.  We confess that we are no
better, for we are all capable of hurting others,
and we too, are guilty of sin.
We ask you God, please grant us the gift of your
Spirit, that we may live gracefully toward those who
hate, to those who hurt, and to those who suffer.
Spirit, teach us mercy.  Enable us to extend the
mercy of Christ to those who are hurting and to those who
cause hurt.  God forgive us, and help us to forgive others.
This world is yours; your Son, Christ, died for all the world.
Help us to see the whole world and everyone in it, as recipients of
your free gift of grace.

Amen

Interview with Conor Cunningham: Contemporary Thinkers You Should Read

Dr. Conor Cunningham has written an important, recently-published book titled Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong.  It has recieved much attention recently, and I have had the pleasure of reading the book and interviewing Cunningham himself for this blog's series "Contemporary Thinkers You Should Read".  Conor is a lecturer in theology and religious studies at the University of Nottingham and is the assistant director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy based out of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at Nottingham. He studied with both John Milbank and Graham Ward while completing his Ph.D. from Cambridge.  Dr. Cunningham has a background in law, and is very adept in his understanding of theology and philosophy.  Having met him, I can tell you that Conor is often the "life of party;" he is a jovial Irishman who is passionate about his faith and scholarship. "The Art Of the Good Life" is blessed to have the opportunity to interview Conor on his work on Darwinism.  I hope you enjoy this little encounter and are inspired to read his work...it is certainly worth the effort!  Please note, this interview was done in a certain, limiting fashion.  I sent the questions, and Conor sent the answers back, so if you see a lack of interaction, that is why....such is the way things are when you coordinate busy schedules and cross oceans for information!  (all bold type represents the blog, the regular type is Conor).

1.)    Dr. Cunningham, you’ve put forth great effort concerning the question of Christianity and Darwinism (an essay, a documentary, and a book)…what motivated you to take up this pursuit? 
Believe it or not, I became interested in evolution whilst having far too much Guinness on a Stag-Do (Bachelor Party) in Dublin. At the time I was completing my Ph. D. at Cambridge, and was for the most part oblivious of the controversies that had arisen from an apparent conflict between religion and Darwin’s work. In Dublin I met up with a very old friend of mine, from Northern Ireland. He was raised a good Christian lad, but when we got talking, you know- ‘what you are you doing these days?’ ‘Oh, I work for an investment bank. What are you doing?’ ‘I’m doing a doctorate in theology and philosophy.’ ‘Really, but I thought Darwin had got rid of theology.’ And that was that, because I was rather incensed, to say the least. So when I finished my studies, I began to read everything I could get my hands on that was about evolution, hence I ended up writing a book on it, and writing and presenting a BBC documentary on the topic. That’s what too much Guinness can do to you!

2.)    Being a theologian, it makes sense that you’d write on this subject, but what motivated the documentary with the BBC? (see it here.)

The BBC were running a series of programs on Darwin to celebrate the double anniversary, and they wanted to make one on the controversies surrounding religion and evolution, and they approached me, and the rest, as they say, is history.  (Dear readers, Conor also communicated to me that he was not interested in doing the documentary, at first.  But after seeing a Dawkins documentary on the BBC where Dawkins "interviewed" Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Conor felt moved to act.  In the Dawkins interview, he continually spoke over Rowan Williams and he gave him little respect...simply put, Rowan Williams has a far subtler and brilliant mind than Dawkins does...)

3.)     How was the documentary received in the U.K.?
The viewing figures were excellent for that type of documentary, and it won two broadcasting awards, it was then syndicated across the world.

4.)    You are a Christian and you also believe in evolution.  To you, why are the two not mutually exclusive?
It’s not that they are not mutually exclusive; rather, Christianity makes evolution, as a theory, more possible, metaphysically speaking. In other words, it is far easier to believe in evolution if one is a Christian, or indeed religious, in the Abrahamic sense, because left to itself, evolutionary theory threatens to lapse into nihilism, and that being the case there is quite simply nothing to evolve. Put differently, transcendence enables immanence, and that includes a natural world that evolves – otherwise there would only be a pure flux of materiality without real shape or form. That being the case, all objects or entities would only exist nominally. (TAOFTGL: this means, "in name only")

5.)    You say that the current debate (religion v. evolution) is defined by the creationists and ultra-Darwinists; can you describe what these two names mean?  Why are these two perspectives extreme?  What’s wrong with them?
Ultra-Darwinists endeavor to elevate a subset of scientific knowledge, indeed a subset of biological knowledge, one that is hemmed in by history, or the past, and beholden to an unknown future, and they elevate this forever provisional and partial theory to the status of a universal theory that is not only ubiquitous but all-powerful, in terms of its explanatory reach. In short, evolution is turned into metaphysics. This is a species of scientism – the belief that science is the only begetter of truth. Creationists share this view, hence their attempt to turn the book of Genesis into a proto-scientific textbook.  Moreover, the creationist understanding of theology is completely at odds with the Christian tradition, as of course is the ultra-Darwinist’s understanding of what the word God means, likewise Creation – for both, God seems to be nothing but a bigger version of us, whilst creation is some sort of physical event rather than a metaphysical one – the latter takes into account the radicalness of the refrain ‘In the beginning,' something which St. Augustine was profoundly able to do, hence his view of time in The Confessions – time is a creature of creation (thus there is no ‘before’ to Creation). Indeed, if the God of Creationists were proven to exist it would be the greatest argument for atheism ever, because any such God could not illicit worship in any true sense – this also stands for the God of ID. Another point of contact between both camps is a hate of matter, that is to say, both camps think the spiritual and the material are inimical (see below).

6.)    Could studying evolution help Christians understand their faith (theology) better? 
Well, insofar as it reveals our fears:  fear, fear of evolution, fear of being related to animals, to nature, or more generally, our fear of science, thus evolution offers to help free us from our pious, solipsistic ghettoes, as we stand self-satisfied preaching to the choir and probably telling silly jokes about Darwin and apes  to the congregation. Likewise, it can help to reveal our less than orthodox understanding of Christianity.

7.)    Can studying Christianity give insights into evolution?   
Let me put it this way, sometimes Christians find the idea of sharing a common ancestor with the Great apes to be an ontological slight, that is, an insult to the specialness of the human. Now, at first blush one can understand this, even though it is completely wrong, but then when you think about it there is a great deal of vanity and indeed hypocrisy at work. For example, we are quite happy to accept that a first century Palestinian Jew was God incarnate, and that the Logos became flesh. And had before doing so passed through the vagina of a woman to be born among the muck and mess of mammalian birth, and that he later walked among his contemporaries eating, sweating and defecating just like the rest of the animal world.

Moreover, we took this Jew and nailed him to a cross outside the city walls amongst the refuse. Surely, in light of the above, common ancestry seems a walk in the park.

Importantly, if we are as Christians to imitate Christ, which we must, it is crucial to recall that famous passage from the letter to the Philippians, that Christ took the form of servant, that is, God emptied himself, what is called kenosis. The point being that some translations of this passage have ‘Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at; rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness in of man.’ This translation is correct, except for the word ‘Though’ which should read ‘Because’. Therefore, if we are to follow Christ we could put it this way: ‘Because man was made in the image of God, he did not deem his uniqueness something to be grasped; rather, humans emptied themselves and took the form of an animal, being born in the likeness of an ape.’

To repeat, how is it that the Incarnation is no big deal, it being devoid of shock, yet evolution remains shocking?

Not as such, but as said, it makes it easier to believe because it gifts us a reality that can actually evolve. Thinking about it, man, who is indeed made in the image of God and to His likeness, and yet is also a natural being, is analogous to Christ’s two natures that are to be found in one person.  Maybe embracing this truth, embracing our animality, doing so without fear, and indeed with thanks, we can in doing so evolve and develop more into a likeness of God.  After all, the Fathers thought that likeness was something to be achieved (apart from Gregory of  Nyssa, if I recall correctly).

8.)    If St. Augustine were alive today, what do you think he’d make of Darwinian Evolution?  What would he say about the current status of the debate: creation vs. evolution? 
He would be horrified at the conflict between science and religion, concluding, possibly, that most Christians are guilty of what I have called elsewhere ‘anonymous atheism’ (they as Christians believe in such a way that their belief amounts to nothing more than atheism – at least the demons trembled), and at the same time he would think the new atheists really need to either be quiet on theological matters or enroll in a theology department. Why would Augustine care about evolution, after all, we got on very well, thank you very much, for millennia without any proof that the world had a beginning – not that, as Aquinas pointed out, we needed one – unfortunately, Stephen Hawking has failed to grasp this point, doing so in a most accomplished fashion.

9.)    Dr. Cunningham, you have written a fantastic essay on nature-grace dualism.  In it, you show how that the proper Christian view of the world does not distinguish between the physical and the supernatural; that there is no such thing as “pure-nature.”  Rather, you show that all nature is proposed by grace, nothing exists of and by itself; nothing that is can escape the grace of being.  This false dualism makes it possible to conceive of a space in the world that is purely “natural” and therefore separate from God.  Is the evolution/creation argument really a complex, scientific expression of this “heterodoxical” dualism? 

But it is true to say that Augustine would be horrified at scientism, and how easy it is, these days, for science to fall into scientism, indeed that at times, culturally speaking, it almost seems to be its default position, an incoherent one, of course.

Yes, it is, completely. Christians have thought of God in Heaven, and we on Earth, etc., and in so doing have handed over the Earth to the ‘Devil,' read reductionism. Really, in truth it is the other way around: God is the only natural entity, because God is not created, God is ipsum esse (TAOFTGL: Existence Itself), actus purus (TAOFTGL: Pure Actuality), etc., and we have only a supernatural, borrowed existence (we call this participation – methexis) though one that is replete with real, particular, ontologically robust characteristics – after all God became human, so there must be a humanity, in a philosophical real sense, that is, not just some nominal tag - ‘humanity’ - but at the same time, and here’s the rub, he revealed humanity in its fullness. Actually, to be fair, we need to take that a step further, because without Christ there is no human—and if you don’t believe me, witness philosophy, science, etc. get rid of man, reducing humans to merely material, chemical conjurations or collections (though not only do I doubt the coherence of any such reduction, I also doubt the coherence of how the word ‘merely’ is operating here).

Mere matter is, it seems to me, a nonsense – one could even wonder if everything is merely material, is that statement, or that thought, also merely material, and here we head off in to the hellish nightmare that is called infinite regress – a merely material one, of course!

Put another way, if there is such a thing as mere matter, which there is not, and that we are reducible to this fiction called matter, if that is true, how in the name of all things pink could we ever discover that? After all, who is the ‘we’ in the last sentence, if matter is all there is?

10.) Is there a difference between subject and object, mind and thing in the world?  What does a Darwinian account of the world mean for “mind”?  Is there any common ground between Darwinian interpretation and a Christian one when it comes to mind?

No, when Darwinism is left to itself, there is no mind, only a mechanism that fulfills certain functions, and that being the case it is easily replaceable with anything which fulfills the same functions:  a computer, corkscrew, pencil, piece of shit. But this also includes the mind of Charles Darwin, which begs the question, to say the very least. 

11.)  I was thrilled with the humor and witty turns of phrase all throughout “Darwin’s Pious Idea,” one sentiment that I enjoy the most is: ‘matter is never mere,’ or ‘why should matter be mere?,’ can you tell us more about this from a theological and evolutionary perspective?
Well, we have, to paraphrase Edmund Husserl, a natural attitude towards matter – that is, we think we know what it means; that being the case ideologies colonize that familiarity and lo and behold nihilism is upon us. But in truth, we have no idea what matter is. And secondly, why should matter be bad (see above), indeed how would that be falsifiable? In other words, for matter to be bad then a sort of Gnostic spiritualism would have to prevail – and there’s not much of an Incarnation in that, not to mention Creation.

12.)  Why do some Christians read Genesis 1 and 2 literally?  Is there another way to read these texts without rejecting their actual claims?
These texts are profound metaphysical revelations of both God, and our relation to God. Indeed, the gospel of John is basically a commentary on Genesis, and in so being, the revelation of what it is about (which in the end is Christ, as the Fathers argued was indeed the case).

13.) Does allegorical reading of scripture preclude Historical-grammatical criticism of scripture?
This is the wrong question: without a proper metaphysics, as Maurice Blondel taught us, not to mention Origen, there is no such thing as the allegorical – it’s all nonsense. The literal is not what we think; rather, it is a massively expensive ontology, which, I believe, and I think demonstrably, that unless there is a personal God who is infinite and eternal love itself there is no such thing as the literal, never mind the bourgeoisie masturbation of the allegorical – once again the ultras and the creationists are blowing the hot wind of ignorance up their own……..well, I’ll leave it to your imagination….

14.) Where did theology go wrong?  When did it begin reflecting on Genesis as a literal telling of and dating of the world? 
I don’t think theology ever went wrong, as it were, theology has always been correct and wrong. Of course, it is true that certain periods of time can represent in a more intense way the perpetration of a particular shortcoming. With regard to a literal reading of Genesis, the Reformation certainly began to encourage that, as a skinny notion of Christianity, and therefore truth, etc., flourished, we see that in the general abandonment of a metaphysical view of the universe, with it great complexity and wonder, for a dry, one dimensional literalism, one arguably stemming from an imitation of science – the Bible became the Christian’s Principia – Newton, not the Fathers or Doctors of the Church became our model – now we no longer had a sophisticated hermeneutic, we had no need of tradition, mediation, and so on, no the Bible was there and all we had to do was open it  and read it on our own, and lo and behold, revelation was immediate and clear.  But the Twentieth century really topped the whole error off, doing so in spades. In fact, the crude reductionism evident in such modernist literalism is mirrored in the materialist reductionism evident in scientism, wherein we are but DNA, atoms, or what have you…..

15.) How should contemporary Christians engage Darwinism?  First, could you give us insights into how academic theologians should do this, then how could you consider the local church?
Theologians need to make sure they have a firm grasp of the tradition, so that their understanding of God or creation, the development of doctrine, and so on is adequate, as that tends to remove many the problems to begin with. Christians should engage with those who use Darwinism as a tool against Christianity, because apart from that Darwinism is not really of much interest to the Christian specifically, except that we would expect theologians to be interested, to say the least in how the natural world works, as it is after God’s gift to us. Like St. Paul instructing us to become familiar with the poets and thinkers of strange lands so that we understand those people and can engage with them, we too must learn discourses that appear strange, at least at first, otherwise we are not open to our neighbors, nor are we open to that which is different – and as I said above, love must drive out fear, and some do tend to fear evolution. I think local churches should all run courses on creation, and then as part of that discuss evolution. It is crucial that we as the body of Christ actually know what we are talking about, and also that we are willing to engage, for again, we have nothing to fear.

16.) If contemporary Christian reflection needs revision, does contemporary evolutionary biology? 
Well, generally speaking, all science by definition requires revision, so yes.  More  particularly the shallow, 19^th century mindset most evident in people such as Dawkins needs to be challenged – with its old fashioned understanding of science, its ignorance of philosophy, and total ignorance  of theology, its atomistic thinking, its myopic rigid dualisms (of which religious people can also be guilty) – yes this all needs revision – Dawkins needs to go to university not only to learn theology, but leaving that out, he needs to go and learn about the philosophy of science, and then retire to a monastery and fast and remain silent for a year as penance. With regard  to evolution, there is certainly a need for an expanded evolutionary synthesis – as it’s not just about genes and natural selection, it’s about developmental biology, systems biology, emergence, convergence, constraints, the arrival of the fittest, and not just the survival of the fittest, not to mention the evolution of the fittest (for example, when an independent entity  gives up its freedom over time, becoming instead part of a larger organism – cancer, in a sense, is a reversal of this process, as cancerous cells fail to act in cooperation, just as burglary is in relation to society), etc., etc…

17.) What are some of the weaknesses in current evolutionary thought? 
I think I’ve probably answered that.

18.) Your work on Christianity and evolution has garnered much attention, and this, in my opinion, is good.  So if our readers wish to break into the conversation, where should they begin?  Is there a good “introduction” in your work, perhaps and popular level exposition of the problem?
As yet there is no short introduction, though there is talk of me doing that at some point. But the general, interested reader, though being unfamiliar, at first, with many of the terms and concepts (just as I was), should be able to pick up many useful, indeed crucial points for the edification of their faith – least that’s what my Mum said, but I guess she would…..

19.)  You have engaged biology theologically, what is next for your research?
Please don’t tell my wife, but I’m going to write a book which for its sins bears the provisional title:

Whither the Soul? The End of Death.

I will be looking at how the tradition has interpreted the soul and how that thinking should engage today’s thought, especially as so many philosophers, scientists, et al., don’t even think we have a mind, not to mention the soul. So it will be constructive insofar as it will argue for the existence of the soul and present what it takes to be the most helpful account, garnered no doubt from the Fathers and Doctors of the church, as well as contemporary philosophy, and it will be negative in that it will offer a critique to atheist materialism.

20.) What has this research meant for you personally?  Has your faith been deepened, challenged, or affirmed? 
My faith has deepened most certainly, as when I set out on this journey, well, I was as scared as the next guy, and probably more ignorant of Darwinism. But having to not only learn what were strange discourses, but also being forced to dig deep  into the faith of the church, the faith of tradition it has been amazingly edifying, and most enlightening. I can’t believe how little I knew, but of course I can’t fall into the mistake of thinking I’m not still so very ignorant, hence I’m off to read up on the soul.

Cheers.

Thanks Conor.  You have been most helpful and engaging...Thanks for your time and patience.  If you want to read Conor's recent paper (presented at the Centre of Theology and Philosophy, Krakow Conference, find it on ABC's Reiligion and Ethics here.  It is a shorter piece (shorter than his book) on the same topic.  Or if you want to read Rowan Williams' review of Conor's work, check it out here