What is Reddit's opinion of Narratives of a Vulnerable God?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Vulnerability and insecurity. This comes from repeated close reads of the Genesis 1–3 narrative, noting that for the ancient Hebrews, 'nakedness' is deeply related to 'vulnerability'. So, the one concrete thing Adam & Eve learned was vulnerability is shameful:

> before: And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:25)

> after: And they heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of YHWH God among the trees of the garden. But YHWH God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” (Genesis 3:8–10)

There is no other concrete knowledge indicated that Adam & Eve gained from eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. YHWH does say “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.”, but this can easily be sarcastic. After all, we don't believe vulnerability is shameful, do we?

This allows me to play with two very different definitions of 'pride':

1. pride₁: thinking you know better than God (or a human authority)
2. pride₂: vulnerability covered up by false confidence

Whenever I've heard "pride is the root of all evil", I have heard that as pride₁. And yet, I think we can see pride₂ in the Tower of Babel:

> And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” (Genesis 11:3–4)

I think this easily reads as the tower-builders being terrified of the Genesis 1:28 mandate. And so they worked as best they could do to protect themselves against the wildness of creation. Their chief problem wasn't pride₁, but cowardice.

  I'm a white male of decent build and middle class upbringing, so I haven't experienced vulnerability like so many women and minorities, not to mention the other ways you can be unlike the dominant people in society. I was endlessly emotionally abused at public school, but that's peanuts in comparison to most people. So, I've come pretty late to the possibility that most human action may be motivated by cowardice and fear, not an abundance of confidence. It matches the fact that Psalm 8 endeavors to empower people. And yet, what theology pays much attention to behavior (and theology!) originating in vulnerability and insecurity? I've come across exactly one book: William C. Placher 1994 Narratives of a Vulnerable God.

Thoughts and suggestions are welcome!

You're welcome! This came in part from repeated readings and discussions of Genesis 3, where my buddy and I realized that for ancient Hebrews, nakedness symbolizes vulnerability. And so, the only concrete "knowledge of good and evil" Adam & Eve got was: vulnerability is shameful. This leads to a definition of 'pride' as "vulnerability covered up by false confidence", which matches Genesis 11:4 far better than "thinking you know better than God".

My current quest is to find theology which takes vulnerability seriously. I've read William C. Placher 1994 Narratives of a Vulnerable God, but I've encountered absolutely nothing else on the topic, in my decades as a Christian. It's really quite shocking. How much human action is, at its core, due to vulnerability rather than thinking your way is better?

> If we're all supposed to sell and give away our earthly possessions the result is common ownership.

That's a not-uncommon interpretation of Lk 14:33, and yet it conflicts with Judas having control of the money. Why wasn't it given to the poor already? It also conflicts with Lk 16:9. The word ἀποτάσσω (apotassō) is a bit odd in 14:33; it literally means "say goodbye". It's a compound of ἀπό (apo), a proposition meaning "from, away from" and τάσσω (tassō), a verb which means "ordering, arrange, appoint". I think the following context is key:

> No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Luke 16:13)

So, you can τάσσω heavenly things or you can τάσσω mammon. You can treat heavenly things as the purpose and goal and use mammon as a means to an end, or you can treat mammon as the purpose and goal and use heavenly things as a means to an end. To say goodbye to mammon is no longer treat it as the purpose and goal of life. If your goal is heavenly things, you will be doing a lot of giving it, and yourself, to those who need one, the other, or both. If your goal is mammon, you will protect it, even build bigger barns for it.

That being said, if your conscience calls you to sell all of your positions, even the clothes on your back, then I suggest consulting some Franciscans to see if a vow of poverty is the right thing for you. From what I know, the Franciscans have done a lot of good in the world! I will miss the chats, though.

  > labreuer: Anyhow, you might look at Alasdair MacIntyre, who tried really hard to make Marxism work in his head, finding out in the end that it just doesn't.

> ThankKinsey: I am far more interesting in listening to BIPOC Marxists who are making it work, today than an old white british man who has never tried and suffers from the Upton Sinclair problem you mention later.

If you read [WP: Alasdair MacIntyre § After Virtue (1981)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre#After_Virtue_(1981\)), you'll find "Up to then, MacIntyre had been a relatively influential analytic philosopher of Marxist bent …". Maybe be a little less quick to judge? There are traitors in every social class.

> The past tense "was guaranteed to self-destruct" doesn't really make sense though as Marxism is still going strong today in several nations.

What are the best examples you can point to?

> The "intellectuals" who make up the vanguard are simply people who have class consciousness. Nobody pays them or give them research money, because wealthy people and institutions are virulently anti-communist.

US institutions of higher education have paid plenty of people who pushed Communist lines of thinking. But perhaps not the Marxists you're reading. I'm curious; since Louis Althusser was a French white man and taught at the École normale supérieure in Paris, have you worked hard to purify all Communist thought from his ideas?

> It feels like you're trying to argue with me as if I am some strong proponent of Vanguardism …

I am trying to warn you. Vanguardism has a very, very bloody history. Look at the actions, not just the words. Maybe you can find a way to pull it off. Theologically, I don't think so. I think Ps 8 and 1 Cor 1:18–31 are the way.

> labreuer: Here's my question to you: how much theology do you know about which deals head-on with insecurity and vulnerability?

> ThankKinsey: Very little. I was baptized all of 2 months ago; I do not have some vast lifetime of theological study.

Yes, I read that. My challenge for you, going forward, is to observe how much, or how little theology you encounter, has much of anything to say about insecurity and vulnerability. I am a long-time Christian and my own answer is: approximately none. Pretty much the one exception to the rule is William C. Placher 1994 Narratives of a Vulnerable God. To the extent that you don't find theology which deeply explores insecurity and vulnerability, and not just from the individualist angle (so e.g. looking at reputations of organizations and what is or is not done to protect them), I'm going to suggest there's a very good reason for that: the rich & powerful stay that way by hiding their insecurity and vulnerability, while simultaneously preying on the insecurity and vulnerability of others.

> Does theology need to be funded? I feel like I'm doing theology right now, and nobody's paying me!

How many people will be exposed to the theology you're doing, right here? A conversation like we're having now is easy. Preparing a paper, a book, a talk, or a YouTube presentation is another thing. You've got to make a living somehow. Otherwise, it'll be a hobby and I don't know how much impactful theology, or anything else, has come from hobbies. A bit, I'm sure. But how much?

> I am not sure I know exactly what you're looking for as far as theology on insecurity/vulnerability. What are some specific questions you would like to see explored?

People like to trace all sin to 'pride'. But is that 'pride' in the sense of "I know better than God!" (arrogance), or is it 'pride' in the sense of "insecurity covered up by false confidence"? Those are very different things. This shows up clearly in the Tower of Babel narrative. The builders gave two reasons:

1. let us make a name for ourselves
2. lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth

Which version of 'pride' matches that in the text? I say the second. I tried to make this case to my 100% Christian family, including my sister who is a scholar in ancient biblical languages, and they wouldn't have it. They wanted to stick to the "I know better than God!" definition of 'pride'. I don't know about you, but I think one ends up analyzing people's motivations very differently if the cause is insecurity, rather than arrogance. You might even analyze Job as his friends being insecure, and Job being quite willing to challenge God, to cry out for justice and not accept the standard wisdom of his culture. But if you interpret sin as always having to do with arrogance, Job is quite sinful for questioning the social status quo, a status quo which said: if you're suffering, you deserved it.

This can be applied to churches protecting their reputations at the expense of abuse victims in their midst. The leadership will be acting out of a position of insecurity and vulnerability. They can dismiss anyone who challenges them as practicing the arrogance form of pride: thinking they have a better way than the Anointed Leadership™. If the leadership had a theology which allowed them to understand that the likely diminishment of their reputation (via admitting openly that abuse happened right under their noses) will ultimately lead to something far more glorious (try reading Rom 8:16–25 rather than vv18–25), maybe more people would be willing to do this, and then collect empirical evidence they can share with others. "It really works! It hurts like hell in the beginning and is incredibly embarrassing. But we were so much healthier after, and were more able to tackle more brokenness in the world as a result!"

And this isn't even getting at helping victims/survivors understand how their abusers managed to do what they did. Here's something that "old white british man" wrote:

> From Plato to Moore and since there are usually, with some rare exceptions, only passing references to human vulnerability and affliction and to the connections between them and our dependence on others. Some of the facts of human limitation and of our consequent need of cooperation with others are more generally acknowledged, but for the most part only then to be put on one side. And when the ill, the injured and the otherwise disabled are presented in the pages of moral philosophy books, it is almost always exclusively as possible subjects of benevolence by moral agents who are themselves presented as though they were continuously rational, healthy and untroubled. So we are invited, when we do think of disability, to think of “the disabled” as “them,” as other than “us,” as a separate class, not as ourselves as we have been, sometimes are now and may well be in the future. (Dependent Rational Animals, 1–2)

Maybe he's not worth so quickly dismissing. In contrast, take a look at Carl Cederstrom's 2018 NYT op-ed The Philosopher as Bad Dad.

  > Just want to add that I have greatly enjoyed discussing this stuff with you and reading your replies elsewhere. Thank you for taking so much time to discuss this with someone significantly less educated on the subject!

You're welcome! You have a very interesting journey ahead of you; my hope is that you be like Behemoth and Leviathan, rather than ultimately knuckling under to a Christianity which, far too many times, has submitted to the social, economic, and political status quo, rather than subverted it to be more like the kingdom of God.