This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS: REVISING JOHN HOWARD YODER’S SOCIOLOGICAL THEOLOGY JAMES DRAKE PITTS A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH 2011 DECLARATION I composed this thesis, the work is my own. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or qualification. Name……………………………….. Date……………………………………… i ABSTRACT Evaluations of John Howard Yoder’s legacy have proliferated since his death in 1997. Although there is much disagreement, a broad consensus is forming that his theology was, on the one hand, focused on the social and political meaning of the New Testament accounts of Jesus Christ and, on the other hand, sociologically reductive, hermeneutically tendentious, and ecclesiologically ambiguous. This thesis proposes a revision of Yoder’s theology that maintains its broadly sociological emphasis but corrects for its apparent problems. In specific, adjustments are made to his social theory to open it to spiritual reality, to hone its analytical approach, and to clarify its political import. To do so his preferred framework for social criticism, the theology of the principalities and powers, is examined in the context of his wider work and its critics, and then synthesized with concepts from Pierre Bourdieu’s influential reflexive sociology. Yoder maintains that the powers, understood as social structures, are part of God’s good creation, fallen, and now being redeemed through their subjection to the risen Lord Christ. Bourdieu’s fundamental sociological concepts--habitus, capital, and field--enable an interpretation of the powers as dynamically constituted by their relations to the triune God and to personal dispositions. His treatment of social reproduction and freedom furthermore facilitate a construal of choice as a divinely gifted, sociologically mediated freedom for obedience to God. The sinful restriction of this freedom is read in light of Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, which recognizes the ambiguity of violence without thereby identifying any form of killing as nonviolent. Violence and other phenomena can be investigated by a reflexive, dialogical, and empirically rigorous comparison with the life of Christ. The church’s spiritual participation in the redemption of the violent powers is conceptualized in Bourdieusian terms as a critical legitimation of other political and cultural fields made possible through autonomy from those fields. Christian social distinctiveness moreover has universal meaning because it is oriented towards the worship of God and so radically welcoming of others; and this sociological universality is distinctive because it is the result of a particular history of social struggles with and for God. These revisions to Yoder’s theology of the principalities and powers produce a sociological theology that is material and spiritual, critical and dialogical, and particular and universal. By incorporating these revisions, Yoder’s work can continue to support those who seek peace in a world riven by violence. ii CONTENTS DECLARATION ......................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... v ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1. REVISING YODER’S THEOLOGY OF CREATION .................................... 23 1.1 Yoder’s Theology of Creation 1.1.1 “We Cannot Live without Them” 1.1.2 Theology of the Powers in Ecumenical Context 1.1.3 The Created Identity of the Powers 1.1.4 Criticisms 1.2 Bourdieu on Society 1.2.1 Habitus 1.2.2 Capital 1.2.3 Field 1.3 Revising Yoder’s Theology of Creation Conclusion 2. REVISING YODER’S THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY ...................... 59 2.1 Yoder’s Theological Anthropology 2.1.1 The Powers: Structure and Freedom 2.1.2 Free Church and Free Choice 2.1.3 Criticisms 2.2 Bourdieu on Freedom and Structure 2.2.1 Reproduction 2.2.2 Margins of Freedom 2.3 Revising Yoder’s Theological Anthropology Conclusion 3. REVISING YODER’S THEOLOGY OF VIOLENCE .................................... 85 3.1 Yoder’s Theology of Violence 3.1.1 “We Cannot Live with Them” 3.1.2 Violence 3.1.3 Criticisms 3.2 Bourdieu on Violence and Domination 3.2.1 Symbolic Violence and the Modes of Domination 3.2.2 Symbolic, Physical, and Other Violences 3.3 Revising Yoder’s Theology of Violence Conclusion iii 4. REVISING YODER’S THEOLOGICAL METHOD ..................................... 119 4.1 Yoder’s Theological Method 4.1.1 Discerning the Powers: A Comparative Theology 4.1.2 Community, Language, and Memory 4.1.3 Criticisms 4.2 Bourdieu’s Reflexive Sociology 4.2.1 Applied Rationalism: The Epistemological Break 4.2.2 Reflexivity: Radical Doubt Radicalized 4.3 Revising Yoder’s Theological Method Conclusion 5. REVISING YODER’S ECCLESIAL POLITICS ........................................... 160 5.1 Yoder’s Ecclesial Politics 5.1.1 Christ, Church, and Powers 5.1.2 Criticisms 5.2 Bourdieu’s Sociological Politics 5.2.1 Circuits of Legitimation 5.2.2 Corporatism of the Universal 5.2.3 Negative Philosophy 5.3 Revising Yoder’s Ecclesial Politics Conclusion 6. REVISING YODER’S THEOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN PARTICULARITY 190 6.1 Yoder’s Theology of Christian Particularity 6.1.1 The Lordship of Christ over the Powers 6.1.2 Ecumenism and Exile 6.1.3 Criticisms 6.2 Bourdieu on the Particular and the Universal 6.2.1 Reason, Truth, and Virtue 6.2.2 Love, Beauty, and Understanding 6.3 Revising Yoder’s Theology of Christian Particularity Conclusion CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 223 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 233 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Although this thesis is a work of my own hands, it is also a product of innumerable friendships in Austin, Houston, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., St. Andrews, Edinburgh, and elsewhere. My friends have prayed, argued, played music, protested, organized, been silent, taken walks, traveled, and shared food and drink with me over the past few years in ways that have made this thesis possible. I hope they recognize something of themselves and of our friendships in what follows. I am particularly grateful to Christina Hirukawa, Chase Roden, Richard Kentopp, Richard Davis, Tyler Parks, Wendy Matheson, and Elizabeth White. Patrick Weir and Lois Jones deserve an award for living with me during four years of writing. Among many others, Michael Edwards and Edimpro, Alastair Cole and the Bicyle Thieves, and David Metcalf and Bodies of Water have provided much needed musical companionship. This work is also a product of friendships in several professional and academic networks. At Fuller Seminary, special thanks are owed to Glen Stassen and Nancey Murphy for their early support and guidance. Vincent Bacote was the first to encourage me to do further academic studies, and his summer courses on public theology convinced me that I wanted to do so. In Washington, D.C., David Ensign, Cindy Lapp, Sojourners, and Church World Service/Immigration and Refugee Program helped me to connect my academic interests to the church’s labor for justice. At St. Andrews, Mario Aguilar shaped my initial thoughts on theology, sociology, and activism, and Michael Partridge and Mark Harris pointed me to Bourdieu. In Edinburgh, I am thankful for Michael Northcott’s crucial comments on the first thesis draft and on the first chapter of the present draft. Conversations with Paul Martens, visiting from Baylor, proved decisive for the direction of my arguments. I am happy to be involved with the Centre for Theology and Public Issues; its director, Jolyon Mitchell, has provided tireless support and encouragement. My supervisor, David Fergusson, is an embodiment of the Scottish intellectual tradition: patiently probing, intellectually rigorous, and slyly humorous. I am honored and grateful to have worked with him. Jeremy Begbie’s wisdom guided me in difficult times. In addition, thanks are due to the organizers, respondents, and audiences at conferences in Durham, Chicago, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Montreal, and Sydney, where I rehearsed many of the arguments below. I am truly happy to be able to call my family friends: John, Lesley, the twins, Mom, Dad, Bain, and our extended families. This thesis