The William Stringfellow Project: A Summary of Stringfellow's Theology

Before I start reviewing books as a part of The William Stringfellow Project I think it might be helpful to provide a brief summary of Stringfellow's theology. Such a summary could serve as a reading guide, allowing us to gather quotes from Stringfellow's books under some thematic headings.

As I see it, we can summarize William Stringfellow's theology under four theological themes: Resurrection, Incarnation, Word and Sacrament.

Resurrection
Death is the great theme of Stringfellow's writing. Phrased positively, resurrection is his principle focus. However, for Stringfellow resurrection is not about the immortality of the soul or life in the hereafter. Stringfellow tends to bracket those issues. For Stringfellow resurrection is about the experience of life--a victory over death and death's works--right here and right now.

More, for Stringfellow the great drama of life and history isn't the victory of good over evil. In fact, such a struggle tends to only create more evil. For Stringfellow the great drama and struggle is the victory of life over death. Life in Christ is less about being good than about experiencing life in the midst of the Fall.

The great sign and symptom of death's rule in the world is the estrangement we experience in the Fall. Estrangement between people and God, between a person and their own self, between people with other people, between people and institutions, and between the institutions themselves. For Stringfellow the biblical language of "idolatry" and "the principalities and powers" names the estrangement between people and institutions and between the institutions themselves. Again, for Stringfellow the powers are not evil. They are fallen. That is, their proper relationship toward God and the human beings working for them is disordered, oriented around death, around the survival of the institution. Thus, to serve a power--to work for the survival of the institution in the face of competing powers--is to engage in a form of idolatry, service rendered to the power of death in the world (incarnated in the survival/"success" of the institution/idol).

Still, as fallen rather than evil, there are times when the powers are more or less oriented toward life and God. Working for the powers isn't evil and really can't be avoided. The issue is one of idolatry. Thus living with the powers and working within them requires discernment and moral vigilance.

Finally, if the sign of death is estrangement the sign of life and resurrection is reconciliation in Christ. Reconciled with God, ourselves, others, and the powers.

Incarnation
The second great theme of Stringfellow's theology is his consistent rejection of the division between the sacred and the secular, between the spiritual and the political. Stringfellow invokes the doctrine of the Incarnation to make this point, the fusion of the human and the divine, the mixing of heaven and earth, the participation of God in the day to day affairs of life--from the home to the marketplace to the neighborhood to the political arena. The Christian is to be a full participant in the affairs of the world.

For Stringfellow this means that the spiritual is inherently political. Life in Christ has real-world implications for how we negotiate our relationships with every other human being. More, because we live in the Fall--during the reign of death--we "live at the expense of others." This means that every decision in life is an inherently moral and spiritual decision. Everything we do affects other people, often for the worse. For example, if I work hard at my job at McDonalds I'm affecting the livelihood of those working at Burger King. We live and work at each other's expense. Everything we do is affected by this reality--from being an American citizen to punching the time clock to buying food to turning on the electricity to having a savings account to casting a vote. Thus, everything we do must be informed by Christ. There is no separation between life in the world and the confessions of the faith on Sunday morning.

Word
When Stringfellow talks about the reconciling activity of God in the world he often speaks of the Word of God active and militant in the world. For Stringfellow the phrase "Word of God" is synonymous with God but he uses the phrase to resist idolatrous notions of God. That is, rather than allowing the word "God" to be a cipher we can fill in with our own self-serving preconceptions the phrase "Word of God" suggests that the initiative sits with God. We must listen. The Word is always coming to us. We don't speak about God. God is speaking to us. "Word of God" is meant to capture this reversal.

More, for Stringfellow "Word of God" captures the way God has spoken in the bible. Reading and listening to the Bible comes up over and over in Stringfellow's writings. This is perhaps surprising given that Stringfellow was a liberal Episcopalian. But Stringfellow was not a Biblical literalist or fundamentalist.  For Stringfellow the Word of God cannot be reduced to the Bible, these are not equivalent. In fact, to equate the Word of God with the Bible would be idolatrous in Stringfellow's eyes. However, the Word of God is often mediated through the biblical text. Bible study for Stringfellow was simply listening for the Word of God in the reading of Scripture.

Beyond the bible "Word of God" is also intended to capture the Logos, the Word of God definitively revealed in Jesus.

And finally, beyond the bible and Jesus, the phrase "Word of God" functions as Stringfellow's pneumatology, how he describes the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world. The task of the Christian is to discern and listen to the Word of God in every circumstance of life. Whenever and wherever life is encountered and enjoyed in the midst of death's works the Word of God is present and active.

Sacrament
The fourth great theme of Stringfellow's theology is that the witness of the Christian in the world, and of the church, is sacramental rather than moralistic or programmatic. The goal of the Christian life isn't to be good, pious, moral or righteous. The goal is to "live humanely in the Fall." When we live humanely in the Fall we become sacraments, signs of life in the midst of death's works. And as a sign we call others to participate in and enjoy this life. More, as the Christian is set free from the power of death the Christian is able to live for the sake of others, to give their life away in love. The power of death has been defeated in the life of the Christian. And that defeat is a sign to others. A sacrament.

This sacramental call is privileged over programmatic attempts at "good works." Stringfellow is all for social programs to aid the poor and disadvantaged. Again, the Christian's involvement in the world in inherently political. However, the Christian witness should not be reduced to these good works and social programs. More than anything else, the Christian should simply live with and among the marginalized of society as a sign of life and grace, as a sacrament of God's reconciling love in Christ. It is vital to feed the hungry, but bread alone doesn't address the estrangement of death in the lives of the poor and the rich. Only the gospel can address this estrangement.

The practical upshot is that the local Christian community reaching out to the poor doesn't have to alleviate world hunger, as if they could. More, that community cannot fully escape the Fall. Like everyone else they will exist, to some degree, at the expense of others. That is, the faith community can't escape its own complicity in various systemic evils (though it should always strive to be less rather than more complicit).

In light of all this, in light of meager successes and its own complicity, the loving community and the individual Christian is simply called to be a sacrament, a sign of life in a neighborhood and world surrounded by death.

That's the essential witness: Be a sign of life in the midst of death's works. Wherever you are, be a sacrament of life.

This entry was posted by Richard Beck. Bookmark the permalink.

18 thoughts on “The William Stringfellow Project: A Summary of Stringfellow's Theology”

  1. Okay, appetite seriously whetted. Stringfellow seems to be a kindred spirit (at least through your eyes and discernment Richard. I must pay him more attention. I have only recently come to Karl Barth but I sense many of the many themes in his work (in my reading). Barth is notoriously opaque so it would be good to discover someone out there wrestling with similar issues but in a more accessible voice.

  2. How to say this...Stringfellow seems to take sin/fallen nature seriously but in a way significantly different from the typical "conservative" church.  The conservative church largely despairs over the world and even the institution of the church and focuses only on the individual.  Stringfellow has that "liberal" church trope of placing the system in the cross-hairs, but it sounds like he does it in a serious way.  i.e. he doesn't believe perfection is one church/gov't program away.  An interesting blend of treating sin seriously at a system level, acknowledging our limits yet holding us responsible as individuals.  Of course that's all law.  You placed resurrection first and that appears to be the gospel.  A proclamation of the eternal depths of life such that death can't overcome it, even if it looks like a flood.  This will be interesting.  I'm assuming right now that everything in the theology grows from the resurrection truth. Its the gospel that re-orders all of existence.

  3. "(T)he witness of the Christian in the world, and of the church, is sacramental rather than moralistic or programmatic. The goal of the Christian life isn't to be good, pious, moral or righteous. The goal is to 'live humanely in the Fall.'"

    This is freeing for those of us raised in an atmosphere of cult-like piety. It's freeing from the Othering that we were programmed to believe in and practice as "Biblical." It's freeing from carrying the weight of the world for its salvation. It means I can give my life to others without having it demanded by guilt-induced manipulation. To live humanely in the Fall ... (and also in the Spring, Summer, Winter ... couldn't resist. :-)

  4. "More, for Stringfellow the great drama of life and history isn't the
    victory of good over evil. In fact, such a struggle tends to only create
    more evil."

    "Still, as fallen rather than evil, there are times when the powers are
    more or less oriented toward life and God. Working for the powers isn't
    evil and really can't be avoided."

    "Again, for Stringfellow the powers are not evil. They are fallen."

    "More, that community cannot fully escape the Fall. Like everyone else
    they will exist, to some degree, at the expense of others. That is, the
    faith community can't escape its own complicity in various systemic
    evils (though it should always strive to be less rather than more
    complicit)."

    Evil either exists -- or it does not.  It would appear Stringfellow was uncomfortable with the concept of evil.  How can there be "systemic evils" in a system which discounts evil to begin with?  How can life's "great drama" not be about "the struggle of good over evil", yet in the same sentence "create more evil"?  This is contradictory and illogical.

    Me working for McDonalds could also be seen as making the other guy's job at Burger King possible, since without (first) a McDonalds, there would not have been (second) a BK to begin with.  The competition has created more jobs, not fewer.  How is my labor to feed and care for my own family in any way being done "at his expense"?  In fact, is not this competition the path forward for all people?  How else would we learn, develop, and grow?

  5. I've always wondered if the "narrow gate" that leads to life was life in the here and now as well. Few are they that find it.

  6. Phil, on his only visit to the US in 1962, Barth shared a platform with Stringfellow in Chicago.  They were indeed kindred spirits (though in a 1970 essay, Stringfellow said that he had read only three of Barth's books -- though he hoped eventually to read them all!)  During the social engagements that followed the Q & A session, Barth said that America needs to listen to Stringfellow, not least over the idolatry of natonalism (and the two shared a similar approach on the duty of civil disobedience to a state that has become a death-dealing object of worship).

    Great summary and taster, Richard.

  7. the sign of death is estrangement


    Personally I would turn this around and say that what we call "death" is the symptom of our estrangement. At any rate I fear and spend more time worrying about loneliness than about dying. One of those chicken/egg things, maybe, or maybe not.



    if I work hard at my job at McDonalds I'm affecting the livelihood of those working at Burger King.



    Here's what I mean; this is only true if McD & BK's mission is to be in a death struggle with each other. If their mission were to feed the hungry, well then no single burger stand is in danger of eliminating world hunger. "Competition" changes to "redundancy", and the latter is a good feature leading to systemic robustness. McDonalds as a corporate entity fears dying because it is estranged from its "customers". 

  8. "For Stringfellow the Word of God cannot be reduced to the Bible, these are not equivalent. In fact, to equate the Word of God with the Bible would be idolatrous in Stringfellow's eyes. However, the Word of God is often mediated through the biblical text. Bible study for Stringfellow was simply listening for the Word of God in the reading of Scripture. "I can't wait to tell everyone in Sunday School that the Bible is not the Word of God.  They will think I've lost it.  A heritic in their presense!

    Actually, this is very helpful and has caught my attention.  This may help us learn how to hear the Word of God when we read the stories of annihilation and the rules against Moabites etc.  I know many of you are ahead of me on this.  I am a slow learner.

  9. Human beings are genetically programmed to fear the unknown.  By the same token, we are hard-wired to seek out, identify, name, and understand it.  Hence science and religion.  The greatest human unknown is death, and we can never "know" it, until after the fact.  Therefore, we cannot ever understand it.  Therefore, every human being ever born (including Jesus) has feared death, and will continue to do so.  Every other concept appears to be speculation.

    Completely separate and apart from "estrangement", there seems to be a force at work in the world, much as George Lucas's "Dark Side of The Force", which creates chaos, destruction, and death.  Traditional Christians have tried to identify and name it, such as Satan or The Devil.  I don''t know about that.  But I do think such a force exists, and appears both active and passive in our lives.

    Even as I struggle to understand this, I instinctively know that it cannot be understood.  Based solely on our history, there appears to be no way for human beings not to be afraid of death.  If this were not true, the world would look much different today than it does.

  10. Hi Sam - it's been too long...

    To respond to your comments about evil, I found this very difficult to get my head around until I read Becker's book, The Denial of Death. Becker presents sin as that which arises from our human struggle to live with our existential dilemma – the cold, hard fact that we are going to die like any other animal, but unlike other animals we know that we're going to die. This fear of death leads us to act in sinful ways that harm others (as Richard has covered so comprehensively elsewhere), such as attempting to boost our self-esteem by competing against others. This view has really helped me to take the pejorative judgementalism out of my response to the harmful behaviours of others. I think 'evil' could perhaps be conceptualised as the inexorable HARM CAUSED by this world's individuals and systems, rather than the humans and systems themselves, which are simply expressions of unconsciously terrified people staving off the reality of death.

    Not sure how well I’ve expressed myself or how helpful this is, but for what it’s worth…

    Hope all is well with you Sam.

  11. David, this makes sense in light of the fact that when the words were written there was no bible. What was the word of God before the canon?

  12. Thanks, Andrew.  I have the most difficulty with evil and the fear of death than any other ideas.  Please see my comments below.  That's what I think in the best way I know how to express it, as of today.

    Otherwise, all is very well with me, as I hope it is with you.  Thank you again.

  13. Yes, quite.  I suspect you are wise to hold back from easy answers to difficult questions - I can sometimes be over-fond of these myself.  Like you, I hold current thoughts provisionally - they're just way better than anything I've come across previously.

    Blessings to you on the road, Sam

  14. This
    is great stuff and I am really looking forward to more. I think there is so
    much here to chew on. And I think this is such a corrective to the more typical
    and simplistic "evangelical" outlook on these things.


     


    However, there is one thing that always bothers me when it comes up. And that is the re-framing or
    outright denial of a "real" resurrection. And I'm not trying to say
    much by "real" resurrection, I don't really care about the details.
    All I can say is that, possibly due to the trauma I've experienced in this
    life, religion/spirituality of any sort completely loses its appeal if all
    we're talking about is this three score and ten.

    Think about all the ghastly horrors that have been perpetrated against people down through the centuries, little kids abused and tortured and killed and so on. If there is a god at all, and if that god is even a little bit god-like and good in the traditional sense, and if all that god can say to the memory of all those people is: "someday future generations will live their lives in a more loving and humane world than the one you had to live in", then count me out. That's just not going to cut it with me.


     


    You
    can nuance the scriptures in all sorts of ways and that's fine, but I'm totally with what Paul seems to be saying in 1 Corinthians 15.


     


    But if it is preached that Christ has been raised
    from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no
    resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead,
    then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been
    raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than
    that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified
    about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if
    in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then
    Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your
    faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have
    fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this
    life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. -- 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.

  15. Thank you for organizing and presenting Wm Stringfellow's theological thought around  four related key notions of Resurrection, incarnation, Word, and sacrament. Its a provocative lineup.

  16. I've been a follower --sometimes unwittingly, often consciously-- of Stringfellow and his theology since i met him in 1966. He was the first religious speaker who made total sense to me and was amazingly generous with his time for a young seeker like me. Every time i think i've come up with some new theological insight, based on some spiritual experience or a new reading/exegesis, or when i am happy with finding my place among liberal Quakers, i find that Bill was there before me, wrote about it and maybe i read it and absorbed it, or the directional signals, unconsciously long ago. Thanks for taking on this sacrament of resurrection for him and the rest of us.

  17. i think you misunderstand both Stringfellow and this summary. And i'm not sure that a simplistic phrase like "Evil either exists -- or it does not." responds to what is being discussed here. You may need to remember the faith that inspired this thinking, that listens to a divinity that says, "I make Light and form Darkness, I create good and create evil..."
    In the midst of the despair and death-awareness confronted when one faces the Powers of the World, there is hope and faith in Life/Resurrection and the Word/Logos/Spirit. If you believe that God created everything and he looked and said, "It is good, it is all good. It is very very good." then you also have to believe that the essence of everything, even everything that has been perverted and is lost, everything made and systemized by failing humans, even the things that appall us and the things we can never understand, has a spark of God's creative goodness in them. The arc of Creation bends toward Justice; it turns back to its Creator; the strongest power is Love and eventually it will overcome. Don't discount bad things, but they are not ultimate. Evil exists: evil actions, evil feelings and evil spirits. But it is a great heresy to Incarnate it as the great Satan locked in Manichean battle with the white knights of orthodoxy. This is also an idolatry.
    Is competition per se evil? Perhaps not, altho like other powers it is easily perverted and leads to oppression. Life's great struggle is not Zoroaster's good vs. evil; it is Jesus's Life before Death; it is ancient Israelite holy life as a Light to all people. We will learn because we are human, gifted with curiosity and a desire to grow, and as a bird wings to flight, our soul soars to its Creator.

Leave a Reply