Debating Intentionality

On Intentionality [1]

Brad East, who happily calls me a friend as well as a colleague, came up in my recent podcast episode with Richard Beck as we discussed his series on “intentionality” at Experimental Theology. Brad wrote a post in reply to our discussion, and in the same spirit, I’d like to engage the conversation here.

Since this is a conversation among academics, let’s define terms. What is intentionality?

Brad’s Representation of Intentionality in John Mark Comer and Popular Christian Discourse More Broadly

The following quotes from Brad’s post represent the intentionality he has in mind:

• “calling on individual believers to form a personal plan of spiritual action”

• “attempts to personalize daily liturgies”

• “the resolve to audit their spiritual habits, fashion a personalized plan of attack, and execute it”

• “‘on fire’ . . . constantly self-conscious in their faith”

• “the church the company of disciples, a vanguard of urban contemplatives whose daily life together attests the kingdom of God”

• “always-on ‘intentional’ people”

• “stepping back from one’s life, assessing it, making plans and goals, and being self-consciously purposeful”

• “a continuous stream of conscious thoughts about following Christ as I follow him?”

I haven’t read Comer’s Practicing the Way, but I have my doubts that Comer, or many others who might count as representatives of Christian “intentionality discourse,”¹ would recognize their viewpoints in much of this list. I suspect Brad is rhetorically signaling the potential “pathologies” that are the underlying concern of his take—where the emphasis on intentionality seems to lead. And this is an important indication of how he and I may really disagree, as I’m more concerned with the pathologies of the church’s unintentionality—where it has led—both now and in much of Christian history (not least, the part that Brad looks toward as an alternative).

In any case, there’s a lot to object to in the intentionality that Brad represents. If this is indeed what intentionality means in popular Christian discourse, then we agree it’s a problem. Only, I don’t concede that’s what it should mean. To do so risks losing what is good about this idea of intentionally and, more, what is necessary for the church. I’ll let my subsequent discussion indicate which parts of intentionality discourse I’d like to preserve—and which parts of Brad’s and Richard’s definitions I’d like to avoid.

Richard’s Conception of Intentionality

• “intentionally disengaging my social autopilot”²

• “intentional in how we direct and invest our attention”³

• “to become more aware of a default state of mind and relating to the world, relationally, spiritually, and psychologically”⁴

• “Instead of a givenness where I can find rest within, faith has become a perpetual effort of will”⁵

• “Re-enchantment is, rather, being intentional in making yourself open and available to sacred encounters”⁶

• “We are re-enchanted because we have encountered--really and truly--a reality other than our own. What re-enchants us isn’t intentionality but ontology. The role of intentionality in my call for enchantment is to make us increasingly open, available, and receptive to these ontological encounters. Again, what re-enchants isn’t choice but experience.”⁷

• “the traditions themselves must be embraced through an intentional act, a choice”⁸

• “There is a synergy between the divine and human wills that demands an intentional response from our side”⁹

• “Intentionality directs the will and virtue stabilizes the will. Virtue doesn’t happen by accident.”¹⁰

• “Acts of intention are a participation in the divine life”¹¹

It’s fairly easy to see that Brad and Richard are talking about significantly different things. I don’t think Richard is missing the point of the Christian intentionality discourse. At the same time, Brad’s post adds a significant angle on the phenomenon. Where I perceive a point of contact between the two, there is substantive disagreement about what faith entails in the first place and what is possible for any believer.

I might put it this way: Richard is focused on what is necessary for the possibility of faith in the midst of post-Christendom secularization. Brad is focused on what is not even possible for most people throughout Christian history—and wasn’t necessary anyway.

In the next post, I’ll discuss the intentionality that faith requires.

1. A phrase Brad used in a private text message.

2. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality.

3. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality.

4. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality.

5. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality-d0b.

6. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality-988.

7. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality-988.

8. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality-74a.

9. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality-74a.

10. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality-8d4.

11. See https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/on-intentionality-8d4.