Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Walt Disney Is Christian Grey
One could make a rather strong case that there is no actual joy at Disney. And whether or not he was a butt hole makes little difference.
"The...concept of 'hyperreality' was...coined by French sociologist Jean Baudrillard in Simulacra and Simulation. Baudrillard defined 'hyperreality' as 'the generation by models of a real without origin or reality', it is a representation, a sign, without an original referent. Baudrillard believes hyperreality goes further than confusing or blending the 'real' with the symbol which represents it; it involves creating a symbol or set of signifiers which actually represent something that does not actually exist, like Santa Claus. Baudrillard in particular suggests that the world we live in has been replaced by a copy world, where we seek simulated stimuli and nothing more."
This would be less important to point out or comment on if it (hyperreality, i.e. Disney) weren't an icon of the world we live in.
"Italian author Umberto Eco explores the notion of hyperreality further by suggesting that the action of hyperreality is to desire reality and in the attempt to achieve that desire, to fabricate a false reality that is to be consumed as real. Linked to contemporary western culture Umberto Eco and [others] would argue, that in current cultures fundamental ideals are built on desire and particular sign-systems.....Hyperreality is significant as a paradigm to explain current cultural conditions. Consumerism, because of its reliance on sign exchange value (e.g. brand X shows that one is fashionable, car Y indicates one's wealth), could be seen as a contributing factor in the creation of hyperreality or the hyperreal condition. Hyperreality tricks consciousness into detaching from any real emotional engagement, instead opting for artificial simulation, and endless reproductions of fundamentally empty appearance."
Both of the above quotes are from the wikipedia article on hyperreality, which kind of doesn't do the idea justice, but gets the point across well enough.
The person who noted the joy brought to so many by Disney, with a number of tell tale signs of a modern worldview along with a misunderstanding of hyperreality, had this to say in response:
"You're missing the point, Jason. As someone who grew up in the early Disney era, I've got to point out that his work -- while certainly enjoyed by adults -- was oriented toward children and childhood. And children love beauty, and mystery, and a strong concept of 'good and bad.' Disney conveyed all of these things through his animated feature films. He also taught us a love of science and the natural world through his documentary films and 'Jiminy Cricket' science specials. Was his visualization of those subjects simplistic and romanticized and "hyperreal"? Sure! But remember, he was aiming at children, and you can't foster and grow awe and appreciation in children by presenting them with dry facts, statistics and cynical philosophy."
To that, I say this:
No offense to the Disney lovers, but I'm not missing anything. Those of you who grew up with the rise of Disney also grew up in the dawn of consumerism. No coincidence. To that end, Disney helped shape you and the rest of us into consumers. Hyperreality isn't just about how a story is depicted. It's about a story that never was creating a fantasy that shapes our desires that will never be fulfilled but will drive revenue (including Disney's). And, when I say it will drive revenue, I mean the pursuit to fulfill the created and unfulfillable fantasy becomes the revenue. The revenue stream doesn't end, because there is no underground spring in the first place.
In other words, I am not saying that Disney tries to force us against our will to buy things we don't really want to buy. I'm saying Disney shapes the will in the first place at a level as deep as our very identity. That's why, in consumerism, we ARE consumers.
And, have you read any of the original tales on which the Disney fairy tales are based? That is a more relevant comparison than Disney to "dry, cold facts."
As for kids, what does it do to the imagination when there is not only no more distinction between the real and the imaginary, but when you actually inhabit the imaginary (that has no original basis in reality in the first place)? Then what reality does a kid grow up into?
And, maybe even more importantly, then what of the imagination is left for the adult? 50 shades of Grey?
Anastasia left Grey because there was no real life. She got consumed by a false fantasy. Sound familiar? And, she also left Grey because the fantasy in which she had been caught up didn't account properly for the pain and suffering that would be inherent in the real, actual life once the fantasy was "fulfilled." Pain, suffering, and violence are generally the missing elements of fantasies, right? They are certainly missing - or sterilized - at Disney. But they are neither missing nor sterilized in the original stories that generated Disney's fantasies. And, back to my original point about a lack of true joy at Disney, Anastasia got consumed by a false fantasy that ended up including no real joy.
More on how the story is depicted. Actually, for Disney, the depiction of the (non)story integrally supports the fantasy implicit in the fairy tale. The depiction is not an extra added element of the product that constitutes or designates a Disney product as hyperreal. The depiction is as it is precisely because of what is (not) being depicted.
For a possibly more accessible version of what I am saying, why are we no longer a society of producers but of consumers? Because there is nothing to produce! There is no reality to drive production, so what is left is the drive to consume a fantasy. Reality has been subsumed into - some say eclipsed by - its copy or representation, which is the substance of the fantasy we inhabit. Remember that this fantasy is inhabited with our identity as consumers! In other words, what is produced at Disney other than a consumed unreality? What is produced by 50 Shades other than a widely consumed fantasy? What was consumed first: 50 Shades or the fantasy that produced it?
And, for clarity, my original comment - along with Baudrillard's and Umberto Echo's discussion - on Disney, was more in reference to the theme parks. By extension, though, I think the idea applies to Disney's other products, as well.
So, to bring all that together, Walt Disney is Christian Grey - creating false fantasies that generate the necessary desire to drive consumption (revenue) coupled with a cold, calculating business ethic of misplaced love. I wonder how many 50 Shades readers also love Disney?
Comments:
4) To clarify....certainly I agree with those who see Jesus' mission as being within and to and through the Jews. But that doesn't mean that he framed his kingdom as imperialistic. The bibilcal evidence is completely to the contrary. Jesus opposed Roman Imperialism and the collaboration and capitulation of Jewish religious leaders to the Roman Empire. The kingdom Jesus had in mind was not one that conquered and colonized by the sword. It wasn't a matter of building a bigger kingdom that could finally bring Rome to her knees in submission. In fact, Jesus used the term "kingdom" with deliberate irony. He was clear on his view of violence: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." And it went deeper than just being non-violent, it was about inverting hierarchies of domination and control. The greatest among you, Jesus said, must be the servant. Even Jesus himself declared that he did not come to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. He washed feet. The greatest on earth will be the least in the kingdom. Blessed are the poor and the meek, etc. The hierarchies were continually inverted. The was decidedly not a kingdom of assimiliation. It was meant to invert all imperialistic impulses toward domination, control, and violence. So, when you describe the church as having a colonial and imperial mission, it's simply at odds with the life and message of Jesus. Frankly, it's the opposite of what Jesus taught and it continues a long 2,000 year tradition of the colonial, imperial church, seeking to assimilate and control the world.
5) Jason, you said that "the locus of God's justice could never be a body governed by a worldly ideology (whether Capitalism or Marxism)." But is the point of the body of Christ to be "the locus of God's justice"? That's theologically shakey, imo. What we know with theological definitiveness, what everyone agrees on in the Christian tradition is that in some form or fashion, Christ sacrificed his body for the sake of saving the world. That sums up all of these comments. To me, the church as a continuation of the body of Christ in the world should consider herself first and foremost a lamb to be sacrificed, as an extension of the gift of God's grace, of pure gift (however impossible this may be, as Derrida pointed out), as a body whose primary orientation is toward sacrifice on behalf of others. I see this as fundamentally at odds with an imperailistic and colonialistic theology of the church. Put bluntly, the church as an extension of the body of Christ is called to give her life for the world as Christ gave his.
<< Home
Hey Jason. You remember Sam Carr don't you, from the good old days of blogging? He passed away last week from a heart attack. My wife Anne learned of the sad news on Facebook -- maybe you have a presence on that medium and already knew. I last corresponded with Sam about a year ago. His wife has serious health issues, but as far as I know Sam did not.
While I'm here, do I have anything to say about your post? As a little kid our daughter loved the Disney movies, and she still does. When we went to Disney World the Tigger got up in her face and scared her; she climbed right up me like I was a tree, got on my shoulders to reclaim her perspective. My favorite? I saw most of them with our kid, but for me the first is the best, one I loved when I was a kid: Snow White (1939).
'the generation by models of a real without origin or reality... it involves creating a symbol or set of signifiers which actually represent something that does not actually exist.' That's what all fiction does -- do you regard fiction as a bad thing? Architectural drawings too, though unlike (most) fictions the architectural simulacrum serves as a model for the creation of a reality made in the image and likeness of the model.
I hope all is well with you, Jason. Two years ago we moved to Durham NC to help my father, who lived in N. Myrtle Beach NC, move through the last stages of the regressive dehumanizing disease of Alzheimer's. He passed last May, but we're still here. Now that we're in more or less the same region -- you're still in Tidewater VA, yes? -- maybe we'll find occasion to cross paths.
While I'm here, do I have anything to say about your post? As a little kid our daughter loved the Disney movies, and she still does. When we went to Disney World the Tigger got up in her face and scared her; she climbed right up me like I was a tree, got on my shoulders to reclaim her perspective. My favorite? I saw most of them with our kid, but for me the first is the best, one I loved when I was a kid: Snow White (1939).
'the generation by models of a real without origin or reality... it involves creating a symbol or set of signifiers which actually represent something that does not actually exist.' That's what all fiction does -- do you regard fiction as a bad thing? Architectural drawings too, though unlike (most) fictions the architectural simulacrum serves as a model for the creation of a reality made in the image and likeness of the model.
I hope all is well with you, Jason. Two years ago we moved to Durham NC to help my father, who lived in N. Myrtle Beach NC, move through the last stages of the regressive dehumanizing disease of Alzheimer's. He passed last May, but we're still here. Now that we're in more or less the same region -- you're still in Tidewater VA, yes? -- maybe we'll find occasion to cross paths.
Hey John...yes I do remember Sam! He helped me quite a bit while I was in nursing school, actually! But, no, I did not know before you told me! Thank you for that!
As for the post...of course I don't regard fiction as a bad thing! But...as I said in the post...compare the Disney stories with the originals...the originals ring more true with reality. In general, I think there is a difference...apparent in literature...between a fictional world that intends to speak to the concrete reality we know...and the "hyperreality" that YOU first introduced me to (btw lol). The hyperreality doesn't refer to the world but is its own. And, I think that is evident in the literature and in how Disney depicts it's stories in film. And, quite obviously, it's evident at the theme parks! Or...take ancient myth, for example. It's "fanciful", but it's like there is a clear, distinct, and intentional line between our apparent reality we know with our senses and the veiled story being told in the myths...and the line between the two is what allows them to speak to each other! In hyperreality, that boundary or limit is abolished, right?
And wow! I didn't know you guys moved to NC! I'm sorry to hear about your father. That is very tough to deal with, both the disease and the passing. I hope you are doing OK. If we crossed paths, that would be awesome. And, yes, I'm in Tidewater. You remembered correctly!
As for the post...of course I don't regard fiction as a bad thing! But...as I said in the post...compare the Disney stories with the originals...the originals ring more true with reality. In general, I think there is a difference...apparent in literature...between a fictional world that intends to speak to the concrete reality we know...and the "hyperreality" that YOU first introduced me to (btw lol). The hyperreality doesn't refer to the world but is its own. And, I think that is evident in the literature and in how Disney depicts it's stories in film. And, quite obviously, it's evident at the theme parks! Or...take ancient myth, for example. It's "fanciful", but it's like there is a clear, distinct, and intentional line between our apparent reality we know with our senses and the veiled story being told in the myths...and the line between the two is what allows them to speak to each other! In hyperreality, that boundary or limit is abolished, right?
And wow! I didn't know you guys moved to NC! I'm sorry to hear about your father. That is very tough to deal with, both the disease and the passing. I hope you are doing OK. If we crossed paths, that would be awesome. And, yes, I'm in Tidewater. You remembered correctly!
Baudrillard writes at some length about Disneyland in the first chapter of his Simulacra and Simulation, calling it "a perfect model of all the entangled orders of simulacra." Yes, B. acknowledges, Disneyland is a kind of comic-strip, miniaturized homage to an idealized version of American way of life. But this illusory distortion masks what he calls a third-order simulation, one that masks the absence of reality:
"Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the 'real' country, all of 'real' America that is Disneyland. Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle... This world wants to be childish in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the 'real' world, and to conceal the fact that true childishness is everywhere."
Baudrillard is prone to hyperbole, having once argued that 9/11 was a media simulation staged for TV viewing. And I'm not so sure that the unreality of real is best characterized by its childishness. But maybe so, in the sense that so many societal institutions -- the marketplace, politics, jobs -- are staged as games and entertainments. And the options are like those offered by adults to children -- would you rather have the peas or the carrots? the Democrat or the Republican? -- intended to disguise the nature of the game, where the rules dictate that only certain kinds of choices are permitted. And it's clear that the world is increasingly enmeshed in a multitude of simulacra.
In short, I'm on board with your interpretation of Disney, Hesmaniak. I'm not so sure though that Disney teaches kids to ignore the distinction between the real and the imaginary. It's the adults who do that, teaching the kids to grow up, be practical, prepare for the real world, no longer remembering that the real world is to a large extent the product of an ongoing collective illusion, an illusion that can perhaps best be dispelled by a more aggressive exercise of the imagination.
"Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the 'real' country, all of 'real' America that is Disneyland. Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle... This world wants to be childish in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the 'real' world, and to conceal the fact that true childishness is everywhere."
Baudrillard is prone to hyperbole, having once argued that 9/11 was a media simulation staged for TV viewing. And I'm not so sure that the unreality of real is best characterized by its childishness. But maybe so, in the sense that so many societal institutions -- the marketplace, politics, jobs -- are staged as games and entertainments. And the options are like those offered by adults to children -- would you rather have the peas or the carrots? the Democrat or the Republican? -- intended to disguise the nature of the game, where the rules dictate that only certain kinds of choices are permitted. And it's clear that the world is increasingly enmeshed in a multitude of simulacra.
In short, I'm on board with your interpretation of Disney, Hesmaniak. I'm not so sure though that Disney teaches kids to ignore the distinction between the real and the imaginary. It's the adults who do that, teaching the kids to grow up, be practical, prepare for the real world, no longer remembering that the real world is to a large extent the product of an ongoing collective illusion, an illusion that can perhaps best be dispelled by a more aggressive exercise of the imagination.
Haha...Doylomania! I think I would agree with your conclusion! Although, with your reference to "ongoing collective illusion" in your last paragraph, I wonder if you are referring to or have in mind more of "an idealized version of American way of life" that feeds ideology or more of the "third order simulacra"? In my post, I am intending to speak to the "third order simulacra"...and to speak of that as inseparably interwoven with not only the definition of consumerism but as what drives it. We aren't a society of producers, because there is nothing to produce, except consumers.
I mean...in that case...if it's the adults who are the ones who teach kids to ignore the distinction between the real and the imaginary, then it is by being subsumed into the hyperreal that is "all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it"! Of which Disney is the...umm..err...icon.
In other words...it sounds like you are saying it's either Disney or the adults who are ruining the kids. I'm saying...what's the difference?
On another note, what do you think he meant by the 9/11 quip? Just that what was most essentially experienced collectively by the American people on 9/11 wasn't the concrete reality of the local event? Or do you think he meant it, at least partially as a commentary on the medium of TV (after all, the medium is the message)? Or...both?
I mean...in that case...if it's the adults who are the ones who teach kids to ignore the distinction between the real and the imaginary, then it is by being subsumed into the hyperreal that is "all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it"! Of which Disney is the...umm..err...icon.
In other words...it sounds like you are saying it's either Disney or the adults who are ruining the kids. I'm saying...what's the difference?
On another note, what do you think he meant by the 9/11 quip? Just that what was most essentially experienced collectively by the American people on 9/11 wasn't the concrete reality of the local event? Or do you think he meant it, at least partially as a commentary on the medium of TV (after all, the medium is the message)? Or...both?
I'm not saying that the material world is an illusion. I'm saying that the material and the imaginary are interwoven in the world in ways that blur the distinction, for adults as much as for children. So I'm with you that there should be more attention paid to pulling the imaginary and the material back apart to consider what each adds to the mix, and what might be changed for the better. Disney commodifies the imagination in a way that seems to corrupt the childishness of free storytelling for anyone who wants to listen. But that commodification is itself an ongoing collective illusion, regarded by most adults tend as intrinsically real. It takes imagination to make a cartoon; it also takes imagination to charge kids $10 apiece to watch it at a theater. It takes imagination to invent a cancer drug; it takes imagination to charge a kid 10,000 times the cost of manufacturing that drug to treat her disease.
Ahhh yes...gotcha. And I'm with you, I think. I am a bit torn...Louis I. Kahn refers to this "illusion" as "human agreement." Possibly in response to the idea of the social contract?
I wonder if there's any felt sense that we need to upgrade this conversation a bit. How many are really convinced that the hyperreality of the hyper-consumeristic America can continue to exist? A few of the desperately faithful, dutifully supporting their favorite conservative candidate from a half-dozen Republican hopefuls. But a sizable demographic are coming of age, approaching that woeful age of reckoning, around 30, when reality comes crashing down. Reality seems to have caught up with America: a damaged democracy, a pathetic healthcare system, young men who still get shot by cops for being black (with no consequence to the gunmen), college and university debt the size of Idaho alongside of job prospects that seem bland, at best. (And on top of that, the old folks are saying it's all because of those lazy, unmotivated young people.) Tyler from Fight Club motivated Gen Xers by saying, "“We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.” I don't think this generation is really that pissed off, not enough to start fight clubs (although there are some) and to blow up buildings and create chaos. But if Bernie or people like him start winning, maybe it'll be a "bloodless revolution" of sorts. Bloodless or not, it seems like the next generation doesn't really have the luxury of ignoring the real world, because it is closing in on them. (And, of course, there have always been those living in American who never could.)
# posted by 
: 4:46 PM
: 4:46 PM
As it so happened, I've had this article in my browser for months, but having read your post, Hesiak, I decided to read it again. It kind of filled in a bit of a gap in my previous comment, a comment that I left earlier today but that has not made it past the Hoover-like blog censor board. ;)
The Postmodern Left and the Success of Neoliberalism:
https://libcom.org/library/postmodern-left-success-neoliberalism
I would love to hear y'all's thoughts on the article. I think you'll find it as fascinating as I did. The summary of the article, as I understand it, is that the Postmodern Left (so-called) is about style over substance and is therefore compatible with neoliberal capitalism. It poses no threat, because it is merely a pose and not an actual mobilization of force. What is needed (implies the author) is militancy.
In my prior comment, I kind of left myself wondering about what a disenchanted youth could do, disillusioned as they are by neoliberal capitalism, a generation stripped of their God-given, American right to live in a simulated fairy-tale America. If the author of the article is correct, then they'll settle for a simulated opposition and high-five over style points. Or, as a counter point, it might actually work. What was style might actually become substance, as this quote (taken from the article) suggests:
"Branding. That’s how the climate crisis is going to be solved. We are in an era or postmodern social movements. The image (not ideology) comes first and shapes the reality. The P.R. and marketing determines the tactics, the messaging, the organizing, and the strategy."
Some seem to be quite self-aware that they want a social movement won on social media, not on the streets, a virtual revolution. The revolution won't be televised, but if it's Twitter-ized and goes viral, then maybe we've got a chance.
There also might be a "middle way" that suggests that a successful overthrow of neoliberal capitalism might need to involve resistance at all levels, from social media to the streets, or as some describe it: a below-ground (illegal) resistance and an above-ground campaign to legitimize the struggle.......All that's left to see is whether this comment is too revolutionary for the blog censors. ;)
The Postmodern Left and the Success of Neoliberalism:
https://libcom.org/library/postmodern-left-success-neoliberalism
I would love to hear y'all's thoughts on the article. I think you'll find it as fascinating as I did. The summary of the article, as I understand it, is that the Postmodern Left (so-called) is about style over substance and is therefore compatible with neoliberal capitalism. It poses no threat, because it is merely a pose and not an actual mobilization of force. What is needed (implies the author) is militancy.
In my prior comment, I kind of left myself wondering about what a disenchanted youth could do, disillusioned as they are by neoliberal capitalism, a generation stripped of their God-given, American right to live in a simulated fairy-tale America. If the author of the article is correct, then they'll settle for a simulated opposition and high-five over style points. Or, as a counter point, it might actually work. What was style might actually become substance, as this quote (taken from the article) suggests:
"Branding. That’s how the climate crisis is going to be solved. We are in an era or postmodern social movements. The image (not ideology) comes first and shapes the reality. The P.R. and marketing determines the tactics, the messaging, the organizing, and the strategy."
Some seem to be quite self-aware that they want a social movement won on social media, not on the streets, a virtual revolution. The revolution won't be televised, but if it's Twitter-ized and goes viral, then maybe we've got a chance.
There also might be a "middle way" that suggests that a successful overthrow of neoliberal capitalism might need to involve resistance at all levels, from social media to the streets, or as some describe it: a below-ground (illegal) resistance and an above-ground campaign to legitimize the struggle.......All that's left to see is whether this comment is too revolutionary for the blog censors. ;)
# posted by : 8:20 PM
: 8:20 PM
First, this, lol - http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/14/3701084/donald-trump/
Anyway, I did read most of that link you posted. My basic take on it was that I don't think the author really understands what either postmodernism is nor the postmodern world. I am also not at all interested in a mobilization of force.
I'm not even interested in overthrowing neoliberal capitalism, necessarily. I'm not a committed marxist, neo-marxist, or socialist, or whatever. I found Zizek to be helpful and fascinating as I read The End of Evangelicalism - as a way to diagnose what I see going on around me. But, like Fitch, I don't share Zizek's ideas in the way of solving the problem. In the end, I don't even share Zizek's language of or for diagnosis. The real problem is idolatry, not ideology.
So, I don't think it will really help anything if Sanders gets elected. I'm not even sure I would want him in office. I really don't even know.
What I do know is that I truly believe that the church is not only a body politic but, as such, is the body of Christ. I truly believe that our primary mission as Christians is to build up and serve the church - as a challenge and blessing to the world. That's our mission, because that's our participation in God's story. That's the part of God's story in which we currently live, and God's story is truly the story of all of creation.
In other words, as far as I'm concerned, capitalism and socialism/communism/marxism are both world systems fueled by worldly powers. Why would I commit and give myself to one or the other? We are "exiles of the diaspora," "citizens of heaven," "resident aliens."
The "revolution" already happened. God won. We call the victory the resurrection.
So, as all of that pertains to the topic of consumerism:
As I see it, the task of the church and of Christians is to resist the ways that the system in which we live shapes us and to, instead, allow the work of the Spirit through communion with the saints shape us into the image of Christ - through participation in his story (rather than the world's).
Anyway, I did read most of that link you posted. My basic take on it was that I don't think the author really understands what either postmodernism is nor the postmodern world. I am also not at all interested in a mobilization of force.
I'm not even interested in overthrowing neoliberal capitalism, necessarily. I'm not a committed marxist, neo-marxist, or socialist, or whatever. I found Zizek to be helpful and fascinating as I read The End of Evangelicalism - as a way to diagnose what I see going on around me. But, like Fitch, I don't share Zizek's ideas in the way of solving the problem. In the end, I don't even share Zizek's language of or for diagnosis. The real problem is idolatry, not ideology.
So, I don't think it will really help anything if Sanders gets elected. I'm not even sure I would want him in office. I really don't even know.
What I do know is that I truly believe that the church is not only a body politic but, as such, is the body of Christ. I truly believe that our primary mission as Christians is to build up and serve the church - as a challenge and blessing to the world. That's our mission, because that's our participation in God's story. That's the part of God's story in which we currently live, and God's story is truly the story of all of creation.
In other words, as far as I'm concerned, capitalism and socialism/communism/marxism are both world systems fueled by worldly powers. Why would I commit and give myself to one or the other? We are "exiles of the diaspora," "citizens of heaven," "resident aliens."
The "revolution" already happened. God won. We call the victory the resurrection.
So, as all of that pertains to the topic of consumerism:
As I see it, the task of the church and of Christians is to resist the ways that the system in which we live shapes us and to, instead, allow the work of the Spirit through communion with the saints shape us into the image of Christ - through participation in his story (rather than the world's).
Erdmania clued me in that you fellas were having a convo back here, so I thought I drop by.
"The real problem is idolatry, not ideology."
I see that you're on a blogging roll on this topic, Hesmaniak. I've not read those posts, but it seem that your view would be compatible that of the article's author, who laments the current poser leftist stance:
"The image (not ideology) comes first and shapes the reality."
"Idol" means "image," so he's more or less saying that idolatry is the problem, mistaking the idol for the real.
But now, unexpectedly, I'm called away, so I'll leave it at that for now.
"The real problem is idolatry, not ideology."
I see that you're on a blogging roll on this topic, Hesmaniak. I've not read those posts, but it seem that your view would be compatible that of the article's author, who laments the current poser leftist stance:
"The image (not ideology) comes first and shapes the reality."
"Idol" means "image," so he's more or less saying that idolatry is the problem, mistaking the idol for the real.
But now, unexpectedly, I'm called away, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Did that comment go through? When I clicked I didn't get any notice that it was being moderated; it just swiped the screen clear.
But ideology for the author of that piece means something real and of substance. Image, for him, means the opposite.
For Zizek, ideology is empty and has no substance anyway.
And, for me, idolatry does have substance. It's just that it's poisonous.
And, sorry about the moderation of comments. I got sick of the spammers.
For Zizek, ideology is empty and has no substance anyway.
And, for me, idolatry does have substance. It's just that it's poisonous.
And, sorry about the moderation of comments. I got sick of the spammers.
But ideology for the author of that piece means something real and of substance. Image, for him, means the opposite.
For Zizek, ideology is empty and has no substance anyway.
And, for me, idolatry does have substance. It's just that it's poisonous.
And, sorry about the moderation of comments. I got sick of the spammers.
For Zizek, ideology is empty and has no substance anyway.
And, for me, idolatry does have substance. It's just that it's poisonous.
And, sorry about the moderation of comments. I got sick of the spammers.
Well yes, for the writer there's an authentic radical left position that includes a coherent set of ideas (ideology) as well as a program of direct action in the world. Christianity has both too, right -- a theology as well as a walk? And don't you think there are Christian idolaters, who uphold an image of God -- the Christian "brand" -- while presenting themselves according to the image of what a Christian is supposed to look like in the world? There's a distinction to be drawn between the authentic and the simulacrum of left politics, or right politics, or Christianity, or Islam, even if you don't believe the authentic version has any merit or substance.
I take it then that you interpret "idol" not as "image" but as "false god." But isn't it possible to create an image of a god and mistake it for the real thing? Just like you could create an image of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, of Beyonce or Taylor Swift, that doesn't bear much resemblance to the real person. The apparatus for constructing and propagating spectacles can generate persuasive idols.
I take it then that you interpret "idol" not as "image" but as "false god." But isn't it possible to create an image of a god and mistake it for the real thing? Just like you could create an image of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, of Beyonce or Taylor Swift, that doesn't bear much resemblance to the real person. The apparatus for constructing and propagating spectacles can generate persuasive idols.
Jason/John,
Either of you read Jean-Luc Marion on the difference between idol and icon? He has some interesting things to say on the topic, much of which went over my head.
I have no problem being an exile. I relate to that 100%. Many of us do, whether we are in the church or not. I suspect John relates to the feelings of being displaced, in a general sense, being "in the world but not of the world." But does that make us better than everyone else? And does that mean we have to shun engaging with politics and the democratic process? I mean, it's cool if that resonates with you, but I see nothing in Christian theology that demands that I start a cult.
Jason, you said: "The "revolution" already happened. God won. We call the victory the resurrection."
1) That seems theologically suspect. Paul's theology is described by theologians (almost universally as far as I've ever read) as an already-not-yet approach. There is clearly unfinished business. As far as I know, Jesus never talked about a revolution that has already happened. The closest Jesus comes to suggesting that the "revolution" has happened is his theology that "the kingdom of heaven is within you," this sort-of mystical, inner experience of union with God. As far as the politics of "the world," Jesus actually stepped outside of the religious establishment to do his work.
2) I'll be honest, I'm always more than a little suspicious of religious groups that separate themselves from everyone else and declare victory over anyone that's not part of their group. It harkens back to my trauma from growing up as a fundamentalist Christian. And I suppose if I'm being real with you, I've never found a group that I could ever fit in with again. I've truly been a stranger in this world, a drifter, an exile.
3) It also, frankly, sounds arrogant, to talk about the superiority of one's group, and what you are saying is (to my ears) not unlike the nationalist Trump cult or the religious fundies that Ted Cruz is trying to mobilize.
4) I interpret Jesus and other "not of this world" theological statements as having to do with the system of domination and control. "Blessed are the poor," Jesus said, "for theirs is the kingdom of God." That's a political statement because it's a statement about power, it's wider than the church or any other religious establishment. Jesus is inverting the power structure, aligning himself with those who suffer at the bottom of the hierarchy of violence and domination. Note that Jesus doesn't say, "blessed are the poor Christians, within the church" but rather issues a blanket statement: "blessed are the poor," every poor person, regardless of race or gender or religious affiliation. If you're poor, then Jesus says you are the kind of person best suited to talk about the kingdom of god. To be "not of this world," in this sense, is to challenge the hierarchy of violence that controls the world. What could possibly be more radical, more other-worldly?
5) Lastly, I have a hard time with anyone who celebrates the church because it's too easy for religious groups to form their own clubs, which become more important than the basic mission of Jesus, which was to subvert the power structure. Churches, in short, become ends in and of themselves, at which point, in my eyes, they are pretty much worthless. It's ironic, I suppose, but for many in churches, the church itself has become an idol, rather than an organization effective in challenging idolotry.
Either of you read Jean-Luc Marion on the difference between idol and icon? He has some interesting things to say on the topic, much of which went over my head.
I have no problem being an exile. I relate to that 100%. Many of us do, whether we are in the church or not. I suspect John relates to the feelings of being displaced, in a general sense, being "in the world but not of the world." But does that make us better than everyone else? And does that mean we have to shun engaging with politics and the democratic process? I mean, it's cool if that resonates with you, but I see nothing in Christian theology that demands that I start a cult.
Jason, you said: "The "revolution" already happened. God won. We call the victory the resurrection."
1) That seems theologically suspect. Paul's theology is described by theologians (almost universally as far as I've ever read) as an already-not-yet approach. There is clearly unfinished business. As far as I know, Jesus never talked about a revolution that has already happened. The closest Jesus comes to suggesting that the "revolution" has happened is his theology that "the kingdom of heaven is within you," this sort-of mystical, inner experience of union with God. As far as the politics of "the world," Jesus actually stepped outside of the religious establishment to do his work.
2) I'll be honest, I'm always more than a little suspicious of religious groups that separate themselves from everyone else and declare victory over anyone that's not part of their group. It harkens back to my trauma from growing up as a fundamentalist Christian. And I suppose if I'm being real with you, I've never found a group that I could ever fit in with again. I've truly been a stranger in this world, a drifter, an exile.
3) It also, frankly, sounds arrogant, to talk about the superiority of one's group, and what you are saying is (to my ears) not unlike the nationalist Trump cult or the religious fundies that Ted Cruz is trying to mobilize.
4) I interpret Jesus and other "not of this world" theological statements as having to do with the system of domination and control. "Blessed are the poor," Jesus said, "for theirs is the kingdom of God." That's a political statement because it's a statement about power, it's wider than the church or any other religious establishment. Jesus is inverting the power structure, aligning himself with those who suffer at the bottom of the hierarchy of violence and domination. Note that Jesus doesn't say, "blessed are the poor Christians, within the church" but rather issues a blanket statement: "blessed are the poor," every poor person, regardless of race or gender or religious affiliation. If you're poor, then Jesus says you are the kind of person best suited to talk about the kingdom of god. To be "not of this world," in this sense, is to challenge the hierarchy of violence that controls the world. What could possibly be more radical, more other-worldly?
5) Lastly, I have a hard time with anyone who celebrates the church because it's too easy for religious groups to form their own clubs, which become more important than the basic mission of Jesus, which was to subvert the power structure. Churches, in short, become ends in and of themselves, at which point, in my eyes, they are pretty much worthless. It's ironic, I suppose, but for many in churches, the church itself has become an idol, rather than an organization effective in challenging idolotry.
# posted by : 6:13 PM
: 6:13 PM
Doylomania:
I don't think simulacra/simulation is about authenticity. And I take an "idol" to be both an image AND a false god. That said, I would completely agree with this: "But isn't it possible to create an image of a god and mistake it for the real thing?" To that, I say (basically) YES. That's kind of the whole point of the blog series you referenced in that regard.
I don't think simulacra/simulation is about authenticity. And I take an "idol" to be both an image AND a false god. That said, I would completely agree with this: "But isn't it possible to create an image of a god and mistake it for the real thing?" To that, I say (basically) YES. That's kind of the whole point of the blog series you referenced in that regard.
Erdmanian:
I haven't read Marion, but I would like to. I did just read a brief summary here: https://fluxofthought.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/doxological-theology-part-ii-idol-and-icon/
I find it to be interesting...and, in it's own terms, true. Though, I am not entirely comfortable with those terms. Was there something in what you read of Marion that was not in that summary but that was over your head? Does that summary pretty well seem to summarize what you read?
I haven't read Marion, but I would like to. I did just read a brief summary here: https://fluxofthought.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/doxological-theology-part-ii-idol-and-icon/
I find it to be interesting...and, in it's own terms, true. Though, I am not entirely comfortable with those terms. Was there something in what you read of Marion that was not in that summary but that was over your head? Does that summary pretty well seem to summarize what you read?
Erdmanian - to your points:
1. I mainly have in mind N.T. Wright and Hauerwas. I agree with "already-not-yet approach," but I was speaking in shorthand and focusing on one aspect of it. I did that, because, as Wright says it, the church is the not yet invading the present. The "revolution" language is from J.H. Yoder. He talks about how perhaps the best way to get past the secondary readings of "good news" would be to translate the word as "revolution." Of course, he means that iconically, lol (as a pointer rather than as a fixed point of reference for "the gaze," if you wanna call it that). Now, I got that "revolution" thing from Fitch's reading of Yoder, but it is completely in line with my own direct reading(s) of Yoder.
"The closest Jesus comes to suggesting that the 'revolution' has happened is his theology that 'the kingdom of heaven is within you,' this sort-of mystical, inner experience of union with God."
I almost completely disagree with that, for at least a blog series worth of reasons. From my studies, btw, the more accurate translation there is "in your midst." Just as completely as I disagree with the general idea you presented there, though, I also completely agree with the idea and importance of union with God. I don't think of that, really, though, as a mystical, inner experience. I think that's holding onto Enlightenment categories. I think our union with God actually much simpler than that, though it does occur through the Spirit (which I suppose does have an obvious element of mystery to it).
My point is, the union isn't "inner." It's not a metaphysical union of a transcendent part of ourselves. The union is bodily and in the body, under rule of the King, who, himself, is physically - wounds and all - ruling from heaven. It's as simple as the way ancient Kings identified with their people, and how ancient people identified with their King. It's not commonly explicit in the scriptures, because it was so obvious to any ancient. The end of 2 Samuel 19 and beginning of 2 Samuel 20, however, make this most explicit:
Now there happened to be there a worthless man, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite. And he blew the trumpet and said,
“We have no portion in David,
and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse;
every man to his tents, O Israel!”
2 So all the men of Israel withdrew from David and followed Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah followed their king steadfastly from the Jordan to Jerusalem.
I take it to be somewhat similar to how we now identify with brands (or movie characters).
"As far as the politics of 'the world,' Jesus actually stepped outside of the religious establishment to do his work."
I don't think it's that simple. According to Yoder, Jesus was basically building an alternative Israel. I don't like the term "alternative," there, because, after all, it was Yoder who spoke of revolution. Per Hauerwas, Wright, and others, the point is fulfillment of the covenant, which includes glory and rule.
1. I mainly have in mind N.T. Wright and Hauerwas. I agree with "already-not-yet approach," but I was speaking in shorthand and focusing on one aspect of it. I did that, because, as Wright says it, the church is the not yet invading the present. The "revolution" language is from J.H. Yoder. He talks about how perhaps the best way to get past the secondary readings of "good news" would be to translate the word as "revolution." Of course, he means that iconically, lol (as a pointer rather than as a fixed point of reference for "the gaze," if you wanna call it that). Now, I got that "revolution" thing from Fitch's reading of Yoder, but it is completely in line with my own direct reading(s) of Yoder.
"The closest Jesus comes to suggesting that the 'revolution' has happened is his theology that 'the kingdom of heaven is within you,' this sort-of mystical, inner experience of union with God."
I almost completely disagree with that, for at least a blog series worth of reasons. From my studies, btw, the more accurate translation there is "in your midst." Just as completely as I disagree with the general idea you presented there, though, I also completely agree with the idea and importance of union with God. I don't think of that, really, though, as a mystical, inner experience. I think that's holding onto Enlightenment categories. I think our union with God actually much simpler than that, though it does occur through the Spirit (which I suppose does have an obvious element of mystery to it).
My point is, the union isn't "inner." It's not a metaphysical union of a transcendent part of ourselves. The union is bodily and in the body, under rule of the King, who, himself, is physically - wounds and all - ruling from heaven. It's as simple as the way ancient Kings identified with their people, and how ancient people identified with their King. It's not commonly explicit in the scriptures, because it was so obvious to any ancient. The end of 2 Samuel 19 and beginning of 2 Samuel 20, however, make this most explicit:
Now there happened to be there a worthless man, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite. And he blew the trumpet and said,
“We have no portion in David,
and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse;
every man to his tents, O Israel!”
2 So all the men of Israel withdrew from David and followed Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah followed their king steadfastly from the Jordan to Jerusalem.
I take it to be somewhat similar to how we now identify with brands (or movie characters).
"As far as the politics of 'the world,' Jesus actually stepped outside of the religious establishment to do his work."
I don't think it's that simple. According to Yoder, Jesus was basically building an alternative Israel. I don't like the term "alternative," there, because, after all, it was Yoder who spoke of revolution. Per Hauerwas, Wright, and others, the point is fulfillment of the covenant, which includes glory and rule.
2. As per the above, the church isn't of this world. It's the body of Jesus, in whom we are unified as children. I'm sorry to hear about your experience with Fundamentalists, who have obviously gotten it wrong. But, that doesn't mean that God's role for the church isn't what it is.
As for suspicion of "religious groups that separate themselves from everyone else and declare victory over anyone that's not part of their group", Fitch himself recently said this on Facebook:
"It is frustrating to an Neo-Anabaptist to see others (like J Davision Hunter) quickly throw the hasty sectarian characterization at us, i.e. to be an Anabaptist is to withdraw and separate from society. In fact the church is a social strategy for bringing justice into the world."
I am not necessarily an Anabaptist, but I tend to lean in that direction. My bigger influence, in terms of the things I mentioned above (about the role of the church in God's story), is N.T. Wright.
On your point (3):
Not arrogant if the rule and model of the participation in the victory is a crucified savior. Here is an example of what I mean, which is related to other things that surround and are implicit in this conversation (especially considering the specific things you mentioned in your point 3):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sViQjvFITPc
As for suspicion of "religious groups that separate themselves from everyone else and declare victory over anyone that's not part of their group", Fitch himself recently said this on Facebook:
"It is frustrating to an Neo-Anabaptist to see others (like J Davision Hunter) quickly throw the hasty sectarian characterization at us, i.e. to be an Anabaptist is to withdraw and separate from society. In fact the church is a social strategy for bringing justice into the world."
I am not necessarily an Anabaptist, but I tend to lean in that direction. My bigger influence, in terms of the things I mentioned above (about the role of the church in God's story), is N.T. Wright.
On your point (3):
Not arrogant if the rule and model of the participation in the victory is a crucified savior. Here is an example of what I mean, which is related to other things that surround and are implicit in this conversation (especially considering the specific things you mentioned in your point 3):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sViQjvFITPc
On your point (4):
I, too, interpret Jesus' "not of this world" language to be about domination, control, and violence. But, if the church is an extension of Jesus' mission to, as their representative King, build a new Israel - to fulfill the elected calling upon them by the One True God of Israel - then you have to keep in mind that he didn't say that the poor is "the kind of person best suited to talk about the kingdom of god." He said that's to the kingdom of God BELONGS TO. As in, they are IN it, part of it, members of the body of it. I think it's Hauerwas who talks about the church as a "kingdom outpost," a "colony", which is goverened in a whole different WAY from that of the world. Hence the early name for the church - "the Way." Fitch often discusses, having in mind the idea of the church as a social strategy, that the way the church relates to each other (it's politic, in other words), corporately presents Jesus to the world. "They will know you by your love for one another." Obviously, that's not how the world runs.
The stark contrast makes the idolatry plain. If it doesn't, then what happened to the church? It's not that the church isn't supposed to be the church, but that the church started doing something wrong along the way.
The basic effect of what I'm saying, in the context of our conversation, is that the locus of God's justice could never be a body goverened by a worldly ideology (whether Capitalism or Marxism). Obviously, God isn't the source of a worldly ideology. A worldly ideology is obviously not empowered by the Spirit. The world is on the path to destruction; the church is the invasion of resurrection life in the present (and not the individual life of any Christian).
On 5:
The church is not a/the end. It's the means, the medium. And a bodily medium, at that. Becoming a country club is certainly a temptation, but so is becoming a pawn to worldly powers.
I, too, interpret Jesus' "not of this world" language to be about domination, control, and violence. But, if the church is an extension of Jesus' mission to, as their representative King, build a new Israel - to fulfill the elected calling upon them by the One True God of Israel - then you have to keep in mind that he didn't say that the poor is "the kind of person best suited to talk about the kingdom of god." He said that's to the kingdom of God BELONGS TO. As in, they are IN it, part of it, members of the body of it. I think it's Hauerwas who talks about the church as a "kingdom outpost," a "colony", which is goverened in a whole different WAY from that of the world. Hence the early name for the church - "the Way." Fitch often discusses, having in mind the idea of the church as a social strategy, that the way the church relates to each other (it's politic, in other words), corporately presents Jesus to the world. "They will know you by your love for one another." Obviously, that's not how the world runs.
The stark contrast makes the idolatry plain. If it doesn't, then what happened to the church? It's not that the church isn't supposed to be the church, but that the church started doing something wrong along the way.
The basic effect of what I'm saying, in the context of our conversation, is that the locus of God's justice could never be a body goverened by a worldly ideology (whether Capitalism or Marxism). Obviously, God isn't the source of a worldly ideology. A worldly ideology is obviously not empowered by the Spirit. The world is on the path to destruction; the church is the invasion of resurrection life in the present (and not the individual life of any Christian).
On 5:
The church is not a/the end. It's the means, the medium. And a bodily medium, at that. Becoming a country club is certainly a temptation, but so is becoming a pawn to worldly powers.
And, as I was working on those comments, someone on FB posted this:
-------------------
Mary Elizabeth Fisher
29 mins ·
Jason Hesiak a FB friend named some thinking of Stanley Hauerwas this way.
"To add, the whole point was the virtue of humility practiced by those who believe in a crucified savior, in light of the idea that tolerance is practiced by those in power."
I think that a great thought to meditate upon.
----------------------
That was a commentary on the video I posted above.
(this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sViQjvFITPc )
-------------------
Mary Elizabeth Fisher
29 mins ·
Jason Hesiak a FB friend named some thinking of Stanley Hauerwas this way.
"To add, the whole point was the virtue of humility practiced by those who believe in a crucified savior, in light of the idea that tolerance is practiced by those in power."
I think that a great thought to meditate upon.
----------------------
That was a commentary on the video I posted above.
(this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sViQjvFITPc )
On your point 4, I was also speaking of where we place our HOPE. That's why I mentioned destruction vs resurrection life and empowerment of/by the Spirit. Sure, the church might get it wrong, but that's still where the Spirit is at work to accomplish the mission of God (as opposed/compared to worldly bodies).
Also, Erdmanian, thank you for sharing and opening up a bit about your trauma. I'll say a prayer for continued healing.
"I don't think simulacra/simulation is about authenticity."
That was abrupt, but then maybe you've written extensively about your views in your series. (BTW, when I reach the bottom of your homepage there is no way to click onto previous posts.) Etymologically, eidolon (Greek) = simulacrum (Latin) = image. And authentic = original, genuine. So, an idol is an image of the genuine original. The Biblical position was typically that the idolators regarded the idol as genuine, the simulacrum as the authentic original. I've not read Marion, but presumably an icon is meant not to draw attention to itself, but to open a portal through itself to the original. It's a slippery distinction, as evidenced by the Protestant Reformer iconoclasts who went around destroying all the Catholic statuary, which they regarded as idols.
About the time I first started blogging I fell in with a crowd of NT Wright enthusiasts. I think they're right in that Jesus was talking almost exclusively to the Jews. Instead of opening Israel outward, he was narrowing the path to a remnant, likely few in number, of those faithful to the Mosaic covenant who would pass through the coming godly judgment on both Rome and Israel. It was only afterward, through Paul and associates, that the gospel extended into the Gentile world. But instead of being an extension of Israel, the Church is framed by Paul more as a fulfillment of the earlier covenant with Abraham, promising that he would be the father of many nations. Israel was a kind of distraction, an attempt to set aside a remnant nation among the rest of the nations. Galatians is particularly direct in this regard:
"Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed... What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God." (Gal. 3:16-17)
As I recall, Wright regards the Bible as documenting the first four acts of a five act play. The fifth act, extending from the first century onward, wasn't written. In keeping with Wright's historical narrative approach, is it necessary to regard the "kingdom" idea as timeless and universal, applicable within the fifth act as well? Before Israel had a king it was ruled by judges; God gave them a king only because they demanded a king. Rome was ruled by a king; the Jews were looking for a new king of their own. And so it came to pass: eventually the kingdom of Rome was transformed into Christendom, a combined religious and worldly realm that extended through most of Europe and the Middle East. But that was then: act four. If resurrected Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren, then isn't it conceivable that fifth-act Christianity might involve a less hierarchical, monarchical order. The kingdom is in your midst, where two or more are gathered there am I, the body of Christ, the movement of the Spirit, and so on. Something like a Christian collective anarchy can be envisioned that doesn't rely on leaders, be they secular or religious.
That was abrupt, but then maybe you've written extensively about your views in your series. (BTW, when I reach the bottom of your homepage there is no way to click onto previous posts.) Etymologically, eidolon (Greek) = simulacrum (Latin) = image. And authentic = original, genuine. So, an idol is an image of the genuine original. The Biblical position was typically that the idolators regarded the idol as genuine, the simulacrum as the authentic original. I've not read Marion, but presumably an icon is meant not to draw attention to itself, but to open a portal through itself to the original. It's a slippery distinction, as evidenced by the Protestant Reformer iconoclasts who went around destroying all the Catholic statuary, which they regarded as idols.
About the time I first started blogging I fell in with a crowd of NT Wright enthusiasts. I think they're right in that Jesus was talking almost exclusively to the Jews. Instead of opening Israel outward, he was narrowing the path to a remnant, likely few in number, of those faithful to the Mosaic covenant who would pass through the coming godly judgment on both Rome and Israel. It was only afterward, through Paul and associates, that the gospel extended into the Gentile world. But instead of being an extension of Israel, the Church is framed by Paul more as a fulfillment of the earlier covenant with Abraham, promising that he would be the father of many nations. Israel was a kind of distraction, an attempt to set aside a remnant nation among the rest of the nations. Galatians is particularly direct in this regard:
"Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed... What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God." (Gal. 3:16-17)
As I recall, Wright regards the Bible as documenting the first four acts of a five act play. The fifth act, extending from the first century onward, wasn't written. In keeping with Wright's historical narrative approach, is it necessary to regard the "kingdom" idea as timeless and universal, applicable within the fifth act as well? Before Israel had a king it was ruled by judges; God gave them a king only because they demanded a king. Rome was ruled by a king; the Jews were looking for a new king of their own. And so it came to pass: eventually the kingdom of Rome was transformed into Christendom, a combined religious and worldly realm that extended through most of Europe and the Middle East. But that was then: act four. If resurrected Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren, then isn't it conceivable that fifth-act Christianity might involve a less hierarchical, monarchical order. The kingdom is in your midst, where two or more are gathered there am I, the body of Christ, the movement of the Spirit, and so on. Something like a Christian collective anarchy can be envisioned that doesn't rely on leaders, be they secular or religious.
Hey Doylomania,
Sorry, I am running late for church, so this will have to be brief. I'll return later for more.
But, yes, that's something I don't like about blogpost.com :/ BUT....there are options. You can look at the "archives" (which is annoyingly time consuming, cuz you don't know what you'll find when you click on a particular month). Also, because of that, when I do a series, I generally make a running inex at the top of each blog post, with links to all the previous posts of the series. So, if you said that because you couldn't find the previous links to my series on ideology as idolatry, then this post as links to all of them:
http://www.jasonhesiak.blogspot.com/2016/01/here-my-blog-series-on-ideology-and_26.html
I'll have to return later to N.T. Wright and the Jews and Gentiles. His relationship to that topic is notoriously complex. But, the key to it is what I previously talked about concerning representation.
Sorry, I am running late for church, so this will have to be brief. I'll return later for more.
But, yes, that's something I don't like about blogpost.com :/ BUT....there are options. You can look at the "archives" (which is annoyingly time consuming, cuz you don't know what you'll find when you click on a particular month). Also, because of that, when I do a series, I generally make a running inex at the top of each blog post, with links to all the previous posts of the series. So, if you said that because you couldn't find the previous links to my series on ideology as idolatry, then this post as links to all of them:
http://www.jasonhesiak.blogspot.com/2016/01/here-my-blog-series-on-ideology-and_26.html
I'll have to return later to N.T. Wright and the Jews and Gentiles. His relationship to that topic is notoriously complex. But, the key to it is what I previously talked about concerning representation.
So...I'm back.
On the simulacra thing:
When I said I don't think simulacra/simulation is about authenticity, I mean that, in Baudrillard's terms, there is no "authentic" Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, of Beyonce or Taylor Swift. In other words, it's not that there's a real Beyonce and a misrepresentation of Beyonce. There's no escape from the simulation. Even if I were to meet Beyonce in person, her identity would still be that of the simulacra. The map precedes the territory. Also, part of what I had in mind was a refutation of Kierkegaard's "authentic" self. I don't really get into Baudrillard in my blog series on ideology and idolatry.
Honestly, I don't know enough about Baudrillard to know how the basics of his ideas of/on simulacra and simulation fit into politics. I could hazard an educated guess. We discussed it previously, but I never dove deep enough into it. It's probably related to (at least distantly) the link I posted above about Trump and Wrestlemania, based on Roland Barthes (that politics ends up amounting to a performance). I could also hazard an educated guess that Baudrillard shares the same basic view of ideology as Zizek, which is that ideology is, by definition, "empty." I'm sure Baudrillard wouldn't put it in Zizek's terms or flesh it out the way Zizek does, but I suspect they share that much of the basic idea of it.
As for the Latin translation of the word, of course, the Roman world was, historically speaking, before the cartographers got so obsessed with cartography that the map became the same size as the empire (https://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2006/10/02/the-desert-of-the-real-itself/ ).
"I've not read Marion, but presumably an icon is meant not to draw attention to itself, but to open a portal through itself to the original. It's a slippery distinction, as evidenced by the Protestant Reformer iconoclasts who went around destroying all the Catholic statuary, which they regarded as idols."
Yes, I would agree. From my reading of the summary of Marion, which I posted above, it looks like that's basically true. From my reading of that summary of Marion, too, though, the "original" is invisible.
On the simulacra thing:
When I said I don't think simulacra/simulation is about authenticity, I mean that, in Baudrillard's terms, there is no "authentic" Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, of Beyonce or Taylor Swift. In other words, it's not that there's a real Beyonce and a misrepresentation of Beyonce. There's no escape from the simulation. Even if I were to meet Beyonce in person, her identity would still be that of the simulacra. The map precedes the territory. Also, part of what I had in mind was a refutation of Kierkegaard's "authentic" self. I don't really get into Baudrillard in my blog series on ideology and idolatry.
Honestly, I don't know enough about Baudrillard to know how the basics of his ideas of/on simulacra and simulation fit into politics. I could hazard an educated guess. We discussed it previously, but I never dove deep enough into it. It's probably related to (at least distantly) the link I posted above about Trump and Wrestlemania, based on Roland Barthes (that politics ends up amounting to a performance). I could also hazard an educated guess that Baudrillard shares the same basic view of ideology as Zizek, which is that ideology is, by definition, "empty." I'm sure Baudrillard wouldn't put it in Zizek's terms or flesh it out the way Zizek does, but I suspect they share that much of the basic idea of it.
As for the Latin translation of the word, of course, the Roman world was, historically speaking, before the cartographers got so obsessed with cartography that the map became the same size as the empire (https://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2006/10/02/the-desert-of-the-real-itself/ ).
"I've not read Marion, but presumably an icon is meant not to draw attention to itself, but to open a portal through itself to the original. It's a slippery distinction, as evidenced by the Protestant Reformer iconoclasts who went around destroying all the Catholic statuary, which they regarded as idols."
Yes, I would agree. From my reading of the summary of Marion, which I posted above, it looks like that's basically true. From my reading of that summary of Marion, too, though, the "original" is invisible.
In N.T. Wright’s terms, yes, you could basically say that Jesus was talking almost exclusively to the Jews. I don’t think it’s correct to say, though, that INSTEAD of opening Israel outward, he was narrowing the path to a remnant. I suppose, in the end, you could say that that’s what ended up happening. But, according to Wright, the whole point of the gospel, and the key place of disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees, involved this relationship between Jews and Gentiles.
For the Pharisees, the law was a boundary marker of and for the Jews that set them apart. There was something basically correct about that, but the reason for both Jesus’ and Paul’s challenge to the “Judaizers” was that the Pharisees forgot that “blessing to all the nations” was, from its origin, part of the terms of the covenant – even it’s original purpose! N.T. Wright’s point is that the way the Pharisees approached the Law prevented Israel from being such a blessing, which meant prevention of the fulfillment of the whole purpose of the covenant. Jesus, though he said the disciples should/would go FIRST to Jeruselem (Acts 1: 8, Luke 24: 46-47), wasn’t going to Jeruselem INSTEAD of to the Gentiles.
Jesus was fulfilling his part/role in the covenant that would itself allow and open the door to the fulfillment of the rest of the story of the covenant, to the covenant’s fulfilling its original purpose from the get-go – which was blessing of the nations. You see that begin to happen in Acts as Gentiles come to “obedience of faith” (Micah 4: 2).
Also, for the sake of brief explanation, the reason Jesus is what/who allowed such an OPENING of the blessing of the covenant to the Gentiles was his resurrection (and accompanying crucifixion, of course). Wright thinks Paul’s encounter with the resurrected King of all of creation was interpreted by Paul through the lens centrally of Ezekiel 37, along with the rest of the general arc of the covenant story. Thus, because of the resurrection of the Messiah, it was time both for the Diaspora to end and for the blessing to flow out abundantly to the Gentiles.
From my reading of Wright, Jesus understood his place in that narrative arc. Without his being the climax of the covenant, such an opening to the Gentiles wasn’t possible. This was partially because of what the Pharisees had made of the law, that the law had become their identity marker, their self-righteousness, rather than a means to bless the nations through God’s covenant faithfulness/righteousness.
The Law’s blessing to the Gentiles was also, up to the time/point of Jesus, not possible, because, as Paul says in Galatians 3 (particularly verses 10 and 11), it had become publically obvious (considering Israel’s political exile under Rome) that the Law could only bring about its own curses (set forth in Deuteronomy 27-30). It was only in the covenant’s fulfillment in Jesus that the Law was able to fulfill its function and be a blessing (rather than a curse).
That’s why I say that I don’t think it’s correct to say that INSTEAD of opening Israel outward, Jesus was narrowing the path to a remnant.
For the Pharisees, the law was a boundary marker of and for the Jews that set them apart. There was something basically correct about that, but the reason for both Jesus’ and Paul’s challenge to the “Judaizers” was that the Pharisees forgot that “blessing to all the nations” was, from its origin, part of the terms of the covenant – even it’s original purpose! N.T. Wright’s point is that the way the Pharisees approached the Law prevented Israel from being such a blessing, which meant prevention of the fulfillment of the whole purpose of the covenant. Jesus, though he said the disciples should/would go FIRST to Jeruselem (Acts 1: 8, Luke 24: 46-47), wasn’t going to Jeruselem INSTEAD of to the Gentiles.
Jesus was fulfilling his part/role in the covenant that would itself allow and open the door to the fulfillment of the rest of the story of the covenant, to the covenant’s fulfilling its original purpose from the get-go – which was blessing of the nations. You see that begin to happen in Acts as Gentiles come to “obedience of faith” (Micah 4: 2).
Also, for the sake of brief explanation, the reason Jesus is what/who allowed such an OPENING of the blessing of the covenant to the Gentiles was his resurrection (and accompanying crucifixion, of course). Wright thinks Paul’s encounter with the resurrected King of all of creation was interpreted by Paul through the lens centrally of Ezekiel 37, along with the rest of the general arc of the covenant story. Thus, because of the resurrection of the Messiah, it was time both for the Diaspora to end and for the blessing to flow out abundantly to the Gentiles.
From my reading of Wright, Jesus understood his place in that narrative arc. Without his being the climax of the covenant, such an opening to the Gentiles wasn’t possible. This was partially because of what the Pharisees had made of the law, that the law had become their identity marker, their self-righteousness, rather than a means to bless the nations through God’s covenant faithfulness/righteousness.
The Law’s blessing to the Gentiles was also, up to the time/point of Jesus, not possible, because, as Paul says in Galatians 3 (particularly verses 10 and 11), it had become publically obvious (considering Israel’s political exile under Rome) that the Law could only bring about its own curses (set forth in Deuteronomy 27-30). It was only in the covenant’s fulfillment in Jesus that the Law was able to fulfill its function and be a blessing (rather than a curse).
That’s why I say that I don’t think it’s correct to say that INSTEAD of opening Israel outward, Jesus was narrowing the path to a remnant.
Also, according to Wright, Israel wasn’t a distraction to the original covenant purpose. I suppose you could say that the Pharisees had sort of turned Israel INTO that, but: a) that wasn’t the original intention for Israel in the covenant narrative, and b) Jesus, as Israel’s representative head, became the fulfillment of Israel’s true purpose – to bless the nations.
As for the whole 5 act play thing…if I remember correctly, Wright does mention that as sort of a short hand way of speaking of his take on the covenant. I don’t remember how many acts Wright talks about. But, I think it is Vanhoozer who makes that 5 act thing more central to his whole view of scripture. Also, for Wright the book of Acts and Paul’s letters very much WERE part of that last act. The last days have begun, and they began with the resurrection.
Also, for Wright, the “kingdom” is, yes, very much applicable within the last act. According to Wright, the “kingdom of God” is the central message of the gospel and its proclamation. That’s the whole point of Wright’s “What St. Paul Really Said.”
Part of what that means, too, is that Christendom was also part of the last act (whatever number that is), rather than being part of the next to last act. For Wright, the church participates in the eschaton – which has not yet fully come to fruition.
Also, for Wright, the hierarchy is maintained through all stages, parts, or acts of the covenant. That’s partially because of the covenant God made with David. The way that bears itself out now is that Christ is now, after the resurrection, in heaven standing over and against the church as her judge. Though, at the same time, he is WITH her in Spirit “to the end of the age.”
How that is born out in ecclesiological structuring, though, I don’t know. Wright is Anglican, so there’s that. But, you could also have a more congregational view of church governing, and that would not effect the basic hierarchical structure of king/Lord/Messiah and his people (with the King/Messiah/Lord of Lords as their representative head).
As for the whole 5 act play thing…if I remember correctly, Wright does mention that as sort of a short hand way of speaking of his take on the covenant. I don’t remember how many acts Wright talks about. But, I think it is Vanhoozer who makes that 5 act thing more central to his whole view of scripture. Also, for Wright the book of Acts and Paul’s letters very much WERE part of that last act. The last days have begun, and they began with the resurrection.
Also, for Wright, the “kingdom” is, yes, very much applicable within the last act. According to Wright, the “kingdom of God” is the central message of the gospel and its proclamation. That’s the whole point of Wright’s “What St. Paul Really Said.”
Part of what that means, too, is that Christendom was also part of the last act (whatever number that is), rather than being part of the next to last act. For Wright, the church participates in the eschaton – which has not yet fully come to fruition.
Also, for Wright, the hierarchy is maintained through all stages, parts, or acts of the covenant. That’s partially because of the covenant God made with David. The way that bears itself out now is that Christ is now, after the resurrection, in heaven standing over and against the church as her judge. Though, at the same time, he is WITH her in Spirit “to the end of the age.”
How that is born out in ecclesiological structuring, though, I don’t know. Wright is Anglican, so there’s that. But, you could also have a more congregational view of church governing, and that would not effect the basic hierarchical structure of king/Lord/Messiah and his people (with the King/Messiah/Lord of Lords as their representative head).
And, BTW, according to Wright, for Paul, the whole reason the Law is important, and that it's not a "distraction" but, instead, is FULFILLED in and by Jesus, is because of the centrality of the theme of God's faithfulness/righteousness. Sure, the Law lead to Israel's being under its own curse. Sure, the Pharisees jacked the whole thing up real bad (similar to the Fundamentalists, right?). But, none of that means that God isn't faithful to his promises and to his Word. According to Wright, that - and not how to get to heaven or how to get saved, particularly not individually - is the whole point of Romans (Wright did his dissertation on Romans).
Very clearly articulated and informative about Wright. That all sounds like pretty traditional Biblical exegesis/theology, like I learned it when I was back there in evangelical seminary school. Probably the big distinction is in homiletics and didactics. Wright's emphasis on the collective, whether its some sort of expanded Israel or Abraham's many nations, contrasts strongly with traditional preaching and teaching, which as you point out focuses mostly on individual salvation, holiness, brokenness, love/joy/peace, etc. Now whether the Christ-followers' collective's final-act function is to gather together in separation from those who don't profess Christ and to serve as some sort of beacon on the hilltop illuminating the world and drawing remnant-like individuals unto itself... This is where you and the Erdmanian might have disagreements. I can only barely imagine any kind of common cause with the church. It would require convergence not on doctrinal issues or mystical union with Christ, nor necessarily on matters of politics either, or even economics. It has more to do with truth and beauty and justice. And it may be that there's no authentic substance behind the image of anything. But maybe, being image and likeness of the creator(s), we can create substance.
I would just like to emphasize and highlight that the illuminating beacon on the hilltop is a CRUCIFIED savoir, and that the hill is full of skulls. Paul, numerous times, referred to the cross as the GLORY of the Lord. Wright makes it a point that "glory" is associated with RULE. In other words, the RULE of Christ, and, by extension of his gathered/gathering body, is rule of, through, and by self-sacrificial love (Phil. 2). Also, of course, the illumination and beaconing only happens when this is put into PRACTICE. In other words, it's not an abstract, transcendent truth which which you thump someone over the head.
That is to say, I don’t think collective final-act function of the church is separatist. It’s not only or simply to draw others or the world in. The practice of self-sacrificial love that governs the church is to extend out into the world. That’s part of what it means for the church to be a “social strategy,” as Fitch puts it. For example, I don’t think Paul’s task as he was compelled out onto his missionary journeys could be said to be either to build up the church or to love the world (as Christ did, unto death) – as two separate tasks. They were one mission, I think, embodied in and modeled after the crucified and resurrected Christ.
I think we all have a yearning for truth, beauty, and justice. And, I think that's because we're made in the image of God :))
Which partially means that part of our mission is to rule as his representatives on earth...through self-sacrificial love...which, if you ask me, was embodied in the truth...is the only way to true justice (self-sacrificial love, I mean)...and is the how we see the beauty/glory of the Lord.
Also, regarding traditional exegesis/theology:
What do you mean when you say, “Probably the big distinction is in homiletics and didactics”?
Wright, as you probably know, has had his highly public disputes with the mainstream leaders of the Reformed church over what is “justification.” It’s out of that dispute that Wright repeats again and again that salvation is not the attainment of a metaphysical status. Wright believes in Penal Substitution but not imputation. Because of that, he is often misunderstood. Again, the key here to understanding Wright is his idea of Christ as representative head.
Wright also challenges the belief held at the popular level – which largely governs the evangelical practice of salvation – that salvation is escape from hell to our eternal home in heaven.
That is to say, I don’t think collective final-act function of the church is separatist. It’s not only or simply to draw others or the world in. The practice of self-sacrificial love that governs the church is to extend out into the world. That’s part of what it means for the church to be a “social strategy,” as Fitch puts it. For example, I don’t think Paul’s task as he was compelled out onto his missionary journeys could be said to be either to build up the church or to love the world (as Christ did, unto death) – as two separate tasks. They were one mission, I think, embodied in and modeled after the crucified and resurrected Christ.
I think we all have a yearning for truth, beauty, and justice. And, I think that's because we're made in the image of God :))
Which partially means that part of our mission is to rule as his representatives on earth...through self-sacrificial love...which, if you ask me, was embodied in the truth...is the only way to true justice (self-sacrificial love, I mean)...and is the how we see the beauty/glory of the Lord.
Also, regarding traditional exegesis/theology:
What do you mean when you say, “Probably the big distinction is in homiletics and didactics”?
Wright, as you probably know, has had his highly public disputes with the mainstream leaders of the Reformed church over what is “justification.” It’s out of that dispute that Wright repeats again and again that salvation is not the attainment of a metaphysical status. Wright believes in Penal Substitution but not imputation. Because of that, he is often misunderstood. Again, the key here to understanding Wright is his idea of Christ as representative head.
Wright also challenges the belief held at the popular level – which largely governs the evangelical practice of salvation – that salvation is escape from hell to our eternal home in heaven.
I've never actually read Wright, so no doubt I'm missing nuances. I just read a bullet-point summary of the differences between Wright and Piper, and to me the distinctions seem minor. "Wright believes in penal substitution but not imputation." Penal substitution -- you mean that Jesus suffered the consequences of Israel's disobedience? Right, there's precedent in other Old Testament dealings, where God visits the punishment due to the fathers on their children and their children's children. Not imputation -- you mean that believers aren't somehow cloaked in or infused with Jesus's righteousness via some sort of mystical union, thereby being made acceptable in God's sight? Well I've not looked into the relevant Scriptural passages, but I can't see why it matters much. There's a once-for-all aspect to Jesus's atonement that closes out the Law, combined with the resurrection that re-opens the older Abrahamic covenant to the Gentiles. The implication is that the Gentiles were never under the Law in the first place, so neither the covenantal promises, nor the punishments, nor the substitionary atonements are relevant to them. Gentiles were never under this Mosaic cloud of guilt in the first place, so imputation of righteousness isn't relevant to them either. Okay, I take it back: that's different from traditional Reformed theology, and I think it's an accurate reading of Paul. Participation in the old/renewed covenant is attained through Christ by faith, which is also how Reformed participation in imputated righteousness happens as well. So while the Jew/Gentile distinction no longer holds, the believer/unbeliever one still does, for Reformed and for Wright.
From the unbeliever's POV it's a difference in nuance. Having once been in the camp I can see how such differences as Wright espouses might make a difference, personally and collectively. Now for me it's more a matter of intellectual curiosity. I regard the divide between believers and unbelievers as a kind of ideological mirage, an image with no substance, an unnecessary source of division that can and should be set aside. I get it that that's not where you're coming from. By the way, I looked up the "image and likeness" from Genesis 1:26 in the Septuagint: "image" = "icon" there. So, in the legend of the sixth day, God was making icons of himself.
From the unbeliever's POV it's a difference in nuance. Having once been in the camp I can see how such differences as Wright espouses might make a difference, personally and collectively. Now for me it's more a matter of intellectual curiosity. I regard the divide between believers and unbelievers as a kind of ideological mirage, an image with no substance, an unnecessary source of division that can and should be set aside. I get it that that's not where you're coming from. By the way, I looked up the "image and likeness" from Genesis 1:26 in the Septuagint: "image" = "icon" there. So, in the legend of the sixth day, God was making icons of himself.
Well, the nuance is a potential key to a worlds-apart political difference.
For God's righteousness to be imputed like a metaphysical gas that somehow transports across the courtroom of God's judgment assumes a lot about who it is who both is saved and does the saving. I think it's the kind of thing that Wittgenstein was critiquing. Which means...
Wright's view makes it far easier for the door to be opened to the gospel's intelligibility in the actual practices of a community (Christ's BODY). That was where my discussion with Erdman began (the politic(s)).
The traditional view of imputation rather easily lends itself to modern anthropology and ontology. Which, by definition, separates self and action. Makes it easy for being Christian to become "all style, no substance," so to speak.
Regardless of any of that, I have committed myself to a local Reformed missional church, lol. In other words, I agree that the giant riff that has developed between Wright and traditional Reformed churches is "an unnecessary source of division that can and should be set aside." There have been actual church splits over it :/
Part of why I agree with that, though, is because righteousness as a metaphysical gas corresponds very well with the central importance of an intellectual belief system. Traditional reformed arguments against Wright generally tend to amount to saying, "Wright is dangerous, because he doesn't adhere to my/our intellectual edifice of a belief system." I'm like, "Umm, OK. Woopie doo."
But, I see sacrificial love practiced, and I hear the gospel proclaimed (other than the occasional mention of what I take to be the silliness of imputation), and I'm like, "Hey, I can join in with this." It's interesting to me, too, that the mention of the silliness of imputation is so occasional. In the traditional version of a church that intellectually believes (most of) what my church believes, imputation would be the first and last thing you would have heard when you walked in the door most every Sunday.
Anyway, my biggest hangup with the community to which I have committed at this point is or has been that it doesn't challenge our dominant politic(s) enough. My hangup is not imputation. That actually seems to be changing to some degree here lately as election season has dawned.
On another note, it's easy to regard the "divide" between believers and unbelievers as an ideological mirage, an image with no substance, if you don't believe in the presence of God extended into His church body and into the world through the Incarnation and through the (active) work of the Spirit. That said, I put "divide" in quotes, precisely because of what you said about Genesis. In Wright's view, what Christ did was restore humanity. Christ represented Israel, but he also represented Adam (and Israel was called to be a new Adam). The other part of why I put "divide" into quotes, not separate from the first reason, is because it's kind of hard to self-sacrificially love the world when you don't identify with it in any way. "For God so loved the WORLD that..." As they say: "You can take the man out of the hood, but you can't take the hood out of the man." hahahaha.
Love of the world is fundamentally love of "the other" while, at the same time, giving the other the freedom to remain who it is. Back to Genesis again, it is an extension of the act of creation, in which there is a "filling" (Isaiah 11: 9) while the fundamentally other retains its independence.
Anyway, my basic point is, regarding the "divide," I think you are right but only half right.
For God's righteousness to be imputed like a metaphysical gas that somehow transports across the courtroom of God's judgment assumes a lot about who it is who both is saved and does the saving. I think it's the kind of thing that Wittgenstein was critiquing. Which means...
Wright's view makes it far easier for the door to be opened to the gospel's intelligibility in the actual practices of a community (Christ's BODY). That was where my discussion with Erdman began (the politic(s)).
The traditional view of imputation rather easily lends itself to modern anthropology and ontology. Which, by definition, separates self and action. Makes it easy for being Christian to become "all style, no substance," so to speak.
Regardless of any of that, I have committed myself to a local Reformed missional church, lol. In other words, I agree that the giant riff that has developed between Wright and traditional Reformed churches is "an unnecessary source of division that can and should be set aside." There have been actual church splits over it :/
Part of why I agree with that, though, is because righteousness as a metaphysical gas corresponds very well with the central importance of an intellectual belief system. Traditional reformed arguments against Wright generally tend to amount to saying, "Wright is dangerous, because he doesn't adhere to my/our intellectual edifice of a belief system." I'm like, "Umm, OK. Woopie doo."
But, I see sacrificial love practiced, and I hear the gospel proclaimed (other than the occasional mention of what I take to be the silliness of imputation), and I'm like, "Hey, I can join in with this." It's interesting to me, too, that the mention of the silliness of imputation is so occasional. In the traditional version of a church that intellectually believes (most of) what my church believes, imputation would be the first and last thing you would have heard when you walked in the door most every Sunday.
Anyway, my biggest hangup with the community to which I have committed at this point is or has been that it doesn't challenge our dominant politic(s) enough. My hangup is not imputation. That actually seems to be changing to some degree here lately as election season has dawned.
On another note, it's easy to regard the "divide" between believers and unbelievers as an ideological mirage, an image with no substance, if you don't believe in the presence of God extended into His church body and into the world through the Incarnation and through the (active) work of the Spirit. That said, I put "divide" in quotes, precisely because of what you said about Genesis. In Wright's view, what Christ did was restore humanity. Christ represented Israel, but he also represented Adam (and Israel was called to be a new Adam). The other part of why I put "divide" into quotes, not separate from the first reason, is because it's kind of hard to self-sacrificially love the world when you don't identify with it in any way. "For God so loved the WORLD that..." As they say: "You can take the man out of the hood, but you can't take the hood out of the man." hahahaha.
Love of the world is fundamentally love of "the other" while, at the same time, giving the other the freedom to remain who it is. Back to Genesis again, it is an extension of the act of creation, in which there is a "filling" (Isaiah 11: 9) while the fundamentally other retains its independence.
Anyway, my basic point is, regarding the "divide," I think you are right but only half right.
Oh and crap sorry....
"Penal substitution -- you mean that Jesus suffered the consequences of Israel's disobedience?"
Yes, but also humanity's disobedience. And, in the terms of imputation, it would probably be more on target to say that Jesus suffered the consequences of humanity's sin. I say that partially because sin also seems to attain a status as a kind of stinky metaphysical gas.
"Not imputation -- you mean that believers aren't somehow cloaked in or infused with Jesus's righteousness via some sort of mystical union, thereby being made acceptable in God's sight?"
Yes, pretty much. But I think it is less "mystical union" and more "how the mechanics of the belief system work." In saying that, I am speaking to what imputation is or has become now. I don't know Luther or Calvin well enough to know how well or if "mystical union" corresponds to their body of thought and practice.
"Penal substitution -- you mean that Jesus suffered the consequences of Israel's disobedience?"
Yes, but also humanity's disobedience. And, in the terms of imputation, it would probably be more on target to say that Jesus suffered the consequences of humanity's sin. I say that partially because sin also seems to attain a status as a kind of stinky metaphysical gas.
"Not imputation -- you mean that believers aren't somehow cloaked in or infused with Jesus's righteousness via some sort of mystical union, thereby being made acceptable in God's sight?"
Yes, pretty much. But I think it is less "mystical union" and more "how the mechanics of the belief system work." In saying that, I am speaking to what imputation is or has become now. I don't know Luther or Calvin well enough to know how well or if "mystical union" corresponds to their body of thought and practice.
I wrote my last comment at about 3 am, having woken up an hour before. After commenting I went back to bed, drifting in and out of sleep. At one point I had a dream, maybe it was the stinky metaphysical gas I'd been inhaling... I was attending some sort of theological convention. People were preparing talks and figuring out which sessions to attend. I wasn't. I didn't even have a program. In one of the hallways I encountered Ronald Reagan; later, Bill Clinton. There was some attendee who had something wrong with his knees, so I helped him get off the floor and into a chair. I lay down on a couch nearby, pretending that he was my analyst. I told him about the photo, maybe a magazine ad, that which I was looking at, in which could be seen a lot of cars: many maroon colored ones, almost as many blue ones. Later I found myself in one of the seminar sessions. Seated just in front of me on the right was John Lennon. I told him that I'd seen Ronald Reagan; Lennon made clear his indifferent contempt for my sighting.
So, Jason, my basic problem with your theology is that it's imperialistic. It seems to differ little from colonialist theologies and American fundamentalism. The tone may be non-violent, but the ideology is still imperialistic. In contrast to this vision of the church as imperialistic and colonialistic is to view the church as the body of Christ and to immitate Christ in the flesh: that Christ sacrificed his body for the world. It is sacrifice, not conquest or even justice that most conforms to the actual life and ultimate mission of Christ on earth.
1) To clarify.......Jason, separation itself is not a problem. If I implied as much, that's my bad. I'm very much in favor of separation: for example, monastics are great! Separation for prayer and purity is good and without equal. However, separation for the sake of victory or for the sake of converting the world is not. That's the old colonial urge: your group is special and elect, and since you are superior, it's your job to assimilate others, to colonialize them.
2) The very language you use is directly and unmistakably colonial. You mentioned Hauerwas talking about the church as a "kingdom outpost" or even a "colony." You also use the "new Israel" language to describe the church, and that just makes me cringe (and I'd suspect Doyle cringes too). It rather seems to have the same ring to it as Israeli justifications for new settlements. When you talk about the church in colonialistic and imperialistic ways, you share the problem of all religious fundamentalists.
3) This doesn't imply that you're a mean-spirited person, because the problem of fundamentalism is not that they are bad people. My parents are fundamentalists and they are very generous people, more generous in many ways than myself! But the theology of imperialism and fundamentalism is simply flawed and lends itself to othering and violence, however well-intentioned the spokespersons may be.
1) To clarify.......Jason, separation itself is not a problem. If I implied as much, that's my bad. I'm very much in favor of separation: for example, monastics are great! Separation for prayer and purity is good and without equal. However, separation for the sake of victory or for the sake of converting the world is not. That's the old colonial urge: your group is special and elect, and since you are superior, it's your job to assimilate others, to colonialize them.
2) The very language you use is directly and unmistakably colonial. You mentioned Hauerwas talking about the church as a "kingdom outpost" or even a "colony." You also use the "new Israel" language to describe the church, and that just makes me cringe (and I'd suspect Doyle cringes too). It rather seems to have the same ring to it as Israeli justifications for new settlements. When you talk about the church in colonialistic and imperialistic ways, you share the problem of all religious fundamentalists.
3) This doesn't imply that you're a mean-spirited person, because the problem of fundamentalism is not that they are bad people. My parents are fundamentalists and they are very generous people, more generous in many ways than myself! But the theology of imperialism and fundamentalism is simply flawed and lends itself to othering and violence, however well-intentioned the spokespersons may be.
# posted by : 2:28 PM
: 2:28 PM
So, Jason, my basic problem with your theology is that it's imperialistic. It seems to differ little from colonialist theologies and American fundamentalism. The tone may be non-violent, but the ideology is still imperialistic. In contrast to this vision of the church as imperialistic and colonialistic is to view the church as the body of Christ and to immitate Christ in the flesh: that Christ sacrificed his body for the world. It is sacrifice, not conquest or even justice that most conforms to the actual life and ultimate mission of Christ on earth.
1) To clarify.......Jason, separation itself is not a problem. If I implied as much, that's my bad. I'm very much in favor of separation: for example, monastics are great! Separation for prayer and purity is good and without equal. However, separation for the sake of victory or for the sake of converting the world is not. That's the old colonial urge: your group is special and elect, and since you are superior, it's your job to assimilate others, to colonialize them.
2) The very language you use is directly and unmistakably colonial. You mentioned Hauerwas talking about the church as a "kingdom outpost" or even a "colony." You also use the "new Israel" language to describe the church, and that just makes me cringe (and I'd suspect Doyle cringes too). It rather seems to have the same ring to it as Israeli justifications for new settlements. When you talk about the church in colonialistic and imperialistic ways, you share the problem of all religious fundamentalists.
3) This doesn't imply that you're a mean-spirited person, because the problem of fundamentalism is not that they are bad people. My parents are fundamentalists and they are very generous people, more generous in many ways than myself! But the theology of imperialism and fundamentalism is simply flawed and lends itself to othering and violence, however well-intentioned the spokespersons may be.
1) To clarify.......Jason, separation itself is not a problem. If I implied as much, that's my bad. I'm very much in favor of separation: for example, monastics are great! Separation for prayer and purity is good and without equal. However, separation for the sake of victory or for the sake of converting the world is not. That's the old colonial urge: your group is special and elect, and since you are superior, it's your job to assimilate others, to colonialize them.
2) The very language you use is directly and unmistakably colonial. You mentioned Hauerwas talking about the church as a "kingdom outpost" or even a "colony." You also use the "new Israel" language to describe the church, and that just makes me cringe (and I'd suspect Doyle cringes too). It rather seems to have the same ring to it as Israeli justifications for new settlements. When you talk about the church in colonialistic and imperialistic ways, you share the problem of all religious fundamentalists.
3) This doesn't imply that you're a mean-spirited person, because the problem of fundamentalism is not that they are bad people. My parents are fundamentalists and they are very generous people, more generous in many ways than myself! But the theology of imperialism and fundamentalism is simply flawed and lends itself to othering and violence, however well-intentioned the spokespersons may be.
# posted by : 2:29 PM
: 2:29 PM4) To clarify....certainly I agree with those who see Jesus' mission as being within and to and through the Jews. But that doesn't mean that he framed his kingdom as imperialistic. The bibilcal evidence is completely to the contrary. Jesus opposed Roman Imperialism and the collaboration and capitulation of Jewish religious leaders to the Roman Empire. The kingdom Jesus had in mind was not one that conquered and colonized by the sword. It wasn't a matter of building a bigger kingdom that could finally bring Rome to her knees in submission. In fact, Jesus used the term "kingdom" with deliberate irony. He was clear on his view of violence: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." And it went deeper than just being non-violent, it was about inverting hierarchies of domination and control. The greatest among you, Jesus said, must be the servant. Even Jesus himself declared that he did not come to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. He washed feet. The greatest on earth will be the least in the kingdom. Blessed are the poor and the meek, etc. The hierarchies were continually inverted. The was decidedly not a kingdom of assimiliation. It was meant to invert all imperialistic impulses toward domination, control, and violence. So, when you describe the church as having a colonial and imperial mission, it's simply at odds with the life and message of Jesus. Frankly, it's the opposite of what Jesus taught and it continues a long 2,000 year tradition of the colonial, imperial church, seeking to assimilate and control the world.
5) Jason, you said that "the locus of God's justice could never be a body governed by a worldly ideology (whether Capitalism or Marxism)." But is the point of the body of Christ to be "the locus of God's justice"? That's theologically shakey, imo. What we know with theological definitiveness, what everyone agrees on in the Christian tradition is that in some form or fashion, Christ sacrificed his body for the sake of saving the world. That sums up all of these comments. To me, the church as a continuation of the body of Christ in the world should consider herself first and foremost a lamb to be sacrificed, as an extension of the gift of God's grace, of pure gift (however impossible this may be, as Derrida pointed out), as a body whose primary orientation is toward sacrifice on behalf of others. I see this as fundamentally at odds with an imperailistic and colonialistic theology of the church. Put bluntly, the church as an extension of the body of Christ is called to give her life for the world as Christ gave his.
# posted by : 2:29 PM
: 2:29 PM
"Well, the nuance is a potential key to a worlds-apart political difference."
I repent my prior dismissal of nuance. On his blog Patrick -- remember Patrick? -- was lamenting the loss of nuance in Manhattan, its proliferation rendered banal by what he calls the Protestant impulse toward homogenization. Catholics, secure in their knowledge of being the one true Church, had for centuries experienced the freedom to proliferate: in saints and icons, in architecture and painting and music, in many forms of expressive nuance. From its beginnings Protestantism distinguished itself as being something other than that: a protest. They destroyed the icons, downgraded the saints, stopped building cathedrals, homogenized the outward forms. Instead the tendency toward proliferation -- toward nuance -- focused on the doctrines. And so you get the multiplication of Protestant factions and disputes, of splinter groups branching off forming new hyphenated denominations. Maybe in religions, or in Christianity at least, there is a perpetual oscillation between the two poles of homogeneity and heterogeneity, hegemony and plurality, maybe even between monotheism and polytheism. I grew up Catholic but left it long ago, and so now I can appreciate the splendid proliferation of its aesthetic nuances. Protestantism was a later territory for me to explore. If I could finally let go the insistence that the doctrinal proliferations are competing claims to Truth and delight in them as the multiplex nuanced manifestations of a kind of literary genre...
I repent my prior dismissal of nuance. On his blog Patrick -- remember Patrick? -- was lamenting the loss of nuance in Manhattan, its proliferation rendered banal by what he calls the Protestant impulse toward homogenization. Catholics, secure in their knowledge of being the one true Church, had for centuries experienced the freedom to proliferate: in saints and icons, in architecture and painting and music, in many forms of expressive nuance. From its beginnings Protestantism distinguished itself as being something other than that: a protest. They destroyed the icons, downgraded the saints, stopped building cathedrals, homogenized the outward forms. Instead the tendency toward proliferation -- toward nuance -- focused on the doctrines. And so you get the multiplication of Protestant factions and disputes, of splinter groups branching off forming new hyphenated denominations. Maybe in religions, or in Christianity at least, there is a perpetual oscillation between the two poles of homogeneity and heterogeneity, hegemony and plurality, maybe even between monotheism and polytheism. I grew up Catholic but left it long ago, and so now I can appreciate the splendid proliferation of its aesthetic nuances. Protestantism was a later territory for me to explore. If I could finally let go the insistence that the doctrinal proliferations are competing claims to Truth and delight in them as the multiplex nuanced manifestations of a kind of literary genre...
Interesting, Doylomania. I don't think I knew or remembered that you grew up Catholic. I think you mentioned it at one point, and I had the same basic reaction I'm having now. I had always imagined that you were in an evangelical environment and then left that. That brings a couple things to mind.
Hauerwas is a proponent of catholicity. He's not Catholic, but he makes it a point to push the importance of catholicity. I learned it's importance from Wright. John 17: 20-23. Galatians 3: 19-29 (N.T. Wright's point is that verses 20 and 28 highlight the same point and that verse 28 is actually grounded in the truth of verse 20, so in traditional Jewish monotheism).
Also, on the polarity of homogeneity and heterogeneity in Protestantism, I came across this recently: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2016/02/eucharist-and-atonement
It's very interesting to me. The most highlightable quote to make the point: "Instead of theorizing about Christ's death, they [the early church(es)] were incorporated into Christ's death by receiving His body and blood."
Interestingly, David Fitch also talks about the practice of the Table of Thanksgiving as the place of reconciliation and unity through the presence of Christ.
Hauerwas is a proponent of catholicity. He's not Catholic, but he makes it a point to push the importance of catholicity. I learned it's importance from Wright. John 17: 20-23. Galatians 3: 19-29 (N.T. Wright's point is that verses 20 and 28 highlight the same point and that verse 28 is actually grounded in the truth of verse 20, so in traditional Jewish monotheism).
Also, on the polarity of homogeneity and heterogeneity in Protestantism, I came across this recently: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2016/02/eucharist-and-atonement
It's very interesting to me. The most highlightable quote to make the point: "Instead of theorizing about Christ's death, they [the early church(es)] were incorporated into Christ's death by receiving His body and blood."
Interestingly, David Fitch also talks about the practice of the Table of Thanksgiving as the place of reconciliation and unity through the presence of Christ.
BTW I recently came across this, which brings both Doylomania's Catholic/catholicity thread together with Erdman's traumatized Sander's fans thread....
Randy Myers
I agree. Recently one of my progressive colleagues submitted a post regarding Pope Francis' comments on Mr. Trump. Though my colleague said the Pope had a point, so did Mr. Trump in his response. The question is whether in America there is something we can call 'the church'? There is, instead, a marketplace of denominations beholden to the subjectivity of consumers. That may be too strong a statement, but I'll stay with it.
Unlike · Reply · 5 · Yesterday at 9:45am
Mary Elizabeth Fisher
So you don't really think the person of the Spirit is active Randy Myers... Or so your post suggests to me....
Solid realism for me requires I recognize there is a 'marketplace of denominations beholden to the subjectivity of consumers' BUT
I also believe the Holy Spirit is acting despite our carnality
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs
Randy Myers
Oh, I believe in the Holy Spirit and even the Spirit's activity both within and outside the church. I am just suggesting that there is not a church that is in agreement enough to take on the state or the market calling them under a discipline, at least not in the United States where the churches are divided up to the point that they are not able to call on accountability from the culture of neoliberalism.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs
from here: https://www.facebook.com/fitchest/posts/10153745295048277
Where Fitch also says:
"Neoliberalism is the 'ideological' name for Reagan style capitalism and all the promises it offers to emancipate individuals. Meanwhile it has a host of disciplinary apparatuses in the state, and socialization systems via intermediary groups, that make us all believe in it. This keeps the middle classes entranced in its gaze, and perpetrates the injustices within the system. There is no resistance to all of this apart from the church. Yet progressive evangelicals regularly reject the church because of their past experience, instead of seeking to recover the church in its truer form. That's my oversimplistic summary of the state of things."
Randy Myers
I agree. Recently one of my progressive colleagues submitted a post regarding Pope Francis' comments on Mr. Trump. Though my colleague said the Pope had a point, so did Mr. Trump in his response. The question is whether in America there is something we can call 'the church'? There is, instead, a marketplace of denominations beholden to the subjectivity of consumers. That may be too strong a statement, but I'll stay with it.
Unlike · Reply · 5 · Yesterday at 9:45am
Mary Elizabeth Fisher
So you don't really think the person of the Spirit is active Randy Myers... Or so your post suggests to me....
Solid realism for me requires I recognize there is a 'marketplace of denominations beholden to the subjectivity of consumers' BUT
I also believe the Holy Spirit is acting despite our carnality
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs
Randy Myers
Oh, I believe in the Holy Spirit and even the Spirit's activity both within and outside the church. I am just suggesting that there is not a church that is in agreement enough to take on the state or the market calling them under a discipline, at least not in the United States where the churches are divided up to the point that they are not able to call on accountability from the culture of neoliberalism.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs
from here: https://www.facebook.com/fitchest/posts/10153745295048277
Where Fitch also says:
"Neoliberalism is the 'ideological' name for Reagan style capitalism and all the promises it offers to emancipate individuals. Meanwhile it has a host of disciplinary apparatuses in the state, and socialization systems via intermediary groups, that make us all believe in it. This keeps the middle classes entranced in its gaze, and perpetrates the injustices within the system. There is no resistance to all of this apart from the church. Yet progressive evangelicals regularly reject the church because of their past experience, instead of seeking to recover the church in its truer form. That's my oversimplistic summary of the state of things."
Oh and no I don't remember Patrick :/
I probably would if given the appropriate reminder. Not sure, though.
I probably would if given the appropriate reminder. Not sure, though.
I don't think the proliferation of differences should be reduced to a marketplace, be those differences aesthetic or doctrinal. Quality needn't be converted into quantity. But I do think that the "Protestantisation" of differences does drive everything toward that reduction. Differences are homogenized via fungibility, such that they can all be substituted for one another, with the relative values in the substitution being standardized as price. That's what I said on Patrick's blog: when nuance is homogenized, the only thing left is branding. So I suspect that nowadays churches do compete with one another for membership, contributions, political power, and so on, maneuvering for position. In theory and given adequate "big data," it would be possible for a trad Reformed church to calculate the "return on investment" in members, money, etc. if it were to shift toward a Wright-based doctrine of justification Denominations are reduced to the least common denominator. Definition 2 for "denomination": the amount of money that something is worth.
Back to the possibility of my cultivating an aesthetic of doctrinal differences. As you pointed out, the theological differences can spawn political differences, or possibly justify those differences post hoc. I've never fully understood the close affinity between evangelicalism and the Republican party that dates at least to the 1950s, but I get it to some extent. Before that the church largely followed the "render unto Caesar" division of church and state, such that the church didn't involve itself in secular polities. But there's also this idea of the church as beacon to the world, taking upon itself the responsibility for feeding the poor, educating the ignorant, taking care of the widows and orphans and so on. So now the state is presented as some kind of usurper or competitor to the church. The goal of the religious right then becomes not promoting Christian governmental policies (whatever those might be), but of dismantling government altogether. That's pretty much the position of the Tea Party. They're very active in Anne's home area of Lynchburg VA, where Falwell's home base is located. They get themselves elected to local governments, then start defunding public services like schools and libraries and garbage disposal, transitioning these services to the private sector. But this isn't a shift of responsibility from the government to the church, which has limited resources and will to take on these tasks. Instead it's a shift into investor-owned capitalist industry, where only those with resources to pay are able to obtain the necessary services and with profits accruing to the (mostly wealthy) investors. And so the capitalists have a strong incentive to elect religious conservatives, or at least those who talk the talk in the campaign speeches.
Imperialism and colonialism, per Erdman: I'll have to get back to that one later.
Back to the possibility of my cultivating an aesthetic of doctrinal differences. As you pointed out, the theological differences can spawn political differences, or possibly justify those differences post hoc. I've never fully understood the close affinity between evangelicalism and the Republican party that dates at least to the 1950s, but I get it to some extent. Before that the church largely followed the "render unto Caesar" division of church and state, such that the church didn't involve itself in secular polities. But there's also this idea of the church as beacon to the world, taking upon itself the responsibility for feeding the poor, educating the ignorant, taking care of the widows and orphans and so on. So now the state is presented as some kind of usurper or competitor to the church. The goal of the religious right then becomes not promoting Christian governmental policies (whatever those might be), but of dismantling government altogether. That's pretty much the position of the Tea Party. They're very active in Anne's home area of Lynchburg VA, where Falwell's home base is located. They get themselves elected to local governments, then start defunding public services like schools and libraries and garbage disposal, transitioning these services to the private sector. But this isn't a shift of responsibility from the government to the church, which has limited resources and will to take on these tasks. Instead it's a shift into investor-owned capitalist industry, where only those with resources to pay are able to obtain the necessary services and with profits accruing to the (mostly wealthy) investors. And so the capitalists have a strong incentive to elect religious conservatives, or at least those who talk the talk in the campaign speeches.
Imperialism and colonialism, per Erdman: I'll have to get back to that one later.
"...close affinity between evangelicalism and the Republican party that dates at least to the 1950s, but I get it to some extent. Before that the church largely followed the "render unto Caesar" division of church and state, such that the church didn't involve itself in secular polities."
That's true in the particular sense that the church didn't necessarily seem compelled to give its allegiance to one party or the other of the USA's bipartisan system. Not prior to the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the 1920's and '30's, at least.
"But there's also this idea of the church as beacon to the world, taking upon itself the responsibility for feeding the poor, educating the ignorant, taking care of the widows and orphans and so on. So now the state is presented as some kind of usurper or competitor to the church."
For clarity, this is not what I have meant by the above in referring to the church as standing against what is now the state. I think those are things in which the church should be engaged, but I don't see anything wrong with the state's doing them, either. At least, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong per se. How the state practices education a lot of times...well I have a problem with that. But, generally speaking, when the world is doing good things, I say let the church join in.
And, I think the Tea Party is silly.
"Differences are homogenized via fungibility, such that they can all be substituted for one another, with the relative values in the substitution being standardized as price."
Fitch makes a very similar argument in "The End of Evangelism?" - from which I borrow heavily in my recent blog series.
"...when nuance is homogenized, the only thing left is branding."
There's a commotion going around FB circles the last few days over what amounts to pretty much the same idea. People are in an uproar, because Mark Driscoll is starting a new mega-church in Phoenix.
"So I suspect that nowadays churches do compete with one another for membership, contributions, political power, and so on, maneuvering for position."
One of the articles I saw posted was about how Mars Hill grew by "buying up the real-estate of" struggling and dying churches.
"In theory and given adequate 'big data,' it would be possible for a trad Reformed church to calculate the 'return on investment' in members, money, etc. if it were to shift toward a Wright-based doctrine of justification Denominations are reduced to the least common denominator. Definition 2 for 'denomination': the amount of money that something is worth."
I don't really know what you meant by that...?
That's true in the particular sense that the church didn't necessarily seem compelled to give its allegiance to one party or the other of the USA's bipartisan system. Not prior to the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the 1920's and '30's, at least.
"But there's also this idea of the church as beacon to the world, taking upon itself the responsibility for feeding the poor, educating the ignorant, taking care of the widows and orphans and so on. So now the state is presented as some kind of usurper or competitor to the church."
For clarity, this is not what I have meant by the above in referring to the church as standing against what is now the state. I think those are things in which the church should be engaged, but I don't see anything wrong with the state's doing them, either. At least, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong per se. How the state practices education a lot of times...well I have a problem with that. But, generally speaking, when the world is doing good things, I say let the church join in.
And, I think the Tea Party is silly.
"Differences are homogenized via fungibility, such that they can all be substituted for one another, with the relative values in the substitution being standardized as price."
Fitch makes a very similar argument in "The End of Evangelism?" - from which I borrow heavily in my recent blog series.
"...when nuance is homogenized, the only thing left is branding."
There's a commotion going around FB circles the last few days over what amounts to pretty much the same idea. People are in an uproar, because Mark Driscoll is starting a new mega-church in Phoenix.
"So I suspect that nowadays churches do compete with one another for membership, contributions, political power, and so on, maneuvering for position."
One of the articles I saw posted was about how Mars Hill grew by "buying up the real-estate of" struggling and dying churches.
"In theory and given adequate 'big data,' it would be possible for a trad Reformed church to calculate the 'return on investment' in members, money, etc. if it were to shift toward a Wright-based doctrine of justification Denominations are reduced to the least common denominator. Definition 2 for 'denomination': the amount of money that something is worth."
I don't really know what you meant by that...?
Oh and back to the "render unto Caesar" division of church and state....Fitch argues in "The End of Evangelicalism?" that that that was only half true. By Fitch's reading, prior to the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the 1920's and '30's, the church was very socially active in trying to stamp out sin in all places and forms where it was/is found. It worked to help improve labor conditions, was involved in the suffrage movement, and a bunch of other examples he gave that I would have to look up to remember, lol. But, the basic point all that was leading to was that, after the fundamentalist-modernist controversies, the church split into two factions, one giving allegiance to "decisions for Christ," the other faction giving allegiance to "social justice." And, both factions immediately became tied to "traditional" (atonement) conservative values, on the one hand, and to "progressive" (social justice) concerns, on the other. In other words, the split in the church immediately had political ramifications. And, the church lost the power to challenge the state's injustices (like allowing the continuing proliferation of horrible working conditions).
Sounds like we're tracking along nicely. Never mind about the part that isn't clear. All I'm saying is that churches can potentially calculate the likely popularity of changes they're considering, whether those changes are building programs, music programs, hiring a new preacher, accepting or rejecting same-sex marriage, or making doctrinal shifts. E.g., they could do focus groups, surveys, etc. to anticipate likely impacts on membership, satisfaction, giving, etc. And it sounds like you'd agree with that assessment of the situation in the commodified church.
Re: imperialism and colonialism...To speak of the "kingdom of God" is to invoke imperialism. An emperor is a supreme monarch, a higher title than king, a king of kings.
"The world is on the path to destruction; the church is the invasion of resurrection life in the present"
I.e. the church is setting up colonies. The term "invasion" is troubling, but I presume that the idea isn't to use these outposts as advance outposts for taking over enemy territory. Instead the emperor is going to let the world crash and burn, stepping in afterward to expand the colonies inside the tohu vabohu. On the other hand, it's not just that the world is going to destroy itself. The emperor has already passed judgment on the world and found it guilty, sentencing it to destruction if not sooner then later. I mean that's an NT Wright position, isn't it, as well as a Pauline one, that the church remnant outposts will be preserved through the coming apocalypse. From the world's POV, this is a kind of decadent nihilist scheme, and implicitly an aggressive one as well.
Re: imperialism and colonialism...To speak of the "kingdom of God" is to invoke imperialism. An emperor is a supreme monarch, a higher title than king, a king of kings.
"The world is on the path to destruction; the church is the invasion of resurrection life in the present"
I.e. the church is setting up colonies. The term "invasion" is troubling, but I presume that the idea isn't to use these outposts as advance outposts for taking over enemy territory. Instead the emperor is going to let the world crash and burn, stepping in afterward to expand the colonies inside the tohu vabohu. On the other hand, it's not just that the world is going to destroy itself. The emperor has already passed judgment on the world and found it guilty, sentencing it to destruction if not sooner then later. I mean that's an NT Wright position, isn't it, as well as a Pauline one, that the church remnant outposts will be preserved through the coming apocalypse. From the world's POV, this is a kind of decadent nihilist scheme, and implicitly an aggressive one as well.
"All I'm saying is that churches can potentially calculate the likely popularity of changes they're considering, whether those changes are...And it sounds like you'd agree with that assessment of the situation in the commodified church."
Oh...OK I get better now what you're saying. And yes, I would agree about the commodified church. I know for a fact that that happens, actually. I've had a pastor come out and explicitly say that he puts a lot of resources into the youth program, because it keeps people coming in the doors.
"Re: imperialism and colonialism...To speak of the 'kingdom of God' is to invoke imperialism. An emperor is a supreme monarch, a higher title than king, a king of kings."
So, it's imperialist, because it's hierarchical?
The difference is in HOW Caesar reigns as compared to HOW Jesus both reigns and revealed himself as the one who does so (as a crucified savior). Which Erdman discussed in detail, supposedly to refute me.
As far as the final judgment of the world goes, I don't know, man. I don't have all the details worked out. I honestly don't even know if I believe in a hell or not (I tend to lean towards not, but I really dunno). I do, however, believe that there WILL BE some sort of final judgment of the world. The point Wright makes, again and again and in various places, is that that's a GOOD thing. As Wright says, why has that been forgotten? How can the world be put to rights if it there's no radical change that "requires" (meaning obviously involves) major sacrifices of the old? The change constitutes part of the act of judgment. And, btw, the language of those last four sentences all point very easily to the crucifixion of Jesus (as representative head of Israel and of humanity). (speaking of penal substitution)
Oh...OK I get better now what you're saying. And yes, I would agree about the commodified church. I know for a fact that that happens, actually. I've had a pastor come out and explicitly say that he puts a lot of resources into the youth program, because it keeps people coming in the doors.
"Re: imperialism and colonialism...To speak of the 'kingdom of God' is to invoke imperialism. An emperor is a supreme monarch, a higher title than king, a king of kings."
So, it's imperialist, because it's hierarchical?
The difference is in HOW Caesar reigns as compared to HOW Jesus both reigns and revealed himself as the one who does so (as a crucified savior). Which Erdman discussed in detail, supposedly to refute me.
As far as the final judgment of the world goes, I don't know, man. I don't have all the details worked out. I honestly don't even know if I believe in a hell or not (I tend to lean towards not, but I really dunno). I do, however, believe that there WILL BE some sort of final judgment of the world. The point Wright makes, again and again and in various places, is that that's a GOOD thing. As Wright says, why has that been forgotten? How can the world be put to rights if it there's no radical change that "requires" (meaning obviously involves) major sacrifices of the old? The change constitutes part of the act of judgment. And, btw, the language of those last four sentences all point very easily to the crucifixion of Jesus (as representative head of Israel and of humanity). (speaking of penal substitution)
Fitch's observations on the church prompted me to pull Winthrop Hudson's Religion in America book off the shelf -- the main text in my American Church History class. He writes:
Despite the distractions of controversy and despite the shafts of ridicule directed by the "intellectuals" against those who made professions of religious faith, the mood of the Protestant churches in the 1920s was remarkably complacent. Curiously enough, during the very decades when Protestantism was reaching the peak of its prestige and apparent influence, the nerve which had impelled two centuries of advance was being cut. With its basic theological insights largely emasculated, Protestantism was robbed of any independently grounded vision of life and became more and more the creature of American culture rather than its creator. In this respect the culturally conditioned character of Fundamentalism was typical of Protestantism as a whole, the tension within Protestantism arising primarily out of the differing cultural orientation of the older agrarian and the newer urban society. "If the theology of the fundamentalists was archaic and anachronistic," Sidney E. Mead has observed, "that of the liberals was secularized and innocuous."
That's pretty much what Fitch is saying. Hudson attributes the ineffectual turn in Protestantism to complacency, "victims of their own success." The American culture had become Protestantized, both in soul-saving and in social reform.
Proud of their achievements and pleased that their missions had been so largely accomplished, the churches relaxed and made peace with the world. From satisfaction with the culture, it was but a small step to the placing of confidence in the culture to nurture and sustain the Christian faith.
[To be continued in the next comment...]
Despite the distractions of controversy and despite the shafts of ridicule directed by the "intellectuals" against those who made professions of religious faith, the mood of the Protestant churches in the 1920s was remarkably complacent. Curiously enough, during the very decades when Protestantism was reaching the peak of its prestige and apparent influence, the nerve which had impelled two centuries of advance was being cut. With its basic theological insights largely emasculated, Protestantism was robbed of any independently grounded vision of life and became more and more the creature of American culture rather than its creator. In this respect the culturally conditioned character of Fundamentalism was typical of Protestantism as a whole, the tension within Protestantism arising primarily out of the differing cultural orientation of the older agrarian and the newer urban society. "If the theology of the fundamentalists was archaic and anachronistic," Sidney E. Mead has observed, "that of the liberals was secularized and innocuous."
That's pretty much what Fitch is saying. Hudson attributes the ineffectual turn in Protestantism to complacency, "victims of their own success." The American culture had become Protestantized, both in soul-saving and in social reform.
Proud of their achievements and pleased that their missions had been so largely accomplished, the churches relaxed and made peace with the world. From satisfaction with the culture, it was but a small step to the placing of confidence in the culture to nurture and sustain the Christian faith.
[To be continued in the next comment...]
Recently I read something about how business leaders in the 50s had a hand in revivalism a la Billy Graham, providing a lot of financial backing, organizational know-how, and mastery of the media to reinforce the cultural conservatism that had been destabilized during FDR's administration and WWII. Hudson again:
The political flavor of Graham's gospel had great appeal to ultraconservative segments of the population. Drawing a contrast with the Garden of Eden where there were "no union dues, no labor leaders, no snakes, no disease," Graham depicted the United States as "falling apart at the seams" as a result of deficit spending, "giveaway" foreign aid programs, "immorality in high places," the influence of "big labor" and "pinks and lavenders" in Washington, and "the infiltration of the left wing" into schools and churches. The "betrayals" at Yalta and Potsdam, the war in Korea, the bungling United Nations ("they set the policies and we shed the blood and pay the bills") were cited as evidence of the "deadly work" of Communism boring from within and were used to demonstrate that "we are living in the latter days" with a consequent urgency of repentance. Since Communism was "masterminded by Satan," it was a mistake to think that Satan can be defeated with "flesh and blood and guns and bullets." Only through a great revival, purging America of "the rats and termites that are subversively endeavoring to weaken the defense of this nation from within," could the United States be saved and the battle won, for "the greatest and most effective weapon against Communism today is the born-again Christian. The altar call was simple: "If you would be a true patriot, then become a Christian. If you would become a loyal American, becomes a loyal Christian."
Clearly Falwell, Tea Party, and their man Trump continue this trajectory: make America great again through an alliance of traditional religion, xenophobia, military might, and big business. These are pretty much the pillars of fascism as previously erected by guys like Mussolini and Franco. The neo-evangelical outposts in a dying world seem driven by a different impulse, less triumphalist, in a sense less optimistic. It might constitute an even deeper conservatism: the world is going to hell, the best we can do is hunker down in our bunkers and ride out the shitstorm, issue invitations to those who might want to join us. On many levels I share this perspective, even if my bunker isn't a church.
The political flavor of Graham's gospel had great appeal to ultraconservative segments of the population. Drawing a contrast with the Garden of Eden where there were "no union dues, no labor leaders, no snakes, no disease," Graham depicted the United States as "falling apart at the seams" as a result of deficit spending, "giveaway" foreign aid programs, "immorality in high places," the influence of "big labor" and "pinks and lavenders" in Washington, and "the infiltration of the left wing" into schools and churches. The "betrayals" at Yalta and Potsdam, the war in Korea, the bungling United Nations ("they set the policies and we shed the blood and pay the bills") were cited as evidence of the "deadly work" of Communism boring from within and were used to demonstrate that "we are living in the latter days" with a consequent urgency of repentance. Since Communism was "masterminded by Satan," it was a mistake to think that Satan can be defeated with "flesh and blood and guns and bullets." Only through a great revival, purging America of "the rats and termites that are subversively endeavoring to weaken the defense of this nation from within," could the United States be saved and the battle won, for "the greatest and most effective weapon against Communism today is the born-again Christian. The altar call was simple: "If you would be a true patriot, then become a Christian. If you would become a loyal American, becomes a loyal Christian."
Clearly Falwell, Tea Party, and their man Trump continue this trajectory: make America great again through an alliance of traditional religion, xenophobia, military might, and big business. These are pretty much the pillars of fascism as previously erected by guys like Mussolini and Franco. The neo-evangelical outposts in a dying world seem driven by a different impulse, less triumphalist, in a sense less optimistic. It might constitute an even deeper conservatism: the world is going to hell, the best we can do is hunker down in our bunkers and ride out the shitstorm, issue invitations to those who might want to join us. On many levels I share this perspective, even if my bunker isn't a church.
So, basically, it sounds like Hudson and Fitch basically agree but put it in different terms.
"Proud of their achievements and pleased that their missions had been so largely accomplished, the churches relaxed and made peace with the world. From satisfaction with the culture, it was but a small step to the placing of confidence in the culture to nurture and sustain the Christian faith."
This is why Fitch refers to the alliance between evangelicalism and the state (whether it be capitalist or socialist) as an extension of Christendom. "The altar call was simple: 'If you would be a true patriot, then become a Christian. If you would become a loyal American, becomes a loyal Christian.'"
"...the tension within Protestantism arising primarily out of the differing cultural orientation of the older agrarian and the newer urban society."
N.T. Wright talks about the importance of the Scopes trial - set in TN and pitting the urban progressive evolutionists against the backwoods country bumpkin creationists and occurring with slavery and Jim Crow being not-at-all far in the background - in the formation of the uniqueness of American politico-social dynamics. The relationship between right, left, and the church in England is completely different.
Anyway, Fitch highlights the discursive splits that arose out of those tensions within the American Protestant church.
Also, in your second comment, were all those quotes FROM GRAHAM? Wow...
"Since Communism was 'masterminded by Satan,' it was a mistake to think that Satan can be defeated with 'flesh and blood and guns and bullets."'..."
Recently, I noted to a conservative apologist on Fitch's FB page that, when I said that capitalism was "of the world," I simply meant that the source/cause was outside the church.
"Proud of their achievements and pleased that their missions had been so largely accomplished, the churches relaxed and made peace with the world. From satisfaction with the culture, it was but a small step to the placing of confidence in the culture to nurture and sustain the Christian faith."
This is why Fitch refers to the alliance between evangelicalism and the state (whether it be capitalist or socialist) as an extension of Christendom. "The altar call was simple: 'If you would be a true patriot, then become a Christian. If you would become a loyal American, becomes a loyal Christian.'"
"...the tension within Protestantism arising primarily out of the differing cultural orientation of the older agrarian and the newer urban society."
N.T. Wright talks about the importance of the Scopes trial - set in TN and pitting the urban progressive evolutionists against the backwoods country bumpkin creationists and occurring with slavery and Jim Crow being not-at-all far in the background - in the formation of the uniqueness of American politico-social dynamics. The relationship between right, left, and the church in England is completely different.
Anyway, Fitch highlights the discursive splits that arose out of those tensions within the American Protestant church.
Also, in your second comment, were all those quotes FROM GRAHAM? Wow...
"Since Communism was 'masterminded by Satan,' it was a mistake to think that Satan can be defeated with 'flesh and blood and guns and bullets."'..."
Recently, I noted to a conservative apologist on Fitch's FB page that, when I said that capitalism was "of the world," I simply meant that the source/cause was outside the church.
Anyway, Erdman has disappeared, so I want to address this hierarchy thing.
I can easily see how a "hierarchical" gospel that begins and ends with the kingdom of God (as the book of Acts does, btw) would or could very easily see that as imperialist, colonialist, whatever. (How or why Fundamentalist, I don't really know, though).
But, for a Christian to say that just doesn't make any sense to me. The entrance into the Christian life in the first place, whether in the abstract or through/in a local body, is by submission to God and His ways. Part of the original intention for Adam was to "fill, rule, and subdue." Those realities and that language extended into the terms of the covenant with Israel. Again, see Deut. 27-30, which includes language of rule - rule over enemies, not being slaves to foreigners, etc, the opposite of which was the case under the curses of the covenant. And, again, Christ was the fulfillment of the covenant. Thomas, when he sees the risen Christ, declares, "My Lord and my God!" So, I don't understand how hierarchy could possibly be considered anything other than exactly the heart and center of the gospel. What surprised people was that their Lord and God was a crucified savior and that such an act of submission, service, and self-sacrificial love of the King of all of creation was the model for a new way of life.
Also, I don't know how relevant this is, but the problem with over-bearing parents isn't hierarchy. "Honor your parents" obviously implies some obedience. The problem with exasperating parenting is idolatry. I know this from my experience as an exasperated child.
Example:
Daughter and Son-in-Law decide not to share the new baby name with anyone until the baby shower. Cousin who organizes the baby shower, by default, finds out the baby name. Mother has a problem with this, because it indicates the worth of the mother in relation to the Son-in-Law and, supposedly, to the cousin. (Not to mention the fact that the Mother had no input in the naming) These dynamics cause a HUGE family drama involving WAY too many people, blown WAY, WAY out of proportion.
The problem here isn't that the Mother seeks to control and exert power over the daughter, per se. The problem is that the Mother finds her worth and identity in her child(ren). Out of that, the narrative of the daughter's baby shower was crafted by the hands of the Mother, so to speak. The narrative wasn't centered, based, or sourced on either the daughter, baby, or relationship between daughter, baby, and the Son-in-Law. Nor was the narrative of the baby shower crafted, so to speak, by some source over or higher than any of them (say, God). The daughter experiences this as exasperatingly controlling by the Mother and as a feeling of being trapped since the Mother is so butt-hurt that the cousin and Son-in-Law are apparently more important then her. Of course, the sacrifices to the idol here became the cousin and son-in-law, which made the dynamics of the event all the more difficult to navigate.
I can easily see how a "hierarchical" gospel that begins and ends with the kingdom of God (as the book of Acts does, btw) would or could very easily see that as imperialist, colonialist, whatever. (How or why Fundamentalist, I don't really know, though).
But, for a Christian to say that just doesn't make any sense to me. The entrance into the Christian life in the first place, whether in the abstract or through/in a local body, is by submission to God and His ways. Part of the original intention for Adam was to "fill, rule, and subdue." Those realities and that language extended into the terms of the covenant with Israel. Again, see Deut. 27-30, which includes language of rule - rule over enemies, not being slaves to foreigners, etc, the opposite of which was the case under the curses of the covenant. And, again, Christ was the fulfillment of the covenant. Thomas, when he sees the risen Christ, declares, "My Lord and my God!" So, I don't understand how hierarchy could possibly be considered anything other than exactly the heart and center of the gospel. What surprised people was that their Lord and God was a crucified savior and that such an act of submission, service, and self-sacrificial love of the King of all of creation was the model for a new way of life.
Also, I don't know how relevant this is, but the problem with over-bearing parents isn't hierarchy. "Honor your parents" obviously implies some obedience. The problem with exasperating parenting is idolatry. I know this from my experience as an exasperated child.
Example:
Daughter and Son-in-Law decide not to share the new baby name with anyone until the baby shower. Cousin who organizes the baby shower, by default, finds out the baby name. Mother has a problem with this, because it indicates the worth of the mother in relation to the Son-in-Law and, supposedly, to the cousin. (Not to mention the fact that the Mother had no input in the naming) These dynamics cause a HUGE family drama involving WAY too many people, blown WAY, WAY out of proportion.
The problem here isn't that the Mother seeks to control and exert power over the daughter, per se. The problem is that the Mother finds her worth and identity in her child(ren). Out of that, the narrative of the daughter's baby shower was crafted by the hands of the Mother, so to speak. The narrative wasn't centered, based, or sourced on either the daughter, baby, or relationship between daughter, baby, and the Son-in-Law. Nor was the narrative of the baby shower crafted, so to speak, by some source over or higher than any of them (say, God). The daughter experiences this as exasperatingly controlling by the Mother and as a feeling of being trapped since the Mother is so butt-hurt that the cousin and Son-in-Law are apparently more important then her. Of course, the sacrifices to the idol here became the cousin and son-in-law, which made the dynamics of the event all the more difficult to navigate.
Oops. Meant to say I could see how a non Christian would see the hierarchical nature of the gospel as imperialist. (Especially considering the church's history of and with Christendom).
Yes those are Graham quotes. There should be a closed quote just before the altar call sentence.
Certainly hierarchical governance figures prominently in the Bible. One could construe a speculative version of "fifth act" Christianity where hierarchy is set aside. There are Biblical passages that could point the way, some of which we've alluded to in this thread. Where two or more are gathered in my name there I am, we are the body of Christ, we have the mind of Christ, the firstborn of many brethren, the priesthood of believers, etc. Taken together, passages like these *could* be foreshadowing a more distributed horizontal governance, one that was beginning to take shape in the first century and that might come into greater fulfillment once the era of imperial Christendom centered in Rome and Constantinople, and maybe also in America, had been dismantled.
I'll have to give further consideration to your familial melodrama and report my findings later.
Certainly hierarchical governance figures prominently in the Bible. One could construe a speculative version of "fifth act" Christianity where hierarchy is set aside. There are Biblical passages that could point the way, some of which we've alluded to in this thread. Where two or more are gathered in my name there I am, we are the body of Christ, we have the mind of Christ, the firstborn of many brethren, the priesthood of believers, etc. Taken together, passages like these *could* be foreshadowing a more distributed horizontal governance, one that was beginning to take shape in the first century and that might come into greater fulfillment once the era of imperial Christendom centered in Rome and Constantinople, and maybe also in America, had been dismantled.
I'll have to give further consideration to your familial melodrama and report my findings later.
I would have zero problem with more horizontally distributed church governance... Even like the idea...so long as we're talking about how a local body is visibly governed. But Jesus the King still sits at the right hand of God in physical form, the glory of his wounds still present. Even at the the consummation, the full frition, Christ is still Lord of Lords, and it's his presence that brings the full fruition in the first place.
I was thinking not only about church polity but also about the relationship between Jesus and the church becoming less hierarchical. Body of Christ, mind of Christ, where two or more are gathered, firstborn of many brethren -- are these to be regarded as metaphors, or as something more like ontological statements about Jesus's participation in earthly affairs? I understand your aversion to stinky metaphysical gas, but is it your position that Jesus exists exclusively in physical form in some ascendant plateau usually known as heaven? Or does he manifest himself spiritually as well, in such a way that he's present communally among the believers? If so, then isn't it plausible that the spiritual presence of Christ is not concentrated more intensely and powerfully among the leaders, but is in effect spread equally across the whole Christian collective? This would move toward a more horizontally distributed body and mind of Christ on earth.
Taking it another step, possibly a borderline heretical one... Per Romans 8:29-30, if Jesus is firstborn among many brethren, and if the brethren are conformed to his image, and if those brethren aren't only justified but are also glorified, then isn't the distinction between Jesus and his brethren reduced considerably? I don't think you'd need to adopt some version of Orthodox theosis, where individual humans in effect become godlike. But it would seem that in passages like Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 there's less of a status differential between Jesus and the collective of those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth.
As a parent, I expect my kid not to remain lower in status to me as she matures. I also don't expect her to obey me. She should honor me in the same way as I honor her. To assert permanent authority over one's adult children, and to expect to be the final decision-maker in their lives, is a kind of self-idolatry. On similar grounds, wouldn't God the Father feel similarly about his maturing children? And why should the firstborn brother expect to retain authority over the younger siblings once they've reached adulthood?
Taking it another step, possibly a borderline heretical one... Per Romans 8:29-30, if Jesus is firstborn among many brethren, and if the brethren are conformed to his image, and if those brethren aren't only justified but are also glorified, then isn't the distinction between Jesus and his brethren reduced considerably? I don't think you'd need to adopt some version of Orthodox theosis, where individual humans in effect become godlike. But it would seem that in passages like Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 there's less of a status differential between Jesus and the collective of those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth.
As a parent, I expect my kid not to remain lower in status to me as she matures. I also don't expect her to obey me. She should honor me in the same way as I honor her. To assert permanent authority over one's adult children, and to expect to be the final decision-maker in their lives, is a kind of self-idolatry. On similar grounds, wouldn't God the Father feel similarly about his maturing children? And why should the firstborn brother expect to retain authority over the younger siblings once they've reached adulthood?
Maybe the clearer position on Jesus is this: Jesus occupies two places at one. One, he is in heaven seated bodily at the right hand. Two, he is on earth, taking as his bodily form the totality of all living Christians.
Where two or more are gathered, firstborn of many brethren...are something more like ontological statements about the Spirit's work and participation in earthly affairs.
And, my position is not that Jesus exists only in physical form. I have just been highlighting the fact that he didn't lose his corporeality in/after the ascension. I have been doing that partially because his wounds are the marks of his self-sacrifice and service, which we are to imitate in our proper restoration to the imageo dei. It also highlights the fact that the truth of the ascension is a mystery, since Jesus is in physical form but the whole point of heaven being God's throne is that heaven encompasses the whole earth (Psalm 19).
"Or does he manifest himself spiritually as well, in such a way that he's present communally among the believers?"
I don't think the Spirit is a "manifestation" of Jesus. In the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons (and one "essence").
"then isn't it plausible that the spiritual presence of Christ is not concentrated more intensely and powerfully among the leaders, but is in effect spread equally across the whole Christian collective?"
Regardless of the above about "manifestation" vs. persons, I basically believe this to be true - the presence of Jesus extended into the church and the world through the work of the Spirit. In whom and how or how "intensely" the Spirit works, though, is up the Spirit. How "equal" or not it is, I'm not too worried about or really interested in. But, basically, if comparing humans to humans as compared to comparing humans to God, well, we might as well be equal(ly sinful and mortal).
"This would move toward a more horizontally distributed body and mind of Christ on earth."
Maybe. But, I certainly don't have a papist structure in mind, lol.
To be continued...
And, my position is not that Jesus exists only in physical form. I have just been highlighting the fact that he didn't lose his corporeality in/after the ascension. I have been doing that partially because his wounds are the marks of his self-sacrifice and service, which we are to imitate in our proper restoration to the imageo dei. It also highlights the fact that the truth of the ascension is a mystery, since Jesus is in physical form but the whole point of heaven being God's throne is that heaven encompasses the whole earth (Psalm 19).
"Or does he manifest himself spiritually as well, in such a way that he's present communally among the believers?"
I don't think the Spirit is a "manifestation" of Jesus. In the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons (and one "essence").
"then isn't it plausible that the spiritual presence of Christ is not concentrated more intensely and powerfully among the leaders, but is in effect spread equally across the whole Christian collective?"
Regardless of the above about "manifestation" vs. persons, I basically believe this to be true - the presence of Jesus extended into the church and the world through the work of the Spirit. In whom and how or how "intensely" the Spirit works, though, is up the Spirit. How "equal" or not it is, I'm not too worried about or really interested in. But, basically, if comparing humans to humans as compared to comparing humans to God, well, we might as well be equal(ly sinful and mortal).
"This would move toward a more horizontally distributed body and mind of Christ on earth."
Maybe. But, I certainly don't have a papist structure in mind, lol.
To be continued...
"This would move toward a more horizontally distributed body and mind of Christ on earth."
Definitively not. As N.T. Wright discusses a lot, often, and in detail, what being justified and glorified does is make humans more human, make us the humans we were made to be, restores the imageo dei. "Rule, fill, subdue." And, there is a difference between being - somewhat like the statues and images of any king in any territory of said king - as images of Him, representatives of God in God's territory, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, being gods.
"...it would seem that in passages like Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 there's less of a status differential between Jesus and the collective of those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth."
No. Hebrews 2 quotes Psalm 8, which is a royal Psalm about the King - obviously fulfilled in Jesus, which Hebrews 2 makes explicit. Hebrews 2 ends up heading to the image of Jesus as humanity's high priest. Obviously, then, the distinction remains. Part of the Christian tradition is that Jesus sits at the right hand of God as our mediator. The fact that he "had to be made like his brothers in every respect" (v. 17) obviously implies that there is a difference.
And, the word "status" in the context of scriptural references brings to mind another scripture that puts these passages from Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 in perspective. Philippians 2:
"5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
"...those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth."
And the charge of "ruling" as his representative. But the whole point of the "rule" of humanity is that it points to the ultimate rule of God. Obviously, then, again, the distinction is maintained.
"To assert permanent authority over one's adult children, and to expect to be the final decision-maker in their lives, is a kind of self-idolatry."
Yes, agreed.
"On similar grounds, wouldn't God the Father feel similarly about his maturing children?"
No, absolutely not. The whole crux of the story is that faith in and love of God leads to "obedience of faith." If I had a kid, I wouldn't expect, nor rightfully require, such absolute obedience, because I'm not God! God, however, well, is God.
"And why should the firstborn brother expect to retain authority over the younger siblings once they've reached adulthood?"
Because the firstborn "brother" is also God (in the flesh). The "younger siblings," however, are not God.
Anyway, especially since this thread started with the accusation of imperialism, let's not forget that the obedience to which the brothers are called is that of "obedience unto death" in serving, self-sacrificial love. Again, Phil. 2.
Anyway, speaking of that accusation, where's Erdman?
Definitively not. As N.T. Wright discusses a lot, often, and in detail, what being justified and glorified does is make humans more human, make us the humans we were made to be, restores the imageo dei. "Rule, fill, subdue." And, there is a difference between being - somewhat like the statues and images of any king in any territory of said king - as images of Him, representatives of God in God's territory, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, being gods.
"...it would seem that in passages like Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 there's less of a status differential between Jesus and the collective of those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth."
No. Hebrews 2 quotes Psalm 8, which is a royal Psalm about the King - obviously fulfilled in Jesus, which Hebrews 2 makes explicit. Hebrews 2 ends up heading to the image of Jesus as humanity's high priest. Obviously, then, the distinction remains. Part of the Christian tradition is that Jesus sits at the right hand of God as our mediator. The fact that he "had to be made like his brothers in every respect" (v. 17) obviously implies that there is a difference.
And, the word "status" in the context of scriptural references brings to mind another scripture that puts these passages from Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 in perspective. Philippians 2:
"5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
"...those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth."
And the charge of "ruling" as his representative. But the whole point of the "rule" of humanity is that it points to the ultimate rule of God. Obviously, then, again, the distinction is maintained.
"To assert permanent authority over one's adult children, and to expect to be the final decision-maker in their lives, is a kind of self-idolatry."
Yes, agreed.
"On similar grounds, wouldn't God the Father feel similarly about his maturing children?"
No, absolutely not. The whole crux of the story is that faith in and love of God leads to "obedience of faith." If I had a kid, I wouldn't expect, nor rightfully require, such absolute obedience, because I'm not God! God, however, well, is God.
"And why should the firstborn brother expect to retain authority over the younger siblings once they've reached adulthood?"
Because the firstborn "brother" is also God (in the flesh). The "younger siblings," however, are not God.
Anyway, especially since this thread started with the accusation of imperialism, let's not forget that the obedience to which the brothers are called is that of "obedience unto death" in serving, self-sacrificial love. Again, Phil. 2.
Anyway, speaking of that accusation, where's Erdman?
On the Jesus occupying two places in one...yes, sort of, I guess. But the key here is that Christ is present in the church by extension through the work of the Spirit. That the distinction between Christ and his "body" the church is also highlighted by the fact that he stands over the church from his seat of authority in heaven as judge of the church.
Certainly your exegesis is sound, Hesmaniak. There are at least three options available for entertaining my speculations.
One, the relationships and status differentials made explicit in the Bible might be historically limited rather than eternal. In Israel a king replaced the judges at some point in time; there was no eternal need for kingship to have taken hold, especially since God seemed to regard the king idea as a concession to the people's weakness. So kingship too might have been a time-limited intervention, even for God. For that matter even the exclusivity of Israel was a time-limited project, as we've discussed. To my recollection God never, or rarely, is called father in the OT, whereas in the NT God is addressed quite often by that more familial and familiar appellation. Obedience too could be a time-limited expectation. Obedience to a king presumably is permanent, even if the subjects are adults and the king is a child. Obedience to a parent is for children; when we become adults we put away childish things. I.e., God could have made shifts in his expectations over historical time, during the playing out of the fifth act. And since that act isn't scripted in Scripture it's the wrong place to look for your lines and your cues and your narrative arcs.
Two, the Bible might not be inerrant or infallible, and so the writings contained therein should not be treated as gospel, so to speak. That's not a novel approach even among Christians, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge.
Three, it's possible to regard all of these alternate theological possibilities as nuanced themes and plots and character developments in an arcane literary genre. Is it a nonfictional genre, where people down through the ages give expression to their ineffable encounters with the sublime? Or is it a kind of fan fiction?
As a nonbeliever I'll take door number three. Are Christians living inside a fiction or a collective memoir? I guess I'll leave both possibilities open, along with others to which I've not given due consideration. While I'm pretty confident that God didn't create the world, that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that he doesn't currently exist bodily in heaven, that the world will not be restored through God's intervention, it's possible that I'm wrong. And I do believe that people undergo transcendent experiences, including myself. Like the Catholic proliferation of saints and art, the Protestant proliferation of theological nuances can become a source of delight, even of inspiration, regardless of whether I believe any of those nuances to be true.
Back to the church in the world and possible alliances between believers and nonbelievers. As a nonbeliever, maybe it's enough for me that the Christians don't envision any particular earthly leaders as embodying greater approximations to a god incarnate, who sets policies supposedly dictated by God and to whom the other believers give obeisance. Also, I find it offensive for Christians to regard themselves as being "more human" than non-Christians, as Wright would have it -- sounds too much like whites being more human than blacks, or a justification for America and Europe to declare jihad on Islam. Otherwise, if Christians want to serve a king who has no material form that I can see, then whether he's imaginary or not doesn't really matter to me. If I can find common cause with some Christians and not others, that's fine; it's not like I find common cause with all nonbelievers either.
As for Erdman, maybe he's slipped through an iconic portal into the eighth dimension. I'll drop him an email to see if he's been lurking here or if he got bored and moved on to more salient matters.
One, the relationships and status differentials made explicit in the Bible might be historically limited rather than eternal. In Israel a king replaced the judges at some point in time; there was no eternal need for kingship to have taken hold, especially since God seemed to regard the king idea as a concession to the people's weakness. So kingship too might have been a time-limited intervention, even for God. For that matter even the exclusivity of Israel was a time-limited project, as we've discussed. To my recollection God never, or rarely, is called father in the OT, whereas in the NT God is addressed quite often by that more familial and familiar appellation. Obedience too could be a time-limited expectation. Obedience to a king presumably is permanent, even if the subjects are adults and the king is a child. Obedience to a parent is for children; when we become adults we put away childish things. I.e., God could have made shifts in his expectations over historical time, during the playing out of the fifth act. And since that act isn't scripted in Scripture it's the wrong place to look for your lines and your cues and your narrative arcs.
Two, the Bible might not be inerrant or infallible, and so the writings contained therein should not be treated as gospel, so to speak. That's not a novel approach even among Christians, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge.
Three, it's possible to regard all of these alternate theological possibilities as nuanced themes and plots and character developments in an arcane literary genre. Is it a nonfictional genre, where people down through the ages give expression to their ineffable encounters with the sublime? Or is it a kind of fan fiction?
As a nonbeliever I'll take door number three. Are Christians living inside a fiction or a collective memoir? I guess I'll leave both possibilities open, along with others to which I've not given due consideration. While I'm pretty confident that God didn't create the world, that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that he doesn't currently exist bodily in heaven, that the world will not be restored through God's intervention, it's possible that I'm wrong. And I do believe that people undergo transcendent experiences, including myself. Like the Catholic proliferation of saints and art, the Protestant proliferation of theological nuances can become a source of delight, even of inspiration, regardless of whether I believe any of those nuances to be true.
Back to the church in the world and possible alliances between believers and nonbelievers. As a nonbeliever, maybe it's enough for me that the Christians don't envision any particular earthly leaders as embodying greater approximations to a god incarnate, who sets policies supposedly dictated by God and to whom the other believers give obeisance. Also, I find it offensive for Christians to regard themselves as being "more human" than non-Christians, as Wright would have it -- sounds too much like whites being more human than blacks, or a justification for America and Europe to declare jihad on Islam. Otherwise, if Christians want to serve a king who has no material form that I can see, then whether he's imaginary or not doesn't really matter to me. If I can find common cause with some Christians and not others, that's fine; it's not like I find common cause with all nonbelievers either.
As for Erdman, maybe he's slipped through an iconic portal into the eighth dimension. I'll drop him an email to see if he's been lurking here or if he got bored and moved on to more salient matters.
OK quickly before I head back to work...
The historical limitation of the kingdom of God isn't really an option for me. That's because of God's covenant with David. From 2 Samuel 7:
And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”
Of course, the point is, that was fulfilled in Jesus. The enemies from which rest was given were sin, Satan, and death. Part of why that covenant with David is important, too, is because of the primary theme of Romans - God's faithfulness, that God keeps His word. That has implications for your point about obedience, too. Of course, that doesn't mean that the story of God isn't a story of God at work in history. The familial focus in the NT is, I think, because of the presence of Jesus the son and because of our union with him.
On infallibility:
I do not hold to the doctrine of infallibility. That doesn't mean that I don't take the scriptures to have authority derived from and extended out of the presence of Jesus Christ, who is the living Word and who has final authority. This means that the question of authority is at least partially addressed by practice, not just a doctrine. That, in turn, means that the scriptures proclaim the gospel.
"Like the Catholic proliferation of saints and art, the Protestant proliferation of theological nuances can become a source of delight, even of inspiration, regardless of whether I believe any of those nuances to be true."
That's interesting. I feel the similarly about, say, Zizek. Or W.B. Yeates, Le Corbusier, E.E. Cummings, the Coen Brothers. It would not be a stretch to say I love them all (Yeates would be a possible stretch, because I've had to distance myself from him, because I've had to break from allegiance to him).
"Also, I find it offensive for Christians to regard themselves as being 'more human' than non-Christians, as Wright would have it -- sounds too much like whites being more human than blacks, or a justification for America and Europe to declare jihad on Islam."
Well, keep in mind that part of what I meant by that was that the Spirit doesn't make Christians into gods (but, rather, into men). That said, I could understand the offense. I have thought about that before, actually. But, I also think the shame, guilt, and alienation of my past left me in a place of feeling (or actually?) less than human, anyway. Kind of just makes sense.
As for the whole justification for jihad thing - again, not if the model human is the one spoken of in Philippians 2 (serving, self-sacrificial love to the point of "obedience unto death"). In other words, to be human again is to be able to love fully God and others. Being human doesn't mean triumphalism. And, if it does mean triumphalism, then it's not being human again (but, rather, is either being less than or grasping for being more than human).
The historical limitation of the kingdom of God isn't really an option for me. That's because of God's covenant with David. From 2 Samuel 7:
And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”
Of course, the point is, that was fulfilled in Jesus. The enemies from which rest was given were sin, Satan, and death. Part of why that covenant with David is important, too, is because of the primary theme of Romans - God's faithfulness, that God keeps His word. That has implications for your point about obedience, too. Of course, that doesn't mean that the story of God isn't a story of God at work in history. The familial focus in the NT is, I think, because of the presence of Jesus the son and because of our union with him.
On infallibility:
I do not hold to the doctrine of infallibility. That doesn't mean that I don't take the scriptures to have authority derived from and extended out of the presence of Jesus Christ, who is the living Word and who has final authority. This means that the question of authority is at least partially addressed by practice, not just a doctrine. That, in turn, means that the scriptures proclaim the gospel.
"Like the Catholic proliferation of saints and art, the Protestant proliferation of theological nuances can become a source of delight, even of inspiration, regardless of whether I believe any of those nuances to be true."
That's interesting. I feel the similarly about, say, Zizek. Or W.B. Yeates, Le Corbusier, E.E. Cummings, the Coen Brothers. It would not be a stretch to say I love them all (Yeates would be a possible stretch, because I've had to distance myself from him, because I've had to break from allegiance to him).
"Also, I find it offensive for Christians to regard themselves as being 'more human' than non-Christians, as Wright would have it -- sounds too much like whites being more human than blacks, or a justification for America and Europe to declare jihad on Islam."
Well, keep in mind that part of what I meant by that was that the Spirit doesn't make Christians into gods (but, rather, into men). That said, I could understand the offense. I have thought about that before, actually. But, I also think the shame, guilt, and alienation of my past left me in a place of feeling (or actually?) less than human, anyway. Kind of just makes sense.
As for the whole justification for jihad thing - again, not if the model human is the one spoken of in Philippians 2 (serving, self-sacrificial love to the point of "obedience unto death"). In other words, to be human again is to be able to love fully God and others. Being human doesn't mean triumphalism. And, if it does mean triumphalism, then it's not being human again (but, rather, is either being less than or grasping for being more than human).
Still no sign of Erdman. Briefly on your latest, I can live with that. I too regard Zizek as an author of speculative fiction; also Freud and Nietzsche. I haven't read enough Marx to say, but it seems clear that a lot of people respond, both pro and con, to an image rather than to what Marx actually wrote. I'd say that my own book about Genesis 1 is a fiction, even if it's based on tight exegesis and reads like I'm trying to argue for its truth value. Eventually I rewrote that book, framed it as a six-day conversation going on in a medieval (or maybe post-apocalyptic) inn populated entirely by theologians. In a sense it's like Screwtape Letters, which for me works better as a novella than as an allegorical instruction manual infused by that legendary upper-class British sense of humour.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
