Sunday, December 30, 2018
Eternally Disappearing Chaff or Daily Appearing Manna?
The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but they do not speak;
they have eyes, but they do not see;
they have ears, but they do not hear,
and there is no breath in their mouths.
Those who make them
and all who trust them
shall become like them.
- Psalm 135: 15-18
presents a parody, a seeing as if in a glass darkly, of....
When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.
- Luke 24: 30-31
*Pictured: Christ at Emmaus, by Chris Green
In one, treasures are present but we do not see.
In the other, the treasure becomes absent, but suddenly we see.
In one, we are knowing but, in its being OUR knowing, it is empty.
In the other, we are known and, in our being known, the quest and promise of our knowing is fulfilled.
In one, what we see in appearance will disappear in a moment like chaff in the wind.
In the other, what is shown to us in disappearance cannot but make everything appear anew.
A few notes and observations of explanation and clarity here, as my visual demonstration of my point is in danger of reaching the status of caricature:
Obviously, there's no silver or gold in the pic. The point is, we treasure our idols. We tend to grasp, hold onto, and hoard our treasures. The level of feigned intimacy and false knowledge of the Kardashians exposed on their "reality TV show" is a demonstration of this urge. We devour all that we can, and our idols give us more and more knowledge of themselves in which we can indulge. But, we are seeing nothing. It is empty. They will disappear like the wind. Where we were holding chaff in our hands, we will be left staring at an empty hand. They are like the flowers of the field.
Also, Chris' painting can at first appear to us to lack sophistication and technical or technological prowess in comparison to the way the photograph of the Kardashians, like any other photograph, so precisely "captures reality." Photographs help us obtain of fantasy of grasping chaff in the wind. Expensive photographic and video equipment capturing our idols lends us the easy impression that the chaff is gold and silver. Keeping in mind the above scriptures and pic, we could also say that the simple, child-like quality of Chris' painting challenges our technocratic urges to know reality and obtain our identity vicariously through the technological means by which the Kardashians so obscenely and profanely expose themselves to us - leading to our quest to "keep up" with them.
On the other hand, Jesus tells us: "Do not cling to me." He knows our "clingy" tendencies. He will not allow himself to be an idol, and his path points us beyond those tendencies to their eternal source, another kind of wind where daily manna replaces eternally disappearing chaff.
As a great example of this, one of my idols of a sort is boobs. Through those very mediums of photography or video, I am presented a false and distant fantasy to trust in and - in my quest to grasp and cling to said fantasy - to become like the character of the object of my quest. So, in my quest, I become lustful and full of disordered desires. By "disordered" I mean not ordered to a given end but rather towards the disappearing wind, towards nowhere. As I cling to and seek it, I demonstrate trust in it. In the process, I am shaped by the image of reality presented to me by this powerful fantasy. I am trained by and into it as though by a coach barking at me to run faster towards my death.
So - in light of the above scriptures and of my "clingy" tendencies - my fantasy has been covered over by the disappearance of Jesus, who, in His Presence, makes all things appear anew in their reality - rather than in their false fantasy. "“Were not our hearts burning within us" when He spoke to us of how faithful, covenant love is the spark that lights a fire to the entirety of the New Creation and gives order to our desires? How faithful love drives us towards a covenant marriage kind of love where each party in the covenant is cherished like the treasure of a God who is willing to love us to the point of His own death? How an all consuming love urges us to a context where we are cared for and responded to as though we matter and have the utmost dignity as persons created in the image of the source of Life, for the ordered purpose of bearing more life?
I have to ask, then:
Does a mere photograph of our exposed and ever-present idols dwarf and engulf the disappearing Jesus? Does Jesus appear as a minor distraction in the corner of the pic, in the way of our view? We go to church on Sundays; sometimes we pray. And then we go on with our secular, everyday lives, right? The American church is dwindling; perhaps Jesus really is merely a sideshow. Get out of the way, Jesus, and let the real Powers of this world have their shine! Maybe that's why he had to disappear at the end of the road to Emmaus, right?
Or, rather, does the appearance of Jesus Christ into the frame of Reality - by His disappearance in the flesh and appearance in Spirit - disrupt our previous paradigm or frame, Creating a tear in the fabric of our reality that compels us - both ourselves and the idols to whom we turn for direction and identity - to turn our attention to Him? To be fed by another source, so to speak? To cultivate and tend to our identity differently? To prepare our meals as though tilled from a different Ground?
Do note, after all, that, in the pic, Kim is preparing a meal. To which meal are her and her friend turning their attention? Vicariously through them, I ask the same question of you and me.
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but they do not speak;
they have eyes, but they do not see;
they have ears, but they do not hear,
and there is no breath in their mouths.
Those who make them
and all who trust them
shall become like them.
- Psalm 135: 15-18
presents a parody, a seeing as if in a glass darkly, of....
When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.
- Luke 24: 30-31
*Pictured: Christ at Emmaus, by Chris Green
In the other, the treasure becomes absent, but suddenly we see.
In one, we are knowing but, in its being OUR knowing, it is empty.
In the other, we are known and, in our being known, the quest and promise of our knowing is fulfilled.
In one, what we see in appearance will disappear in a moment like chaff in the wind.
In the other, what is shown to us in disappearance cannot but make everything appear anew.
A few notes and observations of explanation and clarity here, as my visual demonstration of my point is in danger of reaching the status of caricature:
Obviously, there's no silver or gold in the pic. The point is, we treasure our idols. We tend to grasp, hold onto, and hoard our treasures. The level of feigned intimacy and false knowledge of the Kardashians exposed on their "reality TV show" is a demonstration of this urge. We devour all that we can, and our idols give us more and more knowledge of themselves in which we can indulge. But, we are seeing nothing. It is empty. They will disappear like the wind. Where we were holding chaff in our hands, we will be left staring at an empty hand. They are like the flowers of the field.
Also, Chris' painting can at first appear to us to lack sophistication and technical or technological prowess in comparison to the way the photograph of the Kardashians, like any other photograph, so precisely "captures reality." Photographs help us obtain of fantasy of grasping chaff in the wind. Expensive photographic and video equipment capturing our idols lends us the easy impression that the chaff is gold and silver. Keeping in mind the above scriptures and pic, we could also say that the simple, child-like quality of Chris' painting challenges our technocratic urges to know reality and obtain our identity vicariously through the technological means by which the Kardashians so obscenely and profanely expose themselves to us - leading to our quest to "keep up" with them.
On the other hand, Jesus tells us: "Do not cling to me." He knows our "clingy" tendencies. He will not allow himself to be an idol, and his path points us beyond those tendencies to their eternal source, another kind of wind where daily manna replaces eternally disappearing chaff.
As a great example of this, one of my idols of a sort is boobs. Through those very mediums of photography or video, I am presented a false and distant fantasy to trust in and - in my quest to grasp and cling to said fantasy - to become like the character of the object of my quest. So, in my quest, I become lustful and full of disordered desires. By "disordered" I mean not ordered to a given end but rather towards the disappearing wind, towards nowhere. As I cling to and seek it, I demonstrate trust in it. In the process, I am shaped by the image of reality presented to me by this powerful fantasy. I am trained by and into it as though by a coach barking at me to run faster towards my death.
So - in light of the above scriptures and of my "clingy" tendencies - my fantasy has been covered over by the disappearance of Jesus, who, in His Presence, makes all things appear anew in their reality - rather than in their false fantasy. "“Were not our hearts burning within us" when He spoke to us of how faithful, covenant love is the spark that lights a fire to the entirety of the New Creation and gives order to our desires? How faithful love drives us towards a covenant marriage kind of love where each party in the covenant is cherished like the treasure of a God who is willing to love us to the point of His own death? How an all consuming love urges us to a context where we are cared for and responded to as though we matter and have the utmost dignity as persons created in the image of the source of Life, for the ordered purpose of bearing more life?
I have to ask, then:
Does a mere photograph of our exposed and ever-present idols dwarf and engulf the disappearing Jesus? Does Jesus appear as a minor distraction in the corner of the pic, in the way of our view? We go to church on Sundays; sometimes we pray. And then we go on with our secular, everyday lives, right? The American church is dwindling; perhaps Jesus really is merely a sideshow. Get out of the way, Jesus, and let the real Powers of this world have their shine! Maybe that's why he had to disappear at the end of the road to Emmaus, right?
Or, rather, does the appearance of Jesus Christ into the frame of Reality - by His disappearance in the flesh and appearance in Spirit - disrupt our previous paradigm or frame, Creating a tear in the fabric of our reality that compels us - both ourselves and the idols to whom we turn for direction and identity - to turn our attention to Him? To be fed by another source, so to speak? To cultivate and tend to our identity differently? To prepare our meals as though tilled from a different Ground?
Do note, after all, that, in the pic, Kim is preparing a meal. To which meal are her and her friend turning their attention? Vicariously through them, I ask the same question of you and me.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Knowing the Time With Our Eyes
By 16th century questions, Wright is referring to attempts to address problems with corruption and misuse of common practices, particularly regarding indulgences. This led the Reformers to assume the problem was doctrinal and to interpret indulgences and other similar passages as the kinds of "works" being referred to in the scriptures when Paul sets works against faith.
Then, in the 19th century, textual criticism - "high" and "low" to interpret the scriptures in ways that were presumably more "scientific" and "historical" than the previous analogical or typological readings. So now Christians commonly keep the previous 16th century framework that address questions of "works" vs "faith", but we add on top of that another layer or interpretive lens that presumes we need science to uncover the meaning of texts written long before modern, scientific presuppositions were built into the intentions or meaning of the text.
For example, both the flood and Creation stories were written around the time of Babylonian captivity and in response to very similar Babylonian stories of Creation and flood. They were intended, then, to reveal the character of the God of Israel - as a God of peace and human justice and flourishing, of love - as compared to the Babylonian gods who found the world on violence and seek to keep humans perpetually enslaved (as their flood story illustrates). This means that the "scientific explanation" of the material origins of the universe and a historical flood event becomes at least superfluous.
Comparatively, a first century lens obviously doesn't relate questions about faith vs works to questions about how to deal with practices like indulgences, which came along long after the 1st century. Per Wright's scholarship, Paul's audience read "works" to be specifically about following Torah in ways that identify the Jewish people as such - circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Because Jews in the church were basically demanding that Gentiles basically become Jewish to become part of the church. Paul was deeply offended by that for many reasons, but it basically boiled down to the fact that Paul believed that Jesus had broken down such walls and made a way for people of all nation's to be one people together without "becoming Jewish" through circumcision, following dietary laws, etc.
So 16th century questions were about indulgences.
1st century questions were about relationships between Jews and Gentiles in the church.
2 completely separate sets of questions and circumstances inform the discourses of Paul in the 1st century compared to Luther and Calvin in the 16th. Both in reference to "works."
But, in the 19th century and beyond, Christians tend to forget all that and falsely project the 16th century back onto the 1st. It obviously then leads to a lot of weird confusions about how to read / interpret scripture.
So, with that in mind, when I say "knowing the time with our eyes," I mean seeing the world "with resurrection eyes," so to speak, when the promise to Abraham of being a "blessing to all nations" has been fulfilled. From there, we can begin to ask questions of how broken relationships between people and people groups can be addressed through and in Jesus. Rather than getting sidetracked with 16th century questions about "works" that distract us from the central point and direction of the gospel.
Postscript:
Interestingly, an atheist friend's response to Wright's quote was this:
"Science has made that impossible. We no longer suffer from that deficit in factual knowledge. Religion has been described as an ever shrinking pool of ignorance. I think this is illustrated on his blackboard. [she was then asked what she meant and explained as follows] I was actually referring to his mixing apples and oranges. Reading with 19th century eyes to answer 16th century questions..then, noting that we should regress to 1st century eyes to interpret 21st century questions? How do you subtract factual knowledge? Factually and sociologically, you cannot subtract this knowledge to make scripture make factual sense."
For her and friends like her, I would add that this change in the meaning of the text in regards to the term "works" (as a central example, btw) is dependent upon particular Christian discourses and doesn't require Christian belief to track the meaning of.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
