There is an increasing trend of materialists/atheists appropriating the language of Christianity for ideological reasons. It is not simply that Christianity, as an ancient and rich source of a wide range of philosophical and scientific thought provides some "models" or "linguistic schemas" for materialist appropriation. These interpreters are interested in a much more profound meaning of Christianity: Christianity as the religion of the exit from the religious.
It has been said that the only authentic atheism is one which has taken part in the Christian experience. What does this mean? A brief theological excursus is in order.
What took place when Jesus first appeared in Mary's womb? The writer of the gospel of John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Later he said, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among men." The incarnation of God himself took place in Mary's womb. It is no wonder she was called "Theotokos" or "God-bearer" by later Christian thinkers. What was necessary for this to occur? St. Paul says in his letter to the Philippians that Jesus had to "make himself nothing", literally, to "empty" himself, what theologians refer to as Christ's kenotic emptying. Empty himself of what? Of his divinity, his divine power. This kenosis is key for Death of God theologians like Thomas Altizer. It was here that they see a definite (de) evolution in God's being. God became man in Christ Jesus. He was indeed a man, but a man who was a God emptied of his power. The next step is crucial: the God-man was crucified. He was put to death. These interpreters see in Christ's "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" a confession of helplessness, a sign of his final kenotic existence. (It is interesting to note that the Gospel of Peter records Jesus as saying: "My power, my power, why have you forsaken me"). What took place on the cross was not just the death of a man, but the death of God. God merely remained consistent in finishing the final kenotic gesture and emptying the cup of his being to the last drop and then smashing the cup.
It is at this moment that Christianity prepares a way for the exit from the religious. Heaven lies vacant, the Christian God has emptied out any meaning the word "God" has ever had. There is no "big Other", no final Guarantor of meaning, no Master behind the curtain pulling the strings (and is Zizek not correct in saying that even in Stalinism there remains a big Other in the guise of "History"?). The stage lies silent and the audience suddenly realizes they're the main act from now on. Right away some people understand and start forming emancipatory communities. It's up to people to change the world, to emancipate humanity. The Spirit of Christ is now interpreted as the will and the action of the emancipatory people. Did Jesus not say, "where two or three are gathered in my name I am there with them"? Suddenly a light dawns on a radically new egalitarian community. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is no female and male..." The Spirit, to quote Hegel, "rises up out of the foaming ferment of finitude." Here now is the only locus of the Spirit: the new universal community. It is literally the people's fidelity to the Event.
The universal collective is soon challenged, however, by a particularist appropriation of Jesus. What this Christian God has done is more than some can bear. No, God cannot be allowed to die. So they constructed the myth of his resurrection. The radical message, the gospel, was soon embedded in an institutionalized ideology. The original heresy was committed: they identified the Church as the body of Christ, forced the particular at the expense of the universal.
The atheist challenge to Christians is clear here: Sacrifice the "Church" as its original founder once sacrificed himself, so that the kenotic will of God may be fulfilled. It's time to reclaim the radical core of Christianity: Christianity as the original and most complete atheism. It's time to form a new world order.
Wonderful! Well thought, well wrought, well said; this reminds me powerfully of Nietzsche's The Antichrist. There are some luminous, no, luculent! passages in that tome, despite the bad translations that are out there. Anyway, i offer a few of those passage here; i think they are apt, given the subject at hand:
ReplyDelete*A note: The author himself acknowledges the perils of interpreting anything from a series of texts of difficult origin, copied and translated over the years, but he goes in, anyway, as it were. Here, then:
33.
In the whole psychology of the "Gospels" the concepts of guilt and
punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. "Sin," which means
anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished--_this
is precisely the "glad tidings."_ Eternal bliss is not merely promised,
nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the _only_
reality--what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.
The _results_ of such a point of view project themselves into a new _way
of life_, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a "belief" that
marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of
action; he acts _differently_. He offers no resistance, either by word
or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction
between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles...
The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of
life--and so was his death.... He no longer needed any formula or ritual
in his relations with God--not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of
the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he _knew_ that it was
only by a _way_ of life that one could feel one's self "divine,"
"blessed," "evangelical," a "child of God."...
The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to _live_ so that he
will feel that he is "in heaven" and is "immortal," despite many reasons
for feeling that he is _not_ "in heaven": this is the only psychological
reality in "salvation."--A new way of life, _not_ a new faith...
The "kingdom of heaven" is a state of the heart--not something to come
"beyond the world" or "after death." The whole idea of natural death is
_absent_ from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is
absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world,
useful only as a symbol. The "hour of death" is _not_ a Christian
idea--"hours," time, the physical life and its crises have no existence
for the bearer of "glad tidings."... The "kingdom of God" is not
something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after
tomorrow, it is not going to come at a "millennium"--it is an experience
of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere....
35.
This "bearer of glad tidings" died as he lived and _taught_--_not_ to
"save mankind," but to show mankind how to live. It was a _way of life_
that he bequeathed to man: his demeanour before the judges, before the
officers, before his accusers--his demeanour on the _cross_. He does not
resist; he does not defend his rights; he makes no effort to ward off
the most extreme penalty--more, _he invites it_.... And he prays,
suffers and loves _with_ those, _in_ those, who do him evil.... _Not_ to
defend one's self, _not_ to show anger, _not_ to lay blames.... On the
contrary, to submit even to the Evil One--to _love_ him....
Well, I suppose you might expect a rebuttal from a more mainstream Christian viewpoint. Your idea is interesting, but the position here is a bizarre one. It's comparable to spending 1000 words forming a position on sandwiches, and then at the end claiming bread does not exist. The myth of the resurrection? You quote Biblical writers to set up your premise, as if you value them to set up your argument. But of course those writers have much to say about the truth of the resurrection. So, an obvious question: which parts of a new testament book do you dismiss as myth, and which parts to claim as truth, foundational to your argument? Next, I must ask you to define "Christianity" for the sake of your position here. Perhaps another word is better, when the notion of the risen Christ is the core of most Christians' faith. Again, interesting thoughts to consider, but let's be honest, a weak position for any serious theologian.
ReplyDeleteYou've put your finger on a potential weakness of the materialist theological position: interpretation and authority. I believe, however, that this is only a weakness viewed from a certain perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe April 1966 issue of Time Magazine featured a prominent "Is God Dead?" across its cover page, the second of two articles dealing with the Death of God movement. In '66 Thomas Altizer published his "The Gospel of Christian Atheism" which was soon followed by numerous articles and other publications. Death of God theologians draw on Altizer as well as a number of other theologians and philosophers, not to mention Scripture.
The analogy between bread/sandwiches and God/death does not quite fit, though it is cleverly humorous. The reason it doesn’t fit is because this is the very point (from the death of God position): From the beginning God planned to annihilate himself. The analogy needs to be flipped on its head. The sandwich existed already made in the beginning, but someone has eaten it. There is nothing left.
At the beginning of my article I said there is a trend among some to “appropriate” Christian themes and language. This is part of your answer. Because it is an appropriation it does not necessarily follow that these thinkers will stay true to the orthodox interpretation. They are developing an idea they see implicit in the gospel message, not regurgitating the same message we’ve heard time and again from the Church. Of course they face resistance! As they should.. they are making quite a claim. But they are not concerned with echoing “most Christian’s faith”, in fact, they believe this faith to be misdirected and in need of adjustment.
I should point out, there is a belief in “Resurrection” here, but it has been interpreted as the Spirit of the Idea, the collective living out of the emancipatory Idea. Who has the authority to make such interpretations? This is what it comes down to in many cases, since the New Testament lends itself to multiple interpretations. So to take a couple simplistic examples, when Jesus says “upon this rock I shall build my church” to Peter, one group understands him to be saying that Peter is to fulfill the function of a first bishop/pope/leader, while others understand Jesus to be saying that the person of Peter takes second place to Peter’s confession. Who decides? Of course the answer reflects a number of factors, all having very little to do with Scripture and much more to do with culture and politics. Another example is Luther and the other Reformer’s inability to settle on a uniform understanding of Eucharist. Apparently “Take eat, this is my body” can be interpreted a number of ways! Some of the other Reformers said, “Of course this is symbolic, the bread and wine do not literally become the flesh and blood of Christ”. Luther basically responded, “But this is quite simply what the Lord said: This is my body!” In the end Luther didn’t go in for a full transubstantive understanding, but he nevertheless didn’t side with the others. Who was right and who was wrong? Who has the authority to decide?
Have you not taken the position that the Christian scriptures belong to those who interpret them a certain way? It takes for granted that an "orthodox" interpretation is somehow free from cultural/political/historical influence. But of course when "most Christians" read Scripture they do so with a number of assumptions already in place, informed by these influences. What materialist interpreters are interested in, myself included, is the radical core of Christianity. Our theology is informed not just by a tradition that doesn’t allow any divergences or application of other systems of thought, but by our present understanding of the cosmos and history, by the work of philosophers, and by a hermeneutic which is not encumbered by the limitations placed on classical theology by the self-proclaimed “orthodox”.