The Church (fragment of a thought)

[...] One is reminded here of Jesus’ reinstatement of Peter. Jesus asked Peter three questions regarding whether Peter loved him or not, which were then quickly followed by the statement “feed my sheep/lambs.” Here community love is inseparable from the call to action, to “come follow me.” It is perhaps no accident that when Peter was about to follow Jesus and asked about one of his comrades who lingered behind Jesus responded with “what is that to you,” somewhat reminiscent of his response in the incident with the man who wanted to bury his dead relative but was quickly told by Jesus that the “dead can bury their own dead.” It is as if he was saying “Do not forget your task. Your subjectivity is not composed of worrying about another’s status, but your fidelity to the mission.” Here then is the proper way to understand communitas: not as an intimate community in which we get to find out each other’s deepest feelings and personal life stories, eliminating every perceived distance between one another. Communitas must include Jesus’ “what is that to you” element... Is this not also what many community churches and communist totalitarianisms have in common: the similar drive to know each other’s private thoughts, a refusal to grant any private “inner” space, making every personal idiosyncrasy or desire part of the commons (and then often collectively punished in some way)? The Christian subject’s proper response to the injunction to confess or share some inner part of oneself is therefore: “what is that to you?” The greater truth here is the task of the Church, i.e. the task set before the emancipatory collective.

Is it possible to detect here the difference between a kind of outward objective truth and a more inward subjective one? In other words, is the striving for “understanding-each-other” not a reflection of the recognition of the truth of subjective inner experience, versus another understanding of truth not located primarily in subjective experience, but in action and in an Idea? I wonder how much the former is a reflection of a kind of Schleiermacherian influence on religious subjectivity, and indeed post-modern culture, forced no doubt by the Enlightenment and modernity, and as such is more of a symptom perhaps than an influence. When the conception of an objective yet personal God was being severely called into question by science and modern reason, the move inward was a logical one. One should, however, refer to Wilhelm Dilthey here who suggested this inward move was already present in Christianity from the beginning, against the objectification of truth by the ancient Greeks:

For the Greek mind, knowing was mirroring an objective thing in the intelligence. Now [i.e., in Christianity], experience becomes the focal point of all the interests of the new communities; but this is just simple awareness of what is given in personality and in consciousness of the self.... With the enormous interest they generate, experiences of the will and of the heart swallow up every other object of knowledge.... If this community faith had immediately developed a science perfectly appropriate to it, that science would have to rest on the foundation ultimately resting on inner experience.

It was only the necessary institutionalization of the Church for the sake of administering a fallen Roman Empire and preventing anarchy that led to the suppression of this inward move: “Indeed the remnants of the ancient social institutions, and the culture they expressed rested on the shoulders of the Church.” What if, however, one were to read this situation from a Zizekian perspective? What if this outward rigidity of the Church was indeed its very necessary political expression? It is not that “oh no, the early Church lost its true inward character, exchanging rich inward experience for cold institutional control,” but rather that the institutional Church was the direct expression of Christianity’s kingdom self-understanding. Here the Church made precisely the move from “social movement” to Universal Singular, seizing the opportunity to relate to the social totality. For this reason the Church could never make the “Cincinnatus” move and dump the Empire at first opportunity after restoring security. Its program was total and all-encompassing. It could only be forced out by other political players, and indeed it slowly was, until finally succumbing at the political level at the very moment its objective foundation was greatly undermined: i.e. the Enlightenment and the death of the objective God, the Schleiermacherian move towards inward authenticating religious experience.

Theological Thought (an excerpt)

On a broader level Zizek and Badiou’s engagement of theological material raises another question. What is the status of theological thought? Who “owns” it, i.e. who has the right to engage in and utilize it? Is it the special possession of faith traditions, somewhat like the knowledge and apparatuses of various scientific disciplines, or can non-faith participants legitimately comment on religious theology? In other words, does it have the same status as communist egalitarianism, as pointed out by Rancière a propos failed communist communities:

They did not fail, as the opinion goes, because individuals could not submit to the common discipline. On the contrary, they failed because the communist capacity could not be privatized. The sharing of the capacity of anybody could not be turned into the virtue of the private communist man.

Insofar as egalitarianism, ethics, and the Event (in the sense of creative novelty) are concerned, can the Church (or any other monotheistic tradition) not admit that in the past it has “privatized the capacity of anybody,” has made these categories virtues of the religious community as if without the Church everyone would only do “what was right in his/her own eyes,” as if there could be no new subjective creation without the coming of the new person in Christ? It was Alan Watts, that once Anglican minister cum Zen Buddhist who summed up the state of homily during his time in the Church: “So much of the preaching we hear on Sunday morning comes down to this: ‘My dear people, be good!’” So much should be admitted. Does this not reflect, however, a kind of theology that is little more than humanism? If so it is merely a reflection of a kind of contemporary theology concerned with seeming relevant, having given up on the more problematic core of Christian thought, what Badiou refers to as a “fabulation:” the historical status and meaning of the Resurrection. The Church too is not without its reactionaries here. For them the Resurrection is not a historical category but like Badiou, merely provides a hermeneutical substrate for further thought regarding the human subject/community. This too is so obviously a compromise with modernity, one that would cause the one who said “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” to roll over in his grave. It reflects a certain cultural type, or because we are speaking of Badiou and Zizek we might properly say “class,” that as a result of a life of relative comfort can no longer identify with the words that follow those just quoted: “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” In short, it reflects a decadent class theology.

Here then is the limit set upon the appropriation of theology. In so many instances, all of its resources are of the category “capacity of anybody.” It becomes privatized at precisely the point one can say “I have hope in Christ not just in this life only,” i.e. the Resurrection hope theology of the world’s destitute.

End of the World May 21

I usually don't spend too much time thinking about end of the world predictions, but this one has garnered such a large number of supporters (some who have sold everything they own to go out and preach to others), that I can't let it slip by without comment. Earlier this year I gave a lecture touching on the topic of apocalyptic Christianity. During the lecture I talked about Harold Camping, a pastor originally from Colorado. He has made the prediction, based on "sound" biblical evidence, that the world will forever be changed on May 21st, 2011.. that's right, two days from now will be Judgment Day. The international news agencies have started to pick up the story. It can't get much better than this. Think about it, here is a story about a fair sized organization spending oodles of money putting up billboards all around the world predicting the end of life as we know it, and when it doesn't happen, what will Camping and his followers do? What will the couple do who has given away all their money, and add to that the fact that this young lady is due to have a baby in June (link here)? From one perspective this is obviously sheer stupidity; from another, faith.

Just this morning I was speaking with a group of Jehovah Witnesses about the place of philosophy ("worldly wisdom") in faith. Their take was that it is basically of the devil and misleading. They would do well to consider Camping and his followers. There is some irony here, however, that makes our equation Faith=Stupidity more problematic. Camping arrives at the date he does based on mathematical calculations concerning Biblical numbers, i.e. rationally! (To see how he does it, and how he gets around some other issues click here and here). This is why the facile opposition Science/Reason vs. Faith/Irrational is simply misguided. Camping's work has a rationalistic framework. What an odd result takes place when modern thinking is applied to ancient scripture and prophecy.

Where will you be when the world ends? I'll be camping with a couple of Christian guys in the middle of nowhere. If I wake up May 21st to an empty campsite after a post-meal nap (around 6pm to be precise!), will I feel a sudden panic? No, I'll assume either they got lost somewhere, or are playing a little joke on me, both possibilities (especially the former) that are much more likely to happen than the prediction made by our rather aged gentleman Camping, who, it must be said, will have to meet his own judgment day May 21st.

Hell (final)

Zoroastrianism: an ancient religion that became the religion of the Persian Empire. It would influence all three Abrahamic religions, sometimes in quite startling ways. There is no doubt that Zoroastrianism itself was influenced by still more ancient beliefs (notably Babylonian), these reaching back into the mists of prehistory.

It has had its main influence on Judaism through its notions of angels and demons, as well as afterlife conceptions. From the lake of fire, to the battle between God’s angels and the dragon and his angels (I should point out that the Jewish notion of “Satan” already existed in Jewish religion, but it was Zoroastrianism that shaped it into what it was in Jesus’ time), to the resurrection of the dead and a new creation, the Zoroastrians had a great reservoir of theological ideas to draw from. Even casually reading through the Vendidad (Zoroastrian holy scriptures dating from perhaps 8^th century BCE) one can find other interesting parallels with the Christian NT. Take for example the following, a section highly resembling the temptation of Jesus by the devil:

“Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu:... Renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a boon as Vadhaghna gained, the ruler of the nations.'

Spitama Zarathushtra said in answer: 'No! never will I renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, either for body or life, though they should tear away the breath!'

Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: 'By whose Word wilt thou strike, by whose Word wilt thou repel, by whose weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel) my creation, who am Angra Mainyu?'

Spitama Zarathushtra said in answer: 'The sacred mortar, the sacred cups, the Haoma, the Word taught by Mazda, these are my weapons, my best weapons! By this Word will I strike, by this Word will I repel, by this weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel thee), O evil-doer, Angra Mainyu! The Good Spirit made the creation; he made it in the boundless Time.” (Vendidad 19:6-9).

Here Angra Mainyu (the evil one) comes to Zarathustra, the prophet of Zoroastrianism, to prevent him from destroying demons. It is a curious fact that in the gospel accounts it is not long after his temptation that Jesus begins to cast out demons (Mark 1:21: “Have you come to destroy us?”). The other similarities are obvious. In both this account and the gospels, the evil one comes to make demands on the hero. In both cases this involved renouncing the hero’s fidelity to their god. In both cases the hero uses a formula: “it is written.” Zarathustra: “By this Word will I strike, by this Word will I repel, by this weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel thee)” (here the Word of Mazda, the good God of creation). In the gospel accounts too the devil is repelled after the formulation. Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ Then the devil left him... (Matthew 4:10-11). The “Word,” as we know, will also be personified in Jesus himself who continued to cast out demons throughout his ministry.

An interesting aside: the translators of the New American Standard bible reference Exodus 8:19 for the following passage:

“And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges. "But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:19-20).
Exodus 8:19 is a reference to Pharaoh’s magicians calling the plagues a work of the “finger of God.” Here I wonder if we can’t use the connection with Zarathustra to our advantage. What if the context of Luke 11 would be better reflected in that other Hebrew scripture referring to the “finger of God”:
“The LORD gave me the two tablets of stone written by the finger of God; and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken with you at the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Here Jesus’ reference to “the finger of God” would reflect again a connection with the “for it is written” or the “Word taught by Mazda.” The demons, in other words, were being thrown out by nothing less than the “W/word of God.” Is it perhaps more than a coincidence that Deuteronomy didn’t take its final shape until the Babylonian and later Persian conquests? It’s provocative I think, but I have no time now to explore it further.

What are the implications of all this? You, thoughtful reader, will have to decide this in your own way. For some, it will make little difference, either because further thought is shut down to preserve its own status quo, or because faith has already become a lifestyle depending less on “truth” than social function. For others there is no issue because for them it is possible to think of God working behind the scenes of world religion, gradually bringing about a more complete expression of God’s will and purpose etc. For them Jesus is the culmination of this process (or the final Day), or Muhammad, the seal of the prophets. Still others may start to see things in their intricate interconnectivity, as informing and being informed (Judaism also informed later Zoroastrianism). For these God will also be working throughout, or God will be reduced to historical processes, contingent on political and sociological factors, not to mention environmental ones as well (famine, disease, etc). Or perhaps none of this floats your boat in the first place. Whatever the case I beg that you take Nietzsche’s admonition seriously: “If you wish to strive for peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you wish to be a disciple of truth, then inquire.”

Hell (part V)

As I’ve previously indicated, the Jews of Jesus’ time were informed by various apocalyptic writings. The most important of these for our purposes was the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. The Christian NT includes a quotation, found in Jude (Enochic source noted by 2011 version of the NIV):

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 14-15)

Compare Enoch 1:9

“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

That Jude is quoting from this writing is obvious from the attribution “Enoch, the seventh from Adam” also found in the Book of Enoch 60:8. For this reason some of the Church Fathers considered this writing inspired, while others took another track and decided Jude couldn’t be inspired! But Jude isn’t the only place Enoch shows up. 1 Peter 3:19-20 also draws on the Enochic tale of the pre-Noahic fall of humankind and the vision of their subsequent imprisonment, something not found in canonical scripture:

“After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water..”

For the sake of time I will quote a few passages here from Enoch (there are many more), later taken over by the Christian NT, dealing with the idea of hell or fiery punishment:

“In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations.” 10:13-14

“Woe to you, ye sinners, on account of the words of your mouth, And on account of the deeds of your hands which your godlessness as wrought, In blazing flames burning worse than fire shall ye burn.” 100:9

“And into darkness and chains and a burning flame where there is grievous judgement shall your spirits enter; And the great judgement shall be for all the generations of the world.
Woe to you, for ye shall have no peace.” 103:8

“And from thence I went to another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss, being full of great descending columns of fire: neither its extent or magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. Then I said: 'How fearful is the place and how terrible to look upon! ' Then Uriel answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said unto me: 'Enoch, why hast thou such fear and affright?' And I answered: 'Because of this fearful place, and because of the spectacle of the pain.' And he said unto me: 'This place is the prison of the angels, and here they will be imprisoned for ever.” 21:7-10 (See especially here Jesus: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matt. 25:41, also Rev. 20).

We cannot, however, rest easy having identified an important origin of the NT notion of hell. That the Ethiopic Book of Enoch has influenced the writers of the NT is well-established and easy to demonstrate. This was a Jewish text with its origins in pre-Christian times. Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with it and didn’t hesitate to draw on its conceptions and themes (not limited to notions of hell). Many early Christians felt it was inspired. What I find fascinating, however, is the theological origin of the Book itself. In a previous post I have briefly discussed the Biblical notion of “Satan.” Once again, and finally, we will have to shift our gaze from the ancient Jews and the later Christians, to that once great civilization famous for, among other things, its comprehensive and highly influential religion: Persia.