First of all, sorry about the laptop. Even if you are open to other people taking your stuff, it can be annoying when they do.

Second, to your disputes with me. That's fine that you "see the Word of God" as that which you see it by, but that doesn't mean it's valid. You have to do a lot of wrangling to figure out how the world was interpreted before the scriptures were put together by a committee in whatever year that was, and also trying to figure out how this was done before writing happened. Before "the Word".

Further more , you may not buy that the churches politics aren't radical but they are. Except in some spurts - which should be celebrated and if you are participating in one of those spurts that's great! - the Church is utterly useless except for purposes of coercion.
Anthony Smith | 02.11.05 - 10:02 am | #

Angela, Thanks for joining us.
Adam Kotsko | 02.11.05 - 10:23 am | #

Whence does one find one's criteria by which to judge the validity of the Word of God? I'm not sure how either of us can answer that question to be honest.

I've no wrangling to do to find out how the world was interpreted prior to the Hebrew Bible or later. Why need I be interested in that? I mean, is it important how people understood "matter" before Aristotle? Before the Word, I presume that word was heard orally. Text is not that important apart from the community it creates.

I think that you've reversed yourself in your last paragraph, unless I've radically misunderstood what you're saying.

I would hold that the Church exists, not just as a form of coercion, but as a form of resistance to the coercion of others.
Angela | 02.11.05 - 10:39 am | #

I don't think I reveresed my position, but the poor use of grammar did. I mean the Church isn't radical, in most part, and that only small cells within the Church are. I think the problem is that we are refering with a singular name to a thing that is not one.

I think you have to deal with the word of God thing because you are saying it is how the world is to be understood. But, no one used the Bible the way we do now until a couple hundred years ago the way we do now.
Anthony Smith | 02.11.05 - 10:55 am | #

Angela and Anthony:

I think you are both right on here: all this talk about God, and the Word, and truth, and Paul, and the eucharist, etc. does not mean a damn thing, if we do not believe that God is able to create the kind of ecclesial body that we say God can.

(And that, not coincidentally, is really what strikes at the heart of what the Vanderbilt group is collectively all about.)
Nate | 02.11.05 - 11:28 am | #

Which ecclesial body, by the way, is not an entity that wins, but whose very person is poured out in cruciformity for the world.
Nate | 02.11.05 - 11:33 am | #

Great post.
Matt | Homepage | 02.11.05 - 1:04 pm | #

Nate,

Fine, but doesn't that mean that God has failed?
Anthony Smith | 02.11.05 - 2:32 pm | #

I wonder about God 'failing.' I rather think he succeeded temporarily, presiding over a much less extended period than did the dinosaurs. Anyway, if you can ever get to a country where Christianity has established itself but the natives still go on worshipping their old gods anyway, you find that theirs seem quite as convincing within their contexts, if not quite a bit more. Admittedly, Polynesians singing Protestant hymns is one of the loveliest things I've ever heard, bringing me to tears, but then they go home and never were then always already concerned with concepts of 'premarital sex.' That's helped me, because I've never had anything but premarital sex.
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.11.05 - 2:47 pm | #

Anthony,

I hear what you're saying about the Church only being radical in cells, and I am tempted to agree... I guess I don't think it should put people off the whole business of trying to be Church. I'd like it that the word "Church" could be used to refer to the whole, rather than just the faithful (or unfaithful) part, since that is part of the point. I'm willing to concede that it is doing a very bad job at the moment.

The Bible itself is constitutive of certain communities who have and will read it differently through different ages. I don't have a problem with it being read or used differently in one hundred years time. Indeed, prior to the printing press and use of the vernacular, I don't know how or if it was read at all. The community survived as a community, with what guidance they had though. Community survival is pretty important these days too.

Nate, I'm as suspicious of reference to "the Vanderbilt group", as I am to "the Yale school", not being terribly sure what is meant by it. I agree with you that the shape of the Church should be cruciform, and think that the failure is not God's but that of his people.
Angela | 02.11.05 - 3:12 pm | #

Angela: yeah, of course, any reference a "a Vanderbilt group" is absurd; I meant it for Anthony's benefit, really. (That is to say, it is only an expedient in this limited context, in clarification of the lines that have been drawn up in this discussion.)
Nate | 02.11.05 - 3:43 pm | #

Well thanks Nate, I always appreciate things done for the benefit of the poor lowly one.

Abortion, Vanderbilt school, the Church is better than everyone else. That about sums it up.
Anthony Smith | 02.11.05 - 3:44 pm | #

Anthony.

I have tried really hard to be conciliate with you in particular these last couple of days -- as much as that is against my nature. I have not always succeeded, but I have tried. I have read your posts closely, sometimes 4-5 times, being sure to catch every word, so as to understand your positions, I have spent excessive amounts of time clarifying my own positions, I have conceded to at times, and I have at no point caricatured your position, and I have laughed at your jokes.

Granted, my arrival on this scene a week ago was abrupt, presumptuous, and arrogant. But I did promise that I'd hang around and substantiate my premature claims. And I am doing that.

So allow me to address your three points:

1) As to assessing much of what is done here as aborted theology: as unsubstantiated and as strident a claim as that is, I really meant it. It is not a judgment of character or a personal attack: It is simply to say that I think the positions that were being and have been articulated (on St. Paul, in this case) could only have been reached, in part, by a failure to give birth to a certain theological impulse, and by a failure to nurture the theo-logic underlying the thoughts of another that are being appropriated. And I think that is done often on this site, which, as a reflection of your work, I cannot help but seeing as symptomatic of your scholarship: hence, my reference to some of you as theologians manquee. (Maybe I shouldn't have said it, but I did, and that is that; all in all, the statement itself is not manifestly malicious.)

2) "Vanderbilt School": You used it first, presumably suggesting that we represent a united front in this debate; I don't think we do, but if we are united around something, it is around that which I pointed out in my post (as JD as already said in response to you).

3) I have never said that "the Church is better than anyone else." Your accusation here makes very little sense to me.

Let me close by saying this: I don't know you, Anthony; and I don't think you can get to "know" someone via such things as a blog. So I'm not attempting to be personally derisive in my exchanges with you. Just know that from now on. And if I say something that sounds as such, take it as a challenge to respond, and to prove me wrong: for that is all it really is.

(Now, to Adam K.: I think you understand that some of this, between us, *is* personal. That is part of the reason I resisted commenting on this site for so long. I have tried not to let that get in the way; but at times it inevitably will, and so will be a detriment to the true catholic spirit of things, and for that I am sorry.)
Nate | 02.11.05 - 4:33 pm | #

Nate,

1) Well that's nice. Since I don't care about theo-logic, the Church, and I prefer to work with abortions rather than attempting to defend orthodoxy then all your opinions are fine. They can't be refuted, since it this is all a matter of mere opinion. As it reflecting on my scholarship, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I claimed to be a scholar of theology and I certainly never claimed to defend orthodoxy (I have this thing where until Christians can just enjoy a good ass-fucking, they aren't really worth defending).


2) The VS was a joke. I was mocking much of the arrogance being thrown around by you and DD concerning the supremacy of theology with regards to understanding human life.

3) It was implied throughout everything you've said. Though you likely wouldn't want to admit you think the Church constitutes something better than what other people have, it is written underneath many of your assertions.

You don't know me, but I know of you. I've even tried to talk to you before (you don't remember, it seems). I don't see how any of that is relevant though. You feel as though the views and work done by my friends are either a waste of time or not as good as yours, and I feel as if most theologians can't deal with the brute fact that the Church as such is an abject failure. I'm surprised you feel offended since it seems ok for you to call people out (even call them assholes).

I should probley erase this.
Anthony Smith | 02.11.05 - 5:54 pm | #

Honesty is a valuable thing.

I can only guess at the specifics of the "personal" tension between us (at least from your end), and I see no need to enumerate the possible "personal" obstacles from my end. It doesn't seem to have caused major problems up to now, and perhaps it will continue not to.
Adam Kotsko | 02.11.05 - 6:19 pm | #

Anthony.

I tried. I'm not an easy person to get along with in person; I don't know why I'd expect much else here. Oh, well.

You said: "...I feel as if most theologians can't deal with the brute fact that the Church as such is an abject failure."

Well said. On that, at least, we are agreed.

Adam K.: You run a really nice website. It is the only one I ever read with any kind of regularity at all.
Nate | 02.11.05 - 8:15 pm | #

Anthony.

One more thing. (And I hope by the sheer volume of my posts recently you can tell that this is really bothering me -- on a very personal level, which is really unusual.)

It really concerns me that in anything that I said you heard me saying that "the Church is better than anyone else." You should not conflate my position with DD's (even if DD is saying that, which I don't think he is). The one thing I did say, was that only in and through Jesus Christ can the world truly be seen as *created*, and so truly seen as our way into the life of the triune God. I am saying this as a dogmatic theologian, and as commentary upon the church's creed. Precisely because as a theologican I take Christ as absolute, I take him as incommensurate with the norms of a fallen world; and so I see no *final* harmonious accord between theology and other disciplines as possible within the limits of this world. The refusal of any such agreed and univocal demarcation (see my last post on Husserl), though it may look like and be called arrogance, is really no more than respect for the methodological demands of theology as a science.

I take your point that you have never claimed to be a theologian and that you do not want to be referred to as one. But I also think you need to hear JD's point: we really are trying to work on behalf of some of your concerns. And I, for one, really do think that part of theology's failure here is that it wants a church that "wins."

I only ask, Anthony, that when you read my posts you read *what* I am saying, and take them at their letter. I agonize over these posts: because I want to mean what I say and say what I mean.
Nate | 02.11.05 - 9:04 pm | #

That is completely fair. I apologize and will try to be a better reader. Honestly, I sympathize since I'm not easy to get along with in real life either (just ask my poor wife).
Anthony Smith | 02.12.05 - 12:13 am | #

Damn, I just got home from a bachelor party with a plastic, blow-up G.I.L.F (hint: first word is "granny") named Gurtie, but it looks like much more was going on in here.

Anthony, the sheer fact that Nate is admitting that he is hard to get along with is a testimony to the fact that he wants to maintain a dialogue with you (believe me.)

Also, I think that Nate actually believes that what he believes is ulimately true, and that is what makes up the substance of his claims. I don't think that he should apologize for this; he only needs to substantiate it - in more detail, over time.

Patrick, comparing anyone's prose to Martin Amis' is, in the end, a compliment, even if it was intended to be backhanded. We would all love to be so inspired by Nabokov wouldn't we?

(Dammit, I want to be the anti-liberal, non-conciliar motherfucker - for once on this goddamn blog! Give me a provocative topic.)
JD | 02.12.05 - 12:57 am | #

I know we are a long way from Angela's post by now, but ... nice post.

I hope to be able to converse with you sometime about your Christian community as my wife, kids and I will be joining or helping to start one this fall.
old | 02.12.05 - 3:53 pm | #

Alright, I need to make a couple more clarifications (for my lengthy near 6500-word clarification, see the comment thread to Anthony's post). Above, you will notice that I said that I did not write the last sentence of my post and that I had a couple of beers and was thus slightly influenced by the alcohol when I made the decision to include it. Let me be perfectly honest because I feel like this released a lot of unfair attacks on Nate.

1) If you read closely, I said that I did not write the last sentence (which I didn't), but that I really agreed with it nonetheless. I was highlighting the fact that had I not had a couple of beers, it might of been easier for me to see that the use of the word "have" was exactly in line with everything else I was saying in the post, and with everything else I have been saying about poverty for so long. I absolved myself from the use of the word *only* because so many of you attached what was being said to "possession" (I think this began with Anthony's post). But, also as I said above, this is the opposite both of what I intended, *and* with the use of the word "have." And, finally, as I indicated above, the use of the word "have" (which was Nate's, and he needs to have full credit for this because he's fucking right!) signified (and still does) that Paul (or Christianity, more generally) *cannot* be "had" or "possessed," and this is *exactly* what Zizek and Badiou are doing with Paul--laying claim. So, Anthony, back off a bit. If you have a beef with Nate personally, get over it. If you have a beef with what is being said, then let me field those questions (since I started it). I am really ready to do this now. I wasn't before (and I still don't have internet access, so it will be a limited and slow conversation), but leave Nate alone. Alright? That also means that Nate will be more free to participate in these conversations. I am simply trying to cool the waters since I kind of stirred them up in the first place. My second post is coming soon, and it will be good.
Dave Belcher | 02.13.05 - 8:10 pm | #

[I started to make a numbered list and forgot I was doing the whole number thing, which is why there is only a number "1"]
Dave Belcher | 02.13.05 - 8:11 pm | #

Dave,

Nate needs to learn to back off too. He doesn't get a free pass to call people assholes, abortions, and all other sorts of insults. I think his ideas are toxic and his personality is too. If he is going to be hard to get along with, he should be prepared to have other people treat him the same way.

It really seems like this whole "you may not have Christianity" is problematic and wrong on a couple counts. The first being, it seems like a power move to say "you can't have it, but since I know no one can have it I don't not have it." Second, I don't think anyone has the tools to sort out what is part of Christianity and what isn't. Nothing seems to have the kind of unity of being as you are trying to suggest the Church has.
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 9:12 am | #

Is this disagreement going to come down to a misreading/argument over reading the word "can't" in Dave's post as "may not?"
JD | 02.14.05 - 10:09 am | #

Dammit, you aren't fucking listening. I'm not suggesting any kind of unity of being or possession. Both of your assumptions here are flat out wrong. This is not what either Nate or I am suggesting. The Church isn't *more* mine or Nate's because it's no one's. that's just stupid. When I say that the church is not in anyone's possession, I mean two things: first of all, that the Church has fucking disappeared in America; and secondly, that in order to let the Church be, it must be released from possession (and like I've already reiterated like 3 or 4 times, this means for *both* theologians and philosophers alike--and laity). I think you just aren't paying attention, and you are being extremely defensive, here.
Dave Belcher | 02.14.05 - 10:11 am | #

No, I was simply saying what I thought your position to be. You really don't have to get mad about it if I am misunderstanding you.

I don't disagree with the sentiment that all have to give up posession of the Church, but I don't think that is what is actually happening. For instance, Nate has suggested that there is a proper(ty) theology that should be done. That means something and that something is just something i'm trying to point out.

It looks like Thomas Bridges will be joining Vanderbilt's theology program in the fall (unless he gets into Duke, for some reason that is his first choice).
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 10:33 am | #

Anthony.

Could you please point out where I have said that there is a "proper" theology that should be done? And I would ask that you not say it is implied in what I have said; I have been very careful *not* to say this, in fact. If anything, I have said that doing theology requires dispossession, because that is precisely what it means to be the church (that is the only way I have ever spoken of the church in these threads).

Who is Thomas Bridges?
Nate | 02.14.05 - 11:59 am | #

Nate, how do you distinguish theology as a (i)particular(i) discourse from theology as a (i)proper(i) discourse? It seems to me that one must be able to distinguish theology from non-theology somehow. And I'm not clear on how exactly you intend to make this distinction, which I believe you do want to make.
JD | 02.14.05 - 12:14 pm | #

I did those italics all wrong. Sorry.
JD | 02.14.05 - 12:16 pm | #

"And one more thing: If by chance some real theologians try to do some good theology on this site, and if by chance that good theology happens at times to resort to reductive readings of certain critical theorists and philosophers, then so be it. For if such readings make any headway in unmasking the faux-theology that is done on this site, and expose you to be the theologians manquee that you are (if only via the ad hominem polemic that it evokes from you), then I'm all for it."

If you are going to say that "faux-theology" is what is done here, then this suggests you believe in "vrai-theology", which can be distinguished from bad theology. Am I wrong in thinking there is a certain proper order to truth when it comes to theology?
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 12:35 pm | #

JD, you forgot one step: (i), word, (i/). And, as I found out, this functions just as if you are using an italics button so you have to turn it off when you're done...I think. Maybe the first one turns it on and the second one closes it, but it didn't work that way. Here, I'll try some italics.

Anthony, I got "pissed" because you were justifying your anger towards Nate by your misreading. JD is right...if this comes down to the word "can't" in my sentence "You...cannot have Paul," as "may not" rather than "can not, then you are completely misunderstanding, because I am saying that "you" cannot have Paul. This is not drawing boundaries. I think there is a lot of residue here from your perception of Radical Orthodoxy, which you also see as dualistic and pitting a "proper" theology against "improper" everything else. But, that's not what's happening here (which is why I said that what you are saying, and I still mean by you here Zizek, Badiou, and their disciples, is no different than what Milbank's doing!). I would say more but I'm only allowed on this computer at work for a brief amount of time every so often. But, I did want to say, by the way, that I'm not "pissed" at you, but rather your argumentation. There really is a difference. Don't take offense. Great news about Thomas. I need to talk to him. Tell Jesse hi too.
Dave Belcher | 02.14.05 - 12:46 pm | #

Dammit haloscan you bastard! How do I turn the fucking italics off?!
Dave Belcher | 02.14.05 - 12:47 pm | #

Use this tag. () ()
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 12:59 pm | #

Damn it.

You just forgot to close it out.

You need to have a slash before em, like /em at the end of your word.

You're right, I'm not convinced that Nate and others aren't doing a dualistic thing.
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 1:00 pm | #

subsituting ( for "less than" and ) for "greater than":

(i)text(/i)

The slash comes before the i in the closing tag.

Thanks.
Adam Kotsko | 02.14.05 - 1:03 pm | #

The quote that Anthony pulled out was pretty hard to read in the way Nate apparently wanted it to be read, especially when he came out of nowhere and announced that he was going to carry forward a debate that (a) he wasn't even participating in before and (b) I had politely asked to be closed until Dave was done making a more definitive statement of his views as such, rather than just in the course of defending himself from varied attacks.

So I get the impression that Nate's going to be bringin' the real theology up in here, as opposed to us luke-warm pansy-ass pranksters, playing our little textual games.
Adam Kotsko | 02.14.05 - 1:09 pm | #

Okay. I'll try this one more time: I have tried to clarify my first ill-fated statement about faux-theology. I'll do this in a few points (but this may be futile, since no one seems to be reading very closely):

1.) I do think that there is "good" theology and "bad" theology; but that is different from saying that there is a theology "proper." To say the latter is to say that there is a certain province within which theology is done; theology would thus be "improper" when done outside of this province. "Good" and "bad" theology (or "true" and "false") is much more a matter of locality and context: and is in fact much more a matter of how one carries out one's "textual game."

2.) So, in this particular case, by my use of faux-theology, I was simply suggesting that the reading of Paul that was being proferred is implausible, insofar as it is dependent upon a certain occlusion of a theological impulse at the heart of Paul's writings on law, sin, and grace, which occlusion it then makes up for through a certain series of theological "mis-steps." That is, in its demythologization of certain theological aspects of Paul (i.e., the resurrection and the eschatological resurrection of the dead), it actually re-mythologizes the eschatological material in Paul, by immanentizing it in a neo-gnostic kind of way. (So my criticism has nothing to do with any of you ever have claimed to be or not to be a theologian "proper"; in fact, it is meant to be an indictment of the fact that, in order to get the reading of Paul you are after via Badiou and Zizek, you have have to be unwittingly theological.

3.) And I do see such theological mis-steps as occurring often on this site: but nobody here is pointing them out, until Dave B. did it and started getting hammered. We (JD, DD, and I) were simply not going to let that string of posts end with his getting hammered in such a way -- by our coming in as and when we did, it ensured that he would not be alone when in fact the discourse continued and he posted his full argument. (And by the way, Adam, I have been a part of this conversation for quite a while, inasmuch as I have been a part of conversations that motivated Dave B.'s posting on this site in the first place.) My "real" appearance here was and remains on behalf of my friend and brother, who is doing some damn good theological work these days. He is spending his days and his nights, his waking and sleeping hours, reading, thinking and praying about this stuff. He is learning what it means to live his life liturgically, moment by moment, always on the way to "church," even when he's not sure if the church is even "there." He is learning what it means to be a husband, and a father, in a way that is a true sign -- a sacrament -- of the love God gives us in Jesus Christ. He is learning what it means for Christianity not to be just a "thought-project", but a real *praktike* -- and to learn that true intellecti
Nate | 02.14.05 - 1:51 pm | #

[cont.] ...He is learning what it means for Christianity not to be just a "thought-project", but a real *praktike* -- and to learn that true intellection, true *theoria*, arises precisely here.

In short, his work is hardly the result of a naivete: and if my being the scapegoat for all of this ensures that his work is taken seriously on here from now on, then so be it.
Nate | 02.14.05 - 1:52 pm | #

Angela, I think that this is a very good post, by the way. I do, however, believe that a good deal of Dave's and Nate's agreement with you has been lost in the semantic shuffle here. I think a lot of the problem may having something do with what you have said about the text not living without the community that reads it. This seems to point toward the notions of tradition(s), and the various ways in which we understand that idea. So, a question: To what extent does this discussion change when the notion of a reading tradition/culture is put into play? Many of Anthony's comments (and Adam's at times) appear to assume that the tradition(ed) reading of Scripture distorts, peverts, or alters significantly the meaning of the text. Most of what Nate and Dave (and me) seem to presuppose is a much more fluid, complex, yet distinct unfolding of that meaning. Is this a fair characterization?

(i)italics test(/i)
JD | 02.14.05 - 1:57 pm | #

Nate,

It's coming to the point where I can't say anything without being accused of reading you poorly. Now, I do hope you can forgive me for not being so certain of things as you are (I know, you aren't certain either and I'm misreading you, even though you put out these propositions and sentences).

I also hope you can forgive me for not learning what Christianity means to be true practice. Of course you don't know me, so I won't say 'fuck you' to the implication (I know, you don't imply anything EVER!). So what are you creditentials? Do you have a poor, single mother living with you? Have you done any actual practice outside of study? I'm sure you at least volunteer your weekends at a soup kitchen, right? If not, what the fuck is this true Christian practice you are talking about? Believing in the resurrection? Does it finally boil down to beliefs?

Liturgy? What the fuck does that even mean? Has anyone ever fucking done that? I'm so sick of this vocabulary that has nothing at all to do with Bubbie, or any of the other fucking poor, homeless men whose lives are ruined by the dialectic we live in. Living your life liturgically? Waiting for God to come save them? When is the last fucking time God did something like that?

I am not contesting that Dave is a good person, because I know he is. But fuck you for even implying that the work done by Adam is lazy, misappropriaton of "good theology" (which of course doesn't mean proper, how could it?).

You know what is pissing me off the most about this? I feel like I'm dealing with Church people who have hearts of glass when they are challanged to explain anything, but are the most vicous when you put something forward. Dave B. was not being hammered, he began the conversation a bit hostile and people responded in turn.

I can't even explain to you how fucking pissed off I am now.
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 3:48 pm | #

Nate,

Consider yourself scapegoated. I eagerly await Dave's next contribution.

JD,

No, it's the pointy brackets -- I was replacing them with the corresponding normal parentheses. For the opening one, push shift+comma, for the closing push shift+period. < >
Adam Kotsko | 02.14.05 - 4:57 pm | #

Anthony--I can't actually be a part of this (even though Angela did somewhat break through the 'academy requirement' that this discussion was supposedly only to be allowed within if the 'truth' was to be found; and which certainly excluded me, although to no great dismay, I can assure you); but it does seem to me you have remembered the chronology right, and that you have responded intuitively correctly to what seems very much like a closed system that pretends to have an open dialogue with something that it doesn't really respect, but knows it cannot quite say that it has already reached its conclusions before beginning the discussion. Then all sorts of kid-glove 'I wasn't angry with YOU' and 'I wasn't being dismissive,' as if dismissiveness was the truly most scary thing that might happen. (After all, with dismissiveness, people do separate and are left dealing with the world of capitalism and the rest of earthly reality without some of the coziness.)
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.14.05 - 5:58 pm | #

Anthony: It's not that you read Nate poorly, your simply read poorly, period. I've been saying that to you since last week. So you apparently didn't read my posts closely, either. Hardy har.

[Note to self: why am I writing in to this blog again? On a new thread even? Just when everything had gotten all cozy in the other thread. Who says Christians aren't secretly ascetics/masochists?]

Since several people have attempted, kindly or otherwise, to clarify my position here (thank you and thank you, respectively), let me digress for a moment and state for the record:

1) I have a degree in philosophy as well as theology, and yes, absolutely, I do assert "the superiority of theology". As a philosopher (or even a philosopher manquee) you have the glorious option of constantly taking another step back and saying "yeah, but how do you justify that, nyah nyah" and never have to actually stand firm for anything - certainly not a tradition (or the tradition, so I can soundmore haughty). Non-foundational theology and non-foundational philosophy are not playing at the same game, in my opinion, and the latter is nihilism in the bad way.

2) So yes, there will be times and positions that I take that will not be justified in a way you might like. It is about proper belief for me, and it is about the marshalling the power to robustly enact those beliefs. I speak for myself: Nate, JD and Belcher all want to admit a failing church. I would rather arm it. Clear enough?

3) So it should also go without saying that, yes, I do claim that "the Church is better than anyone else" (sorry, Nate).

4) And on the subject of being better, when bashing the efforts of those of us trying to "live like Christians" in the midst of capitalism and its entailments: do not forget that it was the Church that stayed behind in plague-ridden villages helping the sick, that the Church built the first universities of which all the places you've gained all this wonderful "knowledge" are descendents, and that the Church has sheltered and preserved the truth for two milennia - longer than empires, marketplaces, or your criticisms (ah, you're not going to like that last one). You guys are pikers.

5) I am a Christian who does indeed "enjoy a good assfucking." Anthony, I am ready to be defended.


Angela: Thanks for the post - I disagree with an early point, though I am not sure how to jstify the disagreement since it speaks to the heart of the point in the first place. Or rather, I agree with the point, but not your conclusion from it:

"The scripture means nothing without the community who reads it" is such an essential, brilliant, exactly right claim. I agree. That community must, however, work to maintain the integrity of its interpretive tradition, and a result of that is that certain readings accrue truth-value and others are (rightly) suppressed. Not just nay old community can re
David Dault | 02.14.05 - 7:26 pm | #

...not just any old community can read the scriptures and find truth, can they? Is there not a mandate to keep some who would read destructively from reading the texts? I am curious how you can be so laissez faire on this point, and would like to hear more.

Nate: You are too conciliatory. Fight to WIN, man.

Adam: I am still working on the name thing, but I wish you well.

As for the rest of you posters:
Scoff at orthodoxy all you like; you'll get yours in Hell.
David Dault | 02.14.05 - 7:30 pm | #

"It's not that you read Nate poorly, your simply read poorly, period."

It's hard to read well when you have sentences like this.

Everything that you have said is just so fucking stupid that it is not only impossible to talk about it, but it is a complete waste of time when you should be out for a run, training to arm the Church. At the very least you could be volunteering your time at a homeless shelter.
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 9:26 pm | #

Mr. Dault is truly Divine, and was excellent in 'Hairspray.' I've long thought Charles Ludlam's 'Turds in Hell' needed reviving, but I'm not sure Anthony and Adam or any of the other goddam posters care anything about the theatre, so I'll see if I can chat up some backers' auditions.

'5) I am a Christian who does indeed "enjoy a good assfucking." Anthony, I am ready to be defended.'

Mr. Dault, this is utterly wonderful and sounds as though it might be the creed of the 'New Southern Spotless Woman.' I had never thought of getting ass-fucked as a means of being kept all tosy and cosh, but I am going to give it some serious thought...
it might mean I could get that new wall unit I've been dreaming about...
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.14.05 - 9:28 pm | #

Well now there's a series of warm welcomes.

As a reader of philosophy, I do understand ad hominem, so I will assume that's what's behind the rejoinder that what I wrote was "so fucking stupid."

I've already been out for a run today. I make you apoplectic as a way of relaxing afterward.

While I think you are right, Anthony, to keep hammering the "service" end of Christianity, let's not forget that even the Nazis gave bread to the poor. There is something to the belief, after all, that we don't live simply by bread alone.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think attacking me and calling me stupid is a proper way of "defending" me, and here I was simply admitting that I was the type of Christian you had been longing for. I go out on a limb like that, and that's the thanks I get. You're a fucking tease, Smith.

Mr. Mullins, what you wrote was just plain funny, and I appreciate it. Too bad the one it was intended for wasn't quite so 'charitable'.

Oh and Mr. Smith, sinc eyou found that sentence so troublesome: I might say there are several volunteer organizations to help you with your reading skills. I'd be glad to recommend some. I even have volunteered my time with them on occasion.
David Dault | 02.14.05 - 10:03 pm | #

Even the nazi's gave the poor bread? Wow. I guess you're right. You win.

Fucktardery.
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 10:45 pm | #

Oh, he might well be much more 'charitable,' Mr. Dault. He will return from Ft. Lauderdale next week (I won't say what day,because you might put a hex on it), and that very evening we plan to commit adultery for the first time since January 23rd...however, I must say I am glad you don't get offended by my humour, as you seem a little sensitive, and I don't wish to hurt you at all. I just don't happen to be in the church, and don't mind going to hell, because heaven just doesn't sound all that interesting, with all those covered-dish suppers and warm smiles and those girls that sing 'Because' at weddings..
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.14.05 - 11:01 pm | #

'...and here I was simply admitting that I was the type of Christian you had been longing for. I go out on a limb like that, and that's the thanks I get. You're a fucking tease, Smith.'

I take that back, Mr. Dault. YOU are heaven. Now, despite the fact that I have gotten more pleasure out of your writing than I have any decent right to do, I do hope you'll stop laying yourself open with such cheerful willingness. For, you know, our Anthony is married and straight and is a slightly violent boy. Of course, we like that, but you need a husband you can call your own...
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.14.05 - 11:06 pm | #

You're right. I win. If you know your history, Buffalo, then you would know where I'm coming from.

Mr. Mullins, I think you have Heaven confused with Boise, Idaho. An understandable mistake.

I am sensitive. I bruise easliy. but I can take it like a man, rest assured, if you get enough liquor in me.

Speaking of liquor - seems you need a stiff one yourself, Mr. Smith. Your gills are showing. Truly, is this the finest you can muster? "Fucktardery"? Wow, that smarts.

Oh, I'm sorry, no it doesn't. It's pathetic. And here I thought I was the one s'posed to be "so fucking stupid." If you've nothing to say to me, quit blogging at me. This dreck isn't showing me or the other bloggers here your best side.
David Dault | 02.14.05 - 11:09 pm | #

Slightly violent?
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 11:10 pm | #

Mr. Mullins - thanks for the warning. And here I am baiting him.

However, we none of us should assume that merely because I'm not straight (yet) nor married (yet) does not entail that I am not myself a psychotic motherfucker. Years of pent-up rage waiting to be spent. So let's all consider the warning generalized, and raise the safety level of this blog to orange.

Being the change I wish to see in the world, I remain

Yrs, ever and truly,
David Dault | 02.14.05 - 11:14 pm | #

Anthony--I meant it as a compliment, of course, since I'm not exactly tame myself, and don't mind being as stinging as possible, as is well-known in these and other parts. I'm so beastly I actually criticized some grandiose idiot's prose the other day on his own blog.

But dear Mr. Dault is a nice fellow and we all have to live in whatever contexts we have got, so it's important not to flirt with people we are arguing with, I guess, unless we are truly planning to make a delivery...After all, Mr. Dault thinks he might even become straight and get married instead of being a sociopath, which I am sure he's not. However, I lived a straight life for a few years, with however, an enormous amount of adultery--and this homo adultery annoyed my poor parents for more than the woman I nearly married! Hell if she deserved 5 years of my virilia.
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.14.05 - 11:31 pm | #

Well hot damn.
Anthony Smith | 02.14.05 - 11:35 pm | #

should have read 'this homo adultery annoyed my poor parents far LESS than the woman...etc;'

Of course, I have gotten off topic...
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.14.05 - 11:37 pm | #

Well, this is very pleasant to feel drunk without having had any alcohol. Yes, I do not like 'flatulent prose' and I know it when I read it. Therefore, he who rarely gets comments on his blog, got a whole bevy of them, must be like a parade of fucking chorines; but you think I don't have reserve? I wouldn't even think of reading those comments I must surely have instigated. It is important to know when to be SPARSE!
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.14.05 - 11:41 pm | #

I AM a nice fellow. And nice looking, too. Y'all are too kind.

Hmmm. Off topic. Yes a wee bit, haven't we?

Too much fun to miss, though. Had to be done. Now: Good night, all, and very sweet dreams to you.
David Dault | 02.14.05 - 11:48 pm | #

Not to take away from the current conversation, which really only confirms that first, neither Anthony nor Patrick knows David Dault at all, and secondly, that Dault is a much better rhetorician, but let's back it up a bit (about 20 comments or so).

As Nate suggested way up there, I would like to correct something said earlier (I think it was by JD, if I'm not mistaken). We Vanderbilt people (call us the "Vanderbilt school" if you will) are in fact a "unified front" of sorts. That is, we are kind of like the way that Deleuze understands the univocity of being, but without the eternal return. We all speak from one place, and yet the expression of that sense is multiple. Nate, Josh, David Dault, and myself all speak together to say that the Church has disappeared (though David Dault would not agree with this language necessarily, he does in fact recognize the problem facing us)...and because we have spent the better part of a year thinking through simply how to articulate it, we have grown together, committed to one another and the Body of Christ in our world unconditionally. It is for this reason alone that Zizek, Badiou, etc. are the objects of our attacks: they not only ignore the problem, but perpetuate it. I still haven't said what the problem is because for one thing, it isn't something that can be said. Even if I said it, one would have to "have ears to hear" as it were...and that is by grace alone. Paul is thus not "had" at the expense of the Church, which is the means of God's grace in this world--the witness to the sin of this world, and thus the need for repentance, and to the coming of God's Kingdom, which will set the world aright. When this element is extracted from Paul, this does not in fact give us the opportunity for a better politics, but instead, the pervasive nature of evil (perfected...yes, fucking perfected in the global market) is perpetuated. A hint at what I mean: Zizek and Badiou, instead of having a "revolutionary politics" end up with both liberalism and capitalism writ large, which is the presence of sin in our time.

Most of what all of this means, though, is that Anthony, when you attack Nate, you really are attacking me too (and Josh and David Dault--though I know that you don't seem to care if you're attacking Dault...though I do). And, you in fact continue to cover over the problem of sin in our midst (and by "our midst" I mean in the larger world, not what is happening on this blog). And, goddamit, this is what I've been saying all along with the stuff on Paul. I am going to say all of this in my post. I would ask for a little more patience (much like the gracious patience that all of you gave me for the wait for my first post...)
Dave Belcher | 02.15.05 - 8:55 am | #

I think I'm giving up on italics and going back to the *'s. Let me try again. Is this right?
Dave Belcher | 02.15.05 - 8:57 am | #

Apparently not. Fuck it.
Dave Belcher | 02.15.05 - 8:57 am | #

'Not to take away from the current conversation, which really only confirms that first, neither Anthony nor Patrick knows David Dault at all, '

We never claimed to know each other, we were having a pleasant barroom-type conversation, and do NOT need your fucking review of it. And you certainly WERE trying to take away from the 'current conversation!' Church people think they have the right to meddle in private affairs of every one, including people that that the fucking church like me. But given that you try to speak, quite uninvited, for everything and everybody, I would respectfully submit that your original lost-temper comment at Anthony was barely distringuishable from your long-awaited post--and now there is a new long-awaited post in the offing. Is it going to be a fucking blockbuster?

'Even if I said it, one would have to "have ears to hear" as it were...and that is by grace alone. ' I can tell you something, you don't sound as though you've got the ears of grace. Anyway, what you can't stand is that Anthony, M. Dault and I had nice little artistic moment--and you want the lines drawn at strict dogma.

M. Dault is ultimately going to support you, but it was me and M. Dault and Anthony that had the 'ears of grace' in that conversation of ours that you tried to trivialize.

Frankly, you WANT attack lines drawn, you just can't believe it when the other side decides they will defend themselves. You attack like crazy yourself. Others may find any future post of yours worthwhile, but while I've remained quiet for most of this last part of your endless sequence, I do not find your repetitions at all credible, and think largesse has indeed been extended you by the proprietors.
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.15.05 - 10:03 am | #

'that that the fucking church like me' should have read 'that hate the fucking church like me.' What are you gonna do, have me excommunicated or something? Even Anthony and Adam like church enough to go on Valentine's Day Eve.
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.15.05 - 10:06 am | #

You really are a fuck nugget. I could give a shit about you or your "artistic moments." I claimed no fucking possession of grace motherfucker. I asked you to close your motherfucking mouth and listen (not because I have truth or because I am imposing my truth on your precious private life, but because you play the coy game of ignoring what everyone says in the attempt to make yourself feel better)--but your head is probably way too far up your ass for you to be able to hear anything. Yes, I can attack with the best of them. I never suggested that I shied away from polemics, just that conversation will *never* continue as long as you keep doing this kind of shit...and that's exactly what's happening, isn't it?
Dave Belcher | 02.15.05 - 10:45 am | #

David D. and Dave B.: Thank you.
Nate | 02.15.05 - 11:48 am | #

Oh, conversation will continue, monsieur, but not any longer on your oppressive terms. And I will not keep my mouth shut even to observe the concept of 'academy', which is the only point you made which should make people who aren't majoring in theology or philosophy or already have positions in the profession at least wait till those who are specialists have their say.

So, considering that you are all brutality about something that is quite obscure to the world of Reality, don't expect any more special respect from this quarter, as you have been at this project, which is more a filibustre than anything else, for almost 3 weeks. And you obviously think you can gain some strategic ground by extending the breathless awaiting, as if for a new epic, still longer.

You curse everybody out who calls you on anything, and so you will live with the fact that you are able to determine context only insofar as you CAN do so, not insofar as you DO want to, or think you SHOULD do so, courtesy of directives sent down from Lookout Mountain by Mother Church.

Your self-righteousness is a big bore to anyone who is living any kind of life at all, so an attempted appropriation of Paul from various captors is not going to be exactly hypnotic, if you know what I mean. I only wish those souls imprisoned by you could get free, because there certainly is a lot more out there than getting pedantic about miniscule issues over long weeks.
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.15.05 - 12:04 pm | #

Mr. Mullins - I think you and I might have had a nice "artistic moment". I think Mr. Smith missed it, and is perhaps a nincompoop. But I will probably be proved wrong on that point.

And let's be clear - artistic or not - I am the one who wants to see attack lines drawn here. Your salvo at Belcher is misplaced. You are attacking thoe posters (JD, Belcher, Nate) who might actually in some way ally themselves with your concerns with the church. They might well bring candles and sing "kum-by-yah". I will bring a flamethrower.

So let's save the vemon, hey, Puff-adder-daddy, for the mongoose in the house. Belcher's a grat guy, and very reasonable. I hate it that you make him mad enough to cuss. You don't realize what a mistake you're making. You should not attack so quickly.

I am eager to find new ways for the Church to meddle in your private lives, all of you. This will be a fun Spring.

(Hey vandy crew - I was kidding about the "kum-by-yah" stuff, wasn't I?)

Where's a compact thermonuclear warhead when you really need it?
David Dault | 02.15.05 - 12:04 pm | #

"those posters," and Dave Belcher is a "great guy".

I can't type for shit, apparently.
David Dault | 02.15.05 - 12:07 pm | #

"vemon"?

Venom. Arrgh.
David Dault | 02.15.05 - 12:09 pm | #

Mr. Dault--I do rescind my nostalgic memory of your desire to have it both ways, i.e., up the Church and up the Ass. If you are the prime schizophrenic divider, I will heretofore look at you all as nameless entities of the same heavy, ponderous lot of pushy church-stink that doesn't scare me a whit. I've smelled it before and have become immune.

While I realized you perceived Anthony in a delusional way and took seriously something he would have forgotten a few seconds after he said it, and thought you might seriously be a bit of-the-wall, beyond that you're on your own. After all, what was all that business about 'years of pent-up rage.' It's interesting that of the 'specialists' on either side, though, it is the one who opposes you most who fanned the desires to have your ass rendered full unto surfeit with his opposing prick.
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.15.05 - 12:14 pm | #

While I disagree with the way in which Patrick has said some things, he has some valid points. You and the Vandy crew are unwilling to take any criticism and dish it out without much thought (or so it seems). I may not know David, but from the way he has presented himself I don't ever want to. He acts like an asshole, and I've dealt with enough of those. I don't see how he is a superior rhetorican, instead I see an old man acting like a 15 year-old who has just read Nietzsche for the first time.

I know you don't want to hear it, but you guys act like you know you're better than non-Christians.

Whatever though, I'm done with this. I'll take whatever vow you want. I promise to never do theology again, will that do for you DD? So I guess you win. After all, I am merely an idiot that can't reconcile reality with what he has desperatly wanted to see happen his whole life. I'm glad you are in a better place.

This whole thing is sad.
Anthony Smith | 02.15.05 - 3:03 pm | #

Re: Dave B.'s comment -- "We all speak from one place, and yet the expression of that sense is multiple. Nate, Josh, David Dault, and myself all speak together to say that the Church has disappeared (though David Dault would not agree with this language necessarily, he does in fact recognize the problem facing us)"

David D., would you characterize your disagreement with Dave B., Nate, et al be about more than simply language? It seems to be a fundamental division in what Dave B. characterizes as a unifed front. They seem to regard the failure of the Church as something of a cruciform necessity ... whereas you are about the Church victorious.

Is this a fair assessment? If so, how do you reconcile your position to theirs?
Brad | Homepage | 02.15.05 - 3:12 pm | #

The closing tag for italics is < / i >.
Adam Kotsko | 02.15.05 - 3:23 pm | #

Except you erase the spaces, obviously.
Adam Kotsko | 02.15.05 - 3:24 pm | #

Brad.

Thank you so much for reading the posts and listening to our positions. And I do think you have pointed toward something of the heart of the difference between David D. and myself, Dave B., and Josh. The common problem we are facing that DB speaks of, is precisely what we have called the "disappearance" of the church, that is, the loss of an ecclesial body that can authorize a genuine witness to the truth of the gospel. Where we are divided, is on the conditions for the "resurrection" of the church today. DB, Josh, and I, want to speak much more in terms of cruciformity, a church militant under the conditions of the cross: i.e., a church for whom the resurrected body of Christ is a promise of a universal reality to come, and whose historical task is one of a cruciform mission. Dault, on the other hand, tends to think that it is high time to fight the final apocalyptic war to end all wars. His is much more an ecclesiology of the church triumphant, one that sees Jesus as resurrected in the church, and the church as the site of Jesus' lordship on earth. The church's task as such is not to point beyond itself to a reality it cannot contain (as it would be for myself, Josh, and DB), but to gather the world under the reign of God by gathering the world into the church. While I would disagree with Dault's position, it must be acknowledged that both positions have their historical antecedents, for sure. And it may come down to different readings of history and the eschaton, and of the church within that horizon. Which is part of why reading Paul right on the eschatological question is so important to us. A realized eschatology tends too easily toward a social triumphalism: whether ecclesial or not.

So this is the major difference, as I see it (which is significant): though we stand together in speaking to and for the church in its failure to be the church, we are somewhat divided on whether to stress the sense in which the church witnesses to a kingdom that is yet to come, or whether to stress the sense in which the kingdom can already be present here, in the church.

I hope that helps clarify things. And I hope I have been fair to Dault's position. He will revise it as needed, I suppose, if he can get a fair hearing. And I should add that there are nuances between what Josh and DB would say, and what I have laid out on our "side". So they should respond accordingly.

Thank you for your close reading and your kind question: it is one that has needed to be asked, in the right way.
Nate | 02.15.05 - 3:37 pm | #

How professorial.

I'm glad that Dault's position is sufficently divorced from reality since the last time the Church ruled the earth it was pretty ugly. Dare I say it, I think liberalism has done a better job of caring for human bodies than the Church during Christiandom ever did.
Anthony Smith | 02.15.05 - 3:41 pm | #

Anthony.

Do you care to let Dault clarify his position? Because it is actually a very sophisticated and nuanced position, and it will take some time, with repeated questioning on your part and response on his, to really get a handle on it. I only recently came to sorta "get" what he was saying, though he's been explicating it for over a year now: my first reaction was much like yours. Suffice it to say, his is not a position straightaway reducible to "Christendom."

I suppose that since you responded you are open to hearing him say more about it.
Nate | 02.15.05 - 3:59 pm | #

Actually I'm not. He's an asshole and hasn't really presented himself in such a way that I think he's worth the time.

Have you ever heard of reciprocation?
Anthony Smith | 02.15.05 - 4:06 pm | #

Anthony, I only made the comment about you and Patrick not knowing Dault, and that he was a rhetorician, not to higlight the fact that you were pretending to know him (Patrick) *or* that he's "better" than you, but that if you knew David day-in and day-out, what he's saying would make you laugh. The point is not that he is an asshole--in fact, and I *really* mean this, he is one of the nicest and most gentle, caring and hospitable people I have *ever* met...and think about some of those incredibly nice and generous people you and I know that would usually take the cake, Anthony--instead, the point is that he plays the role of an asshole *to make you think he's an asshole.* I hope you could forgive him of his rhetoric--which is rarely turned off--because he is an incredible guy, that whether you would want to agree with this right now or not, you would really like. For what it's worth.

Brad, I think Nate sufficiently pointed to the difference I was mentioning. We all stand together in the fact that we think there is a problem with the Church, which is the failure to be the Church...the differences are not simply minor, they are huge differences, but that's actually Deleuze's point about univocity...that it can account for such vast differences. Something you are catching on to, however, is that Dault is really pondering the (Roman) Catholic Church lately as a real presence of ecclesial witness in our midst--hence the references to "Mother Church," something that you don't hear from too many protestants...not even most Calvinists!--which might point to a break in that unity...that the Church has not in fact failed to be the Church, but that we have failed to recognize her. And, this is definitely something that I would disagree with. So, now, let us hear from Mr. Dault.
Dave Belcher | 02.15.05 - 9:17 pm | #

Brad: I appreciated your question, and thought it hit the mark.

Nate, JD, and esp. Belcher: thanks for the attempts to speak "for" me in my absence, and for the kind words.

Anthony: truce. No rhetoric for a moment. I have been an asshole on this blog, and especially towards you lately. It was begun in good fun, but to the extent that I have actually offended you, I am sorry. And let me say a bit more:

I want to understand your position, Anthony. Here's what I think I have heard so far, and I would like you to correct me or tell me more where I have mis-heard.

I hear that you are not a fan of the church, that you find it to be intrusive, controlling, and that it has violated human rights throughout its history.

I hear that you are very concerned with what people actually do for each other - in terms of service and relief, and that you find those concrete activities paramount over what folks believe.

Finally, I hear that you are so frustrated with the church that it is not a matter of reconcilliation - you are done with it and are beyond it and are simply fine with that.

Is this an accurate read on where you are coming from? again - no rhetorical feints on my part. this is genuine and it is attempting to hear-you-out on these matters.

So I don't get cut off - I will continue this post (answering the requests for my own clarifications) in the next post.
David Dault | 02.15.05 - 9:40 pm | #

Okay - a bit of clarification here (again, this will be largely rhetoric-free. Much as I love slinging and catching darts, maybe its time to try to be heard 'straight' for once. It's hard for me. i will make the attempt.)

Yes, i do adocate a militant church, or rather, I advocate a church which advocates, which steps into the fray on behalf of "the least of these". Which puts itself on the line and not on the bottom-line. So, like many of you, i share a frustration with the present church.

While that frustration has led many of you to claim (or perhaps call) for a withdrawal or 'disappearance' of the church, my instincts have pulled in the opposite direction. The answer, for me, is not to fully secularize society and create a more robust liberalism, but precisely the opposite. To the best I can reckon, this will not do. This gives the whole store over to capitalism and Bush and the world-market-machine. I think this scenario can and must be resisted.

This resitance looks, to me, a hell of a lot like Christendom. I know that is unpopular as a model, but I find it irresistable (speaking for me). And yes - I do recognize that I have romanticized my notions of it, and I do not blind myself to its flaws. But yet, when I look at the alternative above, I am willing to embrace it - thorns and all.

My romanticism includes the story of the emporer kneeling in the snow for three days as penance, wanting to be released from excommunication. What I long for is a church (and an ecclesial hierarchy) willing to take such a stand against a world leader, and a narrative robust enough that the leaders will bow. I simply do not see how this is possible if we accept the notion of a 'weakened' church.

(con't)
David Dault | 02.15.05 - 9:50 pm | #

...Instead, it seems vital that the church stand up and stand against these abuses of human bodies that are built into present-day economic and power relations. This is not a utopian notion - the church did indeed once wield such power. It wasn't all empire and abuse - the church is also the Franciscans and alms for the poor and hospitals for the sick and Bishops who get shot standing in solidarity with the "least of these".

Where I diverge from my colleagues is that they believe these goods can be accomplished through a church on its knees, emptying itself of power and putting all in the hands of God. I respect that position (and for a dozen years as a Quaker I lived that position) - but I can no longer agree with it. I have abandoned the notion of "playing not to win". Brad's question hit this exactly on the mark. I am too old - and have read too much Nietzsche (and Foucault, and Fish, and Lenin) to do otherwise.

So a church triumphant. And yes, it will meddle in personal affairs, and yes it will excommunicate, and all those unpleasantries. For me, I accept that. I realize no sane person living today would or should, but I do. When I look at the alternative... I prefer the foolishness of the Gospel (admittedly only as I seem to be seeing it) against the wisdom of this world.

Now, having put it out there, let me say that I am fully ready for criticism. Mark that: fully ready. Not avoiding it nor will I take umbrage at it. Fully. Ready.

Gentlemen?
David Dault | 02.15.05 - 10:00 pm | #

Forgive me if I am somewhat suspicious.

I don't want to do this anymore, I'm not really into having people say I'm constantly wrong or misreading them or not reading well at all. I'm going to clarify my "position" (it's not exactly that secure), but only so it is out there. I swear to God if Nate suggests that the kind of work or the things I think are somehow not as good as his for not being "liturgical" or some other obscurtionist reason, I will go ape-shit.

I don't think the church is something one can be a fan of. This isn't because it is purely evil or good, or purely doing good or being purely a site of control. I don't see the church in that way at all. The church is a site of human action, and as such it can go either way. I think that in its current mode it isn't doing much good. This is one of the short-comings of theology in my opinion, the lack of coming to terms with this fluid nature of church. So, while I do see the things you heard me say, I only pointed those out because your triumphilist vision is far to concrete for me, and as such 'divorced from reality.'

I prefer that people actually have real life acts, as opposed to mere theory or belief. I'm not so naive as to think the two are wholly unrelated or that it is easy to find out which one should have dominance. You will hear me favoring practices or belief often when it comes to Christianity simply because I find that most of the beliefs either don't translate into action or a person feels they are superior for their right-opinions when they have no actual actions to back it up.

Reconciliation may happen. But not if I am forced to choose between the Vanderbilt School vision and something else. I attend church nearly every Sunday, and I hope that it actually has power to do things, but it usually ends up doing stupid things with its power.

I don't know if I believe in God, and prefer to let the things (sacraments) believe for me.
Anthony Smith | 02.15.05 - 10:17 pm | #

David ...

First question: Is the only alternative to your vision of the Church that of a fully secularized society? Is it not possible to reimagine the possibilities of both (or either) secular society and the Church, without them being fully victorious?

More practically, and I ask this coming from one more on the secularist side of the aisle, is a fully secularized society really any more possible than the Church fully victorious? I simply take it for granted that the former is probably not possible.

As for the 'really existing Church', do not the recitations of the Church's past, from which you seem to draw your hope for victory, just as easily be regarded as the Church doing what it ought in spite of itself as a Church -- that we remember those things, and want to repeat them, because they are so rare and uncharacteristic?

And lastly, a sidenote, re: 'And yes, it will meddle in personal affairs, and yes it will excommunicate, and all those unpleasantries'. You realize, I assume, that your vision of the Church's political role -- btw, what is the relationship of its political role to its spiritual role? -- accords very closely to, for example, Zizek's reading of Lenin and political revolution. If so ... does this not complicate the strict lines of division you see between secular philosophy / politics and Christendom?
Brad | Homepage | 02.15.05 - 11:01 pm | #

[I really hope my attempt at italics works; if not, this message is gonna be severly unpleasant, aesthetically speaking.]

Dault: Does not history tell us, that as surely as the Church has its power, and at the very height of such power, it loses it? Was not this the Reformers' point: the church had taken possession of its mission: and so had lost sight of the sense in which its mission in the world was not its own, but that of God in the risen crucified One, and so always a matter of a displaced center, and of a hope for a ultimum nova creatio ex nihilo?

Anthony: There is something happening at Vanderbilt. But it can hardly be described as a "school." God knows that another "school" of theology is the last thing that the church needs right now. It might be called an attempt at a way of ecclesial living that seeks to be unpretentiously prophetic, and which seeks to locate its theological work at that point: theoria genuinely rooted in and dependent upon praktike, in the way the ancient church understood it. In short, we are seeking a genuine communio missionis, in which theology is done as preparation for martyrdom (again, understood in the ancient sense, as in Origen). If we have failed fully to be representatives of such a missional body on here at times, that is because we are working out of just such a site of human action as you suggest the church is.
Nate | 02.16.05 - 12:02 am | #

I couldn't stay away.

Dault, with regard to: "Where I diverge from my colleagues is that they believe these goods can be accomplished through a church on its knees, emptying itself of power and putting all in the hands of God." That is decidedly not my (or Dave's or Nate's) opinion. If that is what you have come away with from our discussions then Anthony cannot be accused of not reading well, since I am now convicted of not communicating well. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, Quaker about me - quietism disgusts me. (And that is why I disagree with the use of the word in relationship to Paul earlier.)

I, likewise, want everything that you have laid out here, but I significantly disagree with the means whereby that is accomplished. I want to emphasize a certain logic of divestiture at work in Christian theology, but I want to claim that this is the means whereby those things are properly given, received, and deployed.
JD | 02.16.05 - 12:15 am | #

Anthony: Thanks for that - and I will have to accept both the "triumphalist" monicker and the chastening about 'real life acts' (of which you have pressed me several times on this blog). I think you and I have similar frustrations (if that's not too presumptuous to say) about the inefficacy of the current church, but perhaps differing paths to solutions.

Brad: I hear what you're saying about the 'good' of the church's history perhaps being a fluke - the church in spite of itself. I think several years ago I would have agreed with that, but I have a more robust 'faith' with (not exactly in) the church and I have a stronger sense that the church really is a good thing, and is not to be apologized for (in the latter sense of apology).

But your question about the political is exactly a point I want to develop and explore: part of what drove me to this position is my sense (again from reading too much Fish and also Zizek - though everybody I talked to about Zizek seemed to be reading a different Zizek) that it is exactly the church's retreat from the political (by which I mean confrontation with the powers, not allegiance with them a la Bush etc) that is precisely its 'failure' (this is the way, contra my vandy peeps, that I would talk about the 'failure' of the church, and not in a positive way). This is the point to push and expand that interests me...

Nate: i think I see your point about the church 'losing its power' - but this is where I usually disconnect from you guys. Because, even if you want to invoke the Reformers, there's Geneva. I still really think the church should be about realizing its moral vision in the world, and making the valiant attempt to conform the polis to its vision of the Good. Martyrdom is certainly an aspect of this (I realize the martyrdom part wasn't directed at me, but I want to engage it a bit) - but so are less indirect forms of social influence.

On this point, I might be inclined to ask (along with a hypothetical couple of voices on the "other side" of this weblog fence) isn't a deferred eschatological hope some form of a cop out? Gregory of Nanziansus, for example (theological orations part 1) says that theology should be practiced only by those whose actions are righteous. I know that you buy into this at some level already, so I'm not arguing agaisnt you - but maybe want to push the point to a different level. The theological task is not just about waiting for the new creation-out-of-nothing. Isn't it also righteously working for the rehabilitation of the shit we got now? Both geneva and Christendom seem to point to such an intention. It is like the old rabbinic debate: will the Messiah come to set the world to righteousness, or will our setting the world to righteousness bid the Messiah to come? For now, for me, I am with the latter.

I am feeling very positive about this dialogue at the moment (and understand the suspicions
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 12:47 am | #

on all sides. We seem to have reached a sort of detente here, everyone. let's try to maintain it for a few more volleys before the shit hits the fan again. Bravo on all fronts. And thank you.
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 12:48 am | #

JD - thanks for weighing in, and for the correction of my too-hasty summation of your position. The words were intentionally ambiguous, but perhaps not enough so. The reference to knees etc. had a touch of 'quietism' intended (I do still hear that at times in your collective statements) but was intended also to point to prayerful knee-bending - the expectant posture of reception you refer to in your comment just now. That is actually a strong aspect of the Quaker tradition as well, and I do not discount or belittle it. My difficulty is that I, right now, am not in a positon to do it.

Thanks for pushing me on that point - I think there is a lot more conversation to be had there (between us and and on this weblog). I hope my clarification made some sense and was helpful...

...and I also am guilty of not reading sometimes as attentively as i should, or hearing, so your comment is fair on that point as well.
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 12:55 am | #

David.

Reading your posts almosts make me want to weep. Where has all the Calvin gone in you? And so quickly, too!

Waiting for the eschaton is a cop-out if waiting is not a matter of real prophetic action. The eschatological future is one that creates a history, and so a present, which is precisely our time of mission, of work, of freedom, as also a time of judgment, repentance, and growth. The point boils down to this: The church's action in history is itself incapable of realizing the eschaton. In fact, the eschaton that the Christian faith witnesses to requires conditions that history itself, by definition, is incapable of realizing. The lion really does lay down with the lamb, right?

The church's politics is not about the establishment of a theocracy, but a proclamation of the gospel that reveals the godlessness of the world. And this is cruciform, and this is why it is so important to speak of the resurrection and ascension as historic events: In them, there is a real future to Christ that is to come, which allows the cross to cast a long shadow across history, making of history itself one long cruciform revolution.
Nate | 02.16.05 - 1:55 am | #

That is to say, David, we should not be so quick to think of the eschaton as an event of history, as if it were the last moment in a long series. In that case, there really is no transformation at all.
Nate | 02.16.05 - 2:22 am | #

JD,

If you (and others) are still reading this. I did try and make a comment a few days ago, but HaloScan gobbled it up. You're right that my notion of reading text requires a tradition or several. Such reading is problematic with a divided Church, but would still be difficult even if we were less divided. How I think that tradition "works" is nuanced and not well articulated, but it involves some combination of acceptance of a certain reading or author over at least a couple of hundred years by the entirety of the Church /and/ a taking of readings and re-weaving them into the tradition until their sources becomes nearly invisible. However, when thinking of Church, the /local/ is very important to me. It may be possible for a couple of churches to remain faithful and to do theology faithfully, even when most of the tradition has become corrupt. The great thing about this is that nobody, perhaps not even they, will know who is currently being faithful. The entire exercise requires the utmost patience.

Certain theological matters (since not everything is of equal import) won't even require the level of acceptance that I've outlined above. It is tempting to say that I think that the western tradition (and, say, the Pope) has to ratify some decision, or alternatively that the Southern Baptist association has to agree it in majority, or that the Eastern Orthodox have to "ok" it. However, I don't think good theology is done democratically or by committee. What I do think is that good theology will usually have some liturgical import [that is, it must affect the public work and practice of the Church] and that it will take time to sift wheat from chaff.

I think a traditioned reading of Scripture could, of course, distort or pervert, but I think that all readings are in some way traditioned. That is why it becomes important to know which tradition a theologian does theology from within. That theologian should expect some element of correction and also encouragement, from those who form his or her tradition. Even one little fundamentalist in a basement in Texas, or one idle library-goer who picks up a Bible in a moment of boredom brings their background, their philosophy to the text, so the notion of being untraditioned isn't a very good notion. I prefer the phrase "not well traditioned", and obviously I've no unbiased notion on what that means. All I'd say is that if your tradition is not in some way observably "catholic" and therefore notably Jewish, then you may not be well traditioned. That kind of judgement is not for a lone theologian to bring, although sometimes lone theologians bring it through the bringing of the weight of their own tradition on your judgement. In practice it seems to work like this:

X person writes a PhD. Y and Z read the thesis. It is boring, and never gets published.

or

X person writes a PhD. Y and Z read the thesis. Y and Z get their students A, B, and C to read it. A, B
Angela | 02.16.05 - 4:36 am | #

and C get their reading groups to read it, and in the process it is picked up by publisher D. It sells a couple of thousand copies. X dies and can be happy that a couple of libraries stock an obscure book.

or

X person writes a PhD. Y and Z read the thesis. Y and Z get their students A, B, and C to read it. A, B, and C get their reading groups to read it, and in the process it is picked up by publisher D. Person X just happens to get lucky/providential (whatever), and is writing just before the second Vatican Council takes place. Their work is not well regarded, but person Q knows about it, and will have an influential role in the Council, so it becomes incorporated into some important Conciliar documents. [Some variation on this theme will happen, depending on the way in which your bits of church takes on board certain authors.] The way in which Karl Barth, and numerous readings of him have been taken on board by the tradition is fascinating.

There's no great rush in doing any of this. Most of the theology that most people do will never come to anything in the world's terms. If you can't say the "Glory Be", just for the sheer joy of saying the "Glory be", then you maybe oughtn't to be doing theology. I was just thinking the other day, that rather than theology, it might be better to call the discipline theodoxy. There's a sense then, in which theology should be taken very seriously, but there's also a sense in which it can laugh at those who consider it, and not its end to be of ultimate importance. A lot of people think that having a book published counts for something, but I'm not so sure. Most theology, whether good or bad reading of the tradition, will only go as far as one's own generation, and will be picked up in the general "drift" of theology, perhaps eventually being part of a thought that leads to a footnote of a footnote of a footnote. Isn't it great to be a part of a tradition that does not really need you?

So yes, I think your characterisation is fair. And I hope my definition allows for the theology of all 17 men I sleep wih on Sunday nights...
Angela | 02.16.05 - 4:38 am | #

DD,

DD,

I would say that all communities can read and find truth in Scripture, but not as well as the community called Church. That is a problematic statement, and although I can look at and label "visible" Church, there are a lot of people who read far better than those who've been traditioned by what is called "Church". Although I dislike and distrust Rahner, so much of the tradition accepts that the world is somehow engraced, I do not want to deny the possibility that God will work through their reading, and indeed, their misreading of Scripture. I say let Badiou and Zizek and whoever wants to read go ahead and do their readings. The Church will appropriate certain parts of their reading into her reading, and perhaps abandon other parts of that reading. There may be a mandate to keep those who would read destructively from the text, but it is too late. The text has become incarnate and is available to all :-). Seriously though, since anybody can pick up a Bible and read, some form of hierarchy or magisterium is necessary before allowing a reading in Church so as not to harm the community, but the community can only "police" the local. It can't ban the sale of Bibles across Britain or America. It can say "unless you've been to Bible College for 3 years / seminary for 7 years / lived in a cardboard box for 10 years", you aren't yet elibible to read in Church. There is a heavy burden upon those who teach in seminaries to decide what material to teach. In an ideal world, everyone would wait 50 years, (not at all long in the life of the Church) before actively endorsing a theologian.

My laissez-faire attitude comes because I think that the right reading is not always the majority until after the event (Barth against Hitler) and that the right reading is sometimes only noticed after the Council (parts of von-Balthasar), that the right reading is sometimes only resurrected years after somebody has been quashed for some other reason (Origen and universal salvation), that the right reading often takes years to surface (Aquinas, and why the 5-ways are not proofs), that the right reading isn't always obvious (the re-appropriation and re-examination of the notion of God's covenant to the Jews, and why Christians should leave them alone), and that the right reading is often minority (Mennonites, Anabaptists, Quakers, Pax Christi on war). That last one particularly, you will notice, has not been taken on board by the rest of the tradition.

Just because you manage to get the loudest voice, or the most "A"s, or the most books published, or the most of somebody else's readings quashed or the "highest" up the Church's hierarchy, or just about anything, you can be rest assured that if God so desires the reading of the person who sits behind you and says nothing to prevail, it will. I see no great rush to write prohibititory encyclicals or use a loud-speaker, since it's the stillest, smallest voice that counts. I s
Angela | 02.16.05 - 4:39 am | #

I see no great rush to do anything really, except maybe to get to Mass before the gospel reading :-). I accept that I may be too laid back, and that the Church should be in "emergency" mode right now, but I'm an Anglican. That means that theologians and priests can't use the crow-bar of tradition to tell people to go to, for example, go to Confession, they have to persuade them first of sin, and second that the sacrament of reconciliation is one means by which they will be able to come closer to God. I don't get to be Protestant and denounce Confession or Roman and pronounce it necessary to all, I have to learn, as the expression much-loved by one of the members of my community goes, "meekly kneeling upon your knees".

All of that may be too conciliatory, but everyone here sounds so hot and bothered over a couple of philosophers. Only time will tell who is right, and right now, I'd say that this is an "intra-Christian" debate, not one which leaves some people one side of the fence, and some people the other side. Surely once philosophy is nuanced, it becomes less possible to disagree with an author using a single breath. I've read hardly any philsophy (it makes me fall asleep), but I've followed a couple of links from Adam's Zizek page. I thought that what Zizek had to say on the abandonment of sex difference was fascinating, but I don't know whether it depends on the whole immanence/transcendence thing to remain fascinating. Somebody can contribute to a debate, and be wrong on one fundamental point, and yet the rest of what they say can still hold.
Angela | 02.16.05 - 4:40 am | #

There is a reason that Wisdom is personified as feminine in the book of Proverbs.

' Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn out its seven pillars. She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her maids, and she calls from the highest point of the city. "Let all who are simple come in here!" she says to those who lack judgment. "Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways and you will live; walk in the way of understanding." ' (9:1-6)

All that to say, I'm thankful for Angela's contribution to this conversation. If she is able to set the tone, it may truly become a convers(at)ion...
Brannon H. | 02.16.05 - 6:51 am | #

'Only time will tell who is right, and right now, I'd say that this is an "intra-Christian" debate, not one which leaves some people one side of the fence,'

Yes, Angela, what transpires here is mostly an intra-Christian debate, because the people who want to be left on the other side of the fence are allowed to only with expressions of great repulsion. It is difficult for Christians to see, for example, that even if Zizek and Badiou cannot 'have' Paul, then Paul cannot have Zizek and Badiou (or Nietzsche, I guess) either; or rather that Jesus can't have Zizek and Badiou, because he is more of the 'my redeemer liveth' variety than Paul.

I know that Jesus has a lot less of me than he does of the rest of you, but that, all power and earth he has notwithstanding, that is all he is going to get. I am less sure of how much of me capitalism gets, but I have not yet been convinced it gets all of me. Although Kapitalism may be a logical God for these times, and we just don't find it pleasant because it's such an abstract 'body,' whereas with Christianity we at least have a body and cruciform intent everywhere. People did have a more heterogeneous look before Christianity found itself inescapably trapped within dozens of other isms, realities and mere refusals to cooperate.
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.16.05 - 9:13 am | #

I concur with Brannon: Angela, that was a fantastic series of posts, and I am very much on board with many of your points about tradition and patience. Thank you for taking the time to write all that out for us. Both in your response to Jd and to me, I found a lot to think about. I especailly like the turn of phrase "not well traditioned". Very useful and helpful.

Nate: I agree with you that the church's waiting is to be prophetic, and show the "godlessness of the world," but I do not agree that this may not be best done through theocracy. The "Calvin(ist) in me" has gone to Geneva, where Calvin worked to build the righteousness of the kingdom into the fabric of city polity. We can debate whether or not he was utimately 'successful' in this, but again - I don't think secualr liberalism has been all that 'successful' either, and it is certainly less preferable to me that an honest attempt to make God central to human life.

This is not an attack on you - I don't mean it in that way at all. I am just always confused how we are to witness without trying to change things here and now. And if we ARE trying to change tings here and now, doesn't it make sense to build sociatal structures that will reinforce and perseverate those righteous changes?

I think this is the near end of what Angela is talking about with tradition - carrying on a 'right reading' not by majority but through the politics of truth (I agree that the majority does not and should not carry the ultimate day in theology). The far end is closer to what I am talking about - an active political striving that enacts a society of virtue.

We keep butting up against this difference - and it always sounds to me like quietism (which JD reminds me is not the case, and I believe him) and I always sound to you like a totalitarian (which I assure you is not the case) - I really want to work to get to the bottom of this difference, so we can figure out our common ground in this...
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 9:35 am | #

David Dault,

Actually, I'm not so sure you aren't a totalitarian. A lot of what you are saying sounds exactly like the description given by Arendt (which has its problems, but is helpful none the less).

I must tell you, you aren't allowed to have Arendt.

Do you guys have any problem with the rule of force that Calvin often used in Geneva? Burning folks and all that?
Anthony Smith | 02.16.05 - 9:45 am | #

Since my name was thrown into a few of those comments earlier, let me weigh in, briefly. David (Dault), The "prayerful" aspect of the Church that you see going on in myself, Josh and Nate is only right to a degree...now I will only speak for myself, though. If you remember my paper on Discipleship, Poverty and Holiness, the point was exactly that we needed to learn how to hurry up and wait *at the same time.* This in fact *is* political, but it means that as we move we are always in anticipation of what will happen next...So I also agree with you, but disagree with the means.
Furthermore, I do not want to "disappear" the Church or *make* the Church a nowhere--as you seem to have suggested--but, rather am simply *aware* of its disappearance...my response to this is not the further disappearance, or something, but rather that the Body--which is not "there" right now!--must be a place of poverty...again as I described in my D, P, H paper. Hope this helps to clarify where I'm coming from. So, the point is not that Christianity "has a body and cruciform intent everywhere" as Patrick suggested, but in fact, that it does *not* have a body--or maybe even (and I don't know what Josh and Nate will think of this one...) that at this place in history (the "end of history") the "body" of the Church is *no different* than that abstract body which is the global market.
Dave Belcher | 02.16.05 - 9:50 am | #

I am by no means a Calvinist, and never have been...if there was ever a point of "contention" in our "school" it is this. You can have Calvin (this is a joke of course)
Dave Belcher | 02.16.05 - 9:52 am | #

Calvin gets a lot of bad press. Yes, one guy was burned in Geneva, and Calvin petitioned for him not to be burned (not to make Calvin out to be a saint, here - he still wanted Cervetus dead, just in a quicker and less painful way). So there is a "rule of force" at work in Geneva (I'm the only one here championing Geneva - not a vandy thing) - and I do not cringe from the application of this rule.

But, that being said, no one was forced to stay in Geneva who did not wish to. It was simply that those who did choose to stay there were required to abide by a polity in accord with a reading of the Gospel applied to law.

It is hard for me (and I own Arendt's book, too - though I do not claim to "have" her in any regard) to see how this porous-bordered polis amounts to what she describes as 'totalitarianism'.

Now I do admit that my own, non-Geneva comments may also fail the Arendt test. If by totalitairianism you mean "using force to perseverate certain clear sociatal ends" then yes, I may well be totalitarian. but so is every sociaty at work in the world today. It might be useful to render a more nuanced definition (and Arendt is certainly useful on that front)

Hey - we broke triple digits. Hooray.
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 10:35 am | #

No, he doesn't, you do by trying to appropriate Geneva to a Universal Rule of the Church. Your fidelity to God is reducible to ideology, since all are subject to this "movement of history". I would explicate this further but I'm done with this whole thing.

Oh, and I meant you can't have her because you're a Christian and she's not part of your tradition.
Anthony Smith | 02.16.05 - 10:41 am | #

Amazing -- her first post, and she's already getting over 100 comments.

I see a brilliant future.
Adam Kotsko | 02.16.05 - 11:07 am | #

Anthony - not trying to stir a hornet's nest, just trying to elaborate my (still baking and tenuous) position.

Yes, my fidelity to God is very much "ideological" in its manifestation. I have not tried to hide that. Nor do I think that is an uncommon or bad thing.

And again, I apologize for my part in frustrating you to the point of being "done with this".
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 11:16 am | #

Don't. It's not frustration, it's exclusion and it is what you advocate.
Anthony Smith | 02.16.05 - 11:19 am | #

Patrick,

I am happy, as I've said lots on here to let Zizek ad Badiou and whoever else use St Paul if they desire. I really liked Adam K's post a while ago when he suggested that he was putting together lots of weird theologians and philosophers. I think that out of the muddle comes some surprisingly innovative thinking. I do suggest that the use of St. Paul /in this context/ is intra-Christian, but the debate could have taken a slightly different slant and have been a much more philosophical one, although I'd say significant use of a thinker already involved in long narratives within one tradition makes it hard to ignore that narrative. I hope that I don't display too much significant repulsion to you. That is not my intention.
Angela | 02.16.05 - 11:28 am | #

Fair enough - but I do not have the power to exclude you in the context of this present discussion. In fact, I am trying my best right now to be INclusive of your thoughts and voice.

But, I do admit, there is an exclusionary edge to my political and rhetorical bent. And I understand that that might oppressively conclude conversations before they get a chance to deepen or even start.

For what it's worth... there it is.
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 11:29 am | #

Sorry - that last post was in response to Anthony, not to Angela. I should have been specific -
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 11:30 am | #

'I hope that I don't display too much significant repulsion to you.'

I hope you don't, too, Angela, but as a writer of peculiar prose-poetry, I could forgive you for that even, just because you concocted the term 'significant repulsion,' which has given me no end of delight. Infinite Thought used 'presumably non-drunken' and 'cute capitalism' recently, so, as they say, 'we're always looking for things...'

Since you've said you 'never know how to take me,' though, I will be serious in the midst of my hedonism and say I never was thinking you did. You live in a commune, and I guess that's a good thing as long as you don't find it significantly repulsive (I hate them myself, but have given up hatred for those who took me to one in 1985. That's the most Christian thing I can say I've been able to come up with about the communes and ashrams.)
Patrick J. Mullins | 02.16.05 - 11:41 am | #

Dave D. --

As your vision of the Church victorious becomes more clear, I am continually reminded of Kierkegaard's / Johannes de Silentio's passage in Fear and Trembling where he cautions preachers to take care when talking about the sacrifice of Isaac, for fear that someone might misunderstand and actually go home and do likewise.

Genesis 22 has the merits, in Silentio's view, of being about the debilitating structure of faith itself, rather than just literal child sacrifice. In this sense, your notion seems far more dangerous, inasmuch as it focuses on Christian duta qua acquisition and empowerment, versus that of Christian duty qua weakness.

None of this is an overwhelming criticism, per se, since you seem fully aware and accepting of this. (If nothing else, maybe THIS is the point of critique!)

May I ask: what distinguishes your political vision of the victorious Kingdom of God from that of the Far Right fundamentalist, be it Muslim, Christian, etc.?
Brad | Homepage | 02.16.05 - 1:16 pm | #

Brad - I think that's a fair critique, and the answer to you question "what distinguishes..." is probably, on the surface, not much.

Part of the Leninism that I find useful (and Zizek I think points this out, too) is that our intellectual commitments will and should have tangible consequences. Meaning not just that they get things done, but there are sacrifices to be made in the process of getting thigns done, and these must be honestly faced and acknowledged.

I am not a liberal. I do not believe there is a space - public or otherwise - where we are all ultimately going to be able to 'get along'. Therefore (I think) we all of us must make partisan choices - allegiances and alliances. These are (as Anthony has rightly pointed out) exclusivist by nature. Now, I think that this is what we ALL are doing, ALL the time, but that's a debatable point (the heart of liberal democracy stands against such a claim, for instance) - and so the question for me is not "does what I'm doing look like the far Right or Islam?" (because it will - inevitably - to some who are being excluded) but rather "are the reasons for making the allegiances I do sufficient and can I accept the concomitant consequences?"

By making my choice for 'the Church' (also a debatable term) my hope is that my allegiance is with the body that will be the most righteous in its exclusions, since I don't think we can get beyond those exclusions and consequences. That's the best course I've got at this point.
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 2:37 pm | #

Brad - additioanlly, your points about Kierkegaard /De Silentio are well taken. I am often not as careful with my words as I should be - trying to better that, slowly.
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 2:41 pm | #

David ....

I think at this point we've returned, with a sufficiently fresh perspective to make it seem like a new point, to the more abstract / more original question that à Gauche and Discard have coaxed back to the surface in the comments of Dave B.'s most recent post. Namely, that of transcendence and immanence.

With regard to the victorious political reign of the kingdom, I regard their question as one of agency: i.e., WHENCE does this political victory emerge? This question seems far more pertinent to your project than that of Nate, Dave, and JD's, because it is so patently materialistic and non-eschatological.

Now ... Discard and Gauche have been most evident in this thread by their absence, but I hope the renewed civility of the discussion can be extended there, where the discussion seems more pertinent than here.

Religion is a divisive bastard all by itself, especially when people really believe it; as such, we need not go out of our way to make this any worse with our canned rhetoric and senses of affront.
Brad | Homepage | 02.16.05 - 3:22 pm | #

Dault: Calvin's Geneva was not a theocracy. Calvin is much too much of a "two cities" theologian for that. Have you forgotten that Book IV of the Institutes is eschatological through and through?
Nate | 02.16.05 - 4:51 pm | #

Nate: I think you are missing my larger point...

I may have aloose definition of theocracy, but magistrates asking Calvin (a preacher) to draw up articles of government and then abiding by them and enforcing them seems a pretty reasonable candidate to me as one.

As to book iv, remember Calvin suggests we abide by civil authorities so long as they do not countervene the law of God. The implications of such a suggestion are open to some interesting interpretations.

Eschatological, yes perhaps, but Calvin had a clear sense that Christians should be influential on the structures of government. This is the thread I am attempting to follow in my posts above.

I get the sense from Brad that I'm 'missing the action' on this thread - but I am old and loath to switch to a new one (the latest Belcher one). Do you think I should, Nate? Is what I'm talking about here useful or interesting to anyone? (Feel free to say no).

Hope to see you later tonight, my friend -

Dd.
David Dault | 02.16.05 - 5:15 pm | #

Don't take this the wrong way David, but you are right, your definition of theocracy is loose. Too loose. Dangerously loose. Any definition of theocracy that does not amount to the final eschatological reign and rule of God (which is not the "law of God" by the way, for Calvin) over all of God's creation, amounts to an apotheosis of the church, giving it the right arbitrarily to foreclose the eschaton, and so is idolatrous to the core.
Nate | 02.16.05 - 5:26 pm | #