Pentecost: End of the Law, Beginning of Judgement
June 12, 2011
Moses and the Israelites received the Law on the fiery mount. Israel was bound to it by covenant and its violation meant judgement upon them. This Law governed all aspects of life from agricultural to sexual policy and marked the people as God’s own. But the Law itself and the prophets too understood that the Law itself would one day be transcended (Rom 3.21).
The Church received the Spirit in the fiery upper room. She was bound together by another covenant; and it was a covenant that has no Law but Judgement. The Feast celebrated the giving of Torah, but in Jerusalem was given no new law, rather unfettered possibility of human and divine reconciliation under the one Lord in one Spirit. John 20.19-23 means the book of Acts. To bind and loose, to forgive and retain, these are not self-grounded proclamations of a new authoritative community – No! There is no authority handed over to the Church to make a new Law; rather Judgement is the necessary way of living beyond the Law, and all judgements are provisional as even the apostolic ‘Council of Jerusalem’ is. The Spirit blows now where She wills and perpetually gives Judgement, which the Church tries to discern. The Spirit can fall before baptism; She can proclaim clean what was formerly unclean.
The Spirit is not bound by any Law whatsoever.
The Tragic Irony of Technology
June 3, 2011
“Sanity often consists of knowing what not to think about.” K.W. Jeter
The exponential growth of cellphone use and especially of smartphone use in the last several years has made an obscure mineral called coltan one of the most valuable substances on earth. Coltan’s heat resistance coupled with its ability to hold an electric charge for a long time, make it an ideal component for electronics, and it consequently is used in almost all cellphones and many computers. Unfortunately, much of the world’s coltan comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it is hand mined by people who see almost none of the profit. The profit is split between mining corporations and para-military groups.
The irony I refer to in the title is that I know about this moral scandal, and am therefore enabled to be outraged, only because I possess the very coltan infested technology that makes me an accessory to oppression. I am made aware of oppression only by my participation in it. This points to the paradoxical ability of technology to connect us, making the whole world and all its problems available to my every click and tap (of the mouse), while simultaneously causing widespread isolation, oppression and–in a word–dis-connectedness. All this reminds me of Tony’s exquisite definition of original sin:
“…that structures of oppression, violence and rebellion against God are ‘already in place’ and work to form us as people before we are able to understand or critically resist them.”
Technology has become an integral part of our society. It obviously has the ability to help us make real and lasting connections with real people. A perfect example of this are the friends that I have made through this blog, most of whom I have never had any face-to-face interaction with. It is the very same technology that makes me aware and connects me to suffering people in the Congo. My knowledge makes me responsible to them, they have become my neighbors, and yet the very tool that allows me to connect with them as neighbors is partly responsible for their suffering. Oh Lord, how do we break free from the bondage that seperates us from each other and from You?
++++
Part of a (Long) Series of (Short) Posts about Science and Technology
The Tragic Irony of Technology Coltan, cellphones and being connected
Singularity, Progress, and Darwinian Common Sense Artificial Intelligence and Sciencism
Middleduction A post that would have made a nice introduction (coming soon)
Science Fiction as Prophetic Witness or Scientific Gospel? (coming soon)
Creating the Problem in order to Fix It (coming soon)
More on Sciencism (coming soon)
Kierkegaardian Dread (coming soon)
Banksy and the Co-optation of Everything
October 14, 2010
Most readers have probably already seen and/or heard about the “controversial” Simpsons opening, which was (apparently) created by the British street artist Banksy. If not, here it is:
Banksy, an internationally known artist whose vaguely anarchist, certainly anti-consumerist, and possibly pacifist politics are present in much of his art, seems in his Simpsons piece to be making a statement about the prevalence of capitalist exploitation of the 3rd world. Since the animation for the Simpsons is indeed outsourced to South Korea, he seems to be chiding the Simpsons for participating in these crimes of oppression. The irony of course is that his statement becomes a part of the Simpsons, presumably animated in the same South Korean sweatshop(???) as the rest of the show. Banksy, a celebrity artist of resistance becomes co-opted by the show (and really by Satan himself: FOX CORP.) for entertainment value (and publicity value for both the show and the artist), and thereby participates in the very oppression his piece decries.
This perfectly illustrates humanities’ inability to break out of paradigms of coercion, violence and oppression; or, in theological terms, humanities’ inability to break free of the bondage of sin. But here, in contrast to pietistic concern for personal bondage and personal freedom, we are dealing with the bondage produced by systemic sin–the kingdoms of this world that hold us all in thrall collectively. Those who try to subvert or resist these systems are always eventually co-opted by them. This is the human condition, and the source of our deepest and most tragic irony.
This is why charity and humanitarian efforts fail, because the good work they do is co-opted, assimilated into the systems of evil that pervade the world. The World Bank and World Food Organization perpetuate the economic misery they were created to eradicate. The most well-intentioned and principled politician quickly becomes an instrument of corruption. The fight against terrorism begins to look precisely like the very thing it meant to end.
The only thing that has ever truly broken this cycle, and successfully withstood becoming co-opted into the evil systems of this world is the Christ-event. Christ effectively withstood and subverted all the evil systems of this world, including the ultimate and most powerful, death. In following after Him, we might have moments of true resistance, true subversion of the kingdom of this world, moments when the Kingdom of God break in; but, Church History’s main lesson should be that we so often fail at the outcome we want desperately to achieve, and our message, like that of Banksy, makes that ironic turn toward saying the opposite of what it was intended to say. The most insidious part of co-optation is that perceiving our own guilt, our own complicity, may be harder than repentance itself.
Which Comes First, the Religio-Ethical Chicken, or the Geo-Political Egg: An Inner Dialogue
April 22, 2010
What follows is a sort of dialogue with myself. In italics you will find the words of James the citizen of the United States, and in bold (because it’s more important) you’ll find the words of James the citizen of the Kingdom of God. This is not an attempt, of course, to speak definitively the words of the Kingdom, or even the proper opinions of a US citizen, rather this is a first attempt to disambiguate for myself where my opinions are coming from, and what foundation they ultimately have.
One of the things I am trying to work out here is whether my citizenship in the Kingdom of God actually determines my behavior as a citizen of the US, or whether it is the other way around. I am working off the premise that my committment to the Christian tradition and Christian ethics SHOULD determine my behavior always and in every way, and that any allegiance to a place, or that places’ history, culture and politics is ONLY important as much as it lines up with my commitment to Christ (A more controversial corollary is that all the things that make up the citizenship of any earthly kingdom SHOULD be held with a certain amount of detachment, if not suspicion by citizens of God’s Kingdom).
Again,
Italics= James, Citizen of the United States
Bold= James, Citizen of the Kingdom of God
– — – — –
I can think of two reasons why I am interested in politics and engaged in political discourse. 1. Self-interest. 2. I honestly believe that following Jesus demands I speak out and act for and against certain social issues that inevitably have a political element.
If anyone wants to be a member of the Kingdom of God, they must die to self.
President Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time. Far from breaking with Bush’s flawed and misguided (if not evil and totally corrupt) administration, the Obama administration seems to be a continuation of it. The warmongering continues. The torturing continues. The wholesale disregard of the common good for the sake of profit and power continues. In fact, the essence of the American presidency hasn’t fundamentally changed since…well, maybe it never has: democrat, republican, or whig, Catholic, or Protestant, the President of the United States has presided over atrocity after atrocity: the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment, the Atomic Bomb, wars or covert actions in the following places: Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Columbia, El Salvador, Mexico again (I’m talking about NAFTA), many other Central and South American countries, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, now Yemen, maybe Iran…and those are just the ones off the top of my head.
Christians are not to put their trust in earthly rulers, but in God alone. Christians do not believe in revenge. Christians do not believe that overcoming evil with evil is even possible, much less pleasing to God.
I almost sympathize with the Tea Party crowd. I say almost, because, if they are successful, they are going to put into place leaders whose moral compass will not be fundamentally different than either Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter, or…Nixon… or Roosevelt (take your pick)…or Jackson…or Jefferson…or…
I do not believe that any of these men had the best of interest of EVERY member of their country in mind when they made the most important and far-reaching decisions of the terms. I believe every one of them put power and money before the common good when making many history altering decisions.
There are ultimately several other reasons why I don’t quite line up with the Tea Party crowd.
In I Samuel 8, God warns the Israelites that if they get a king he will not have the common good of the people in mind. Even the best Israelite kings commit atrocities.
I, like the conservative faction of the US, am not a big fan of the healthcare bill as a matter of principle. However, to call it socialism is ridiculous and confusing (I am suspicious and at some level, somewhere, someone desires this confusion). The bill that creates billions of dollars in debt so that the government can subsidize millions of private insurance policies, thus enriching the very companies the politicians claim they want to change, is the essence of FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM, par excellence (to borrow Zizek’s favorite way of saying things).
Our government is not seeking and has never sought to bring capital and the means of production under its control. On the contrary, Capital has been in the process of bringing our government under control since the Industrial Revolution.
Jesus came and in direct defiance of Caesar Augustus claimed to be the Son of God. His early followers defied the empire by refusing to worship the emperor, and instead giving Jesus titles that by decree were only to be used by the Roman ruler: Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.
You cannot serve both God and Money.
I, like the majority of the conservative faction of the US, claim to take a PRO-LIFE ethical stance. However, pro-life means more to me than anti-abortion. I feel like you have to be pro-ALL-LIFE in order to use the term without becoming a hypocrite.
The Tea Party loses credibility when they a) complain about the national debt, then b) claim to be pro-life, then c) support war efforts that are costing our country 3 TRILLION dollars.
Jesus says, ”Love your enemy.”
I recognize that under secular political philosophy dating back to the Greeks, a government by definition has the right and the power to violently punish crime, and violently protect its own interest.
Paul recognizes the “power of the sword” in Romans 13. But, how can a Christian honestly adhere to the injunctions of Romans 12–do not take revenge, overcome evil by doing good, live at peace with all people, etc.–and still participate in earthly governments as described in Romans 13?
I’m not a Republican, or Democrat, or Independent, or a Libertarian. I am a Distributivistic, Anarcho-Liber-Agrarian Localist.
My association with Christ and His Church is really the only one that matters. I desire to follow Jesus in the world, awaiting His return to reconcile all Creation to Himself. I suck at it.
– — – — –
Discussion questions:
1. Do my religious views, including my hermeneutic(s), determine my political philosophy or is it the other way around?
2. How would one go about determining which comes first political views or religious ones?
3. How are my political views in my self-interest?
4. How are my religious views in my self-interest?
5. Whatever else anyone wants to ask or comment on.
Well, I was waiting to throw this out until I worked up a polished essay on it, but the deeper I go the more I realize that that is going to take about 2 years (at least) of me reading continental philosophy(a task which I’ve only begun, which means I haven’t found a “bottom” ; I haven’t figured out just how deep I have to go), so, instead, I’m going to just list some of my ideas thus far, and see what you think.
Oh, and if you’re planning on seeing District 9, but haven’t, you may not want to read some or all of this post.
I few weeks ago I watched District 9, by the white South African director, Neill Blomkamp. It is a powerful movie, and has dominated my thoughts ever since. Below is a quick synopsis of the pertinent parts, but be warned that my description hardly does the movie justice.
Spoiler begins
An alien ship mysteriously parked itself above Johannesburg, SA. Millions of aliens were found on the ship aimlessly living in their own filth. A camp, called District 9 was created for them below the ship and all of the aliens were moved to it. Over the course of 20 years, the camp became a slum, and numerous violent incidents gave rise to serious hatred on the part of Johannesburg residents toward the aliens whom they refer to as ”prawns.” As one character notes, the aliens do have undeniable shrimp-like characteristics. A super-corporation called Multi-National United is tasked with managing the prawns and the action of the movie begins with the MNU’s decision to move the entire prawn population to a new camp outside of Johannesburg. A geeky beaurocrat, who happens to be the CEO’s son-in-law, is put in charge of handing out eviction notices to the entire alien population of Disctrict 9. While carrying out the task our protagonist beaurocrat comes into contact with an alien substance which begins changing him into an alien. When the transformation starts, he is promptly kidnapped by his own corporation, where he is forced to participate in disturbing experiments. It turns out, MNU’s real interest in the “prawns” is their weapons technology which the company seeks to duplicate and market. Their only setback is that the alien technology can only be utilized by the aliens. MCU’s evil scientists soon discover, however, that the protagonist can use the weapons because his DNA is in the process of becoming alien. Just before they begin harvesting his organs in the interest of harnessing his weapon-operating power, he escapes and seeks refuge in District 9. For most of the movie the protagonist has the same bigoted attitude toward the aliens that everyone else both within MNU and without have. But, as he becomes a prawn, and develops a friendship of sorts with one of them, his attitude slowly changes, until, in the climax of the movie, he is defends his alien friend against extermination at the hands of his father-in-law’s heartless company.
Spoiler Ends
Here are some of the ideas that this movie has inspired:
1. For the purposes of ethical conversation, all aliens in Science Fiction and specifically in District 9=the Other.
2. In order for the protagonist of the movie to “love” the Other, he had to become the Other. He was incapable of understanding or loving the Other as himSelf.
3. The movie can obviously be “read” as commentary on the South African struggle with apartheid. However, the alien ship could have been parked over 1939-era Germany, or over present-day Gaza Strip and the same symbolic power would have been achieved.
4. In a way, the protagonist’s transformation could represent the Incarnation. Christ put himSelf aside to become the Other (humanity), in order to redeem the Other. Redemption could not have taken place outside of the act of “becoming the Other” on Christ’s part.
5. In terms of Christian morality, the concept of the Other is equivalent to the Neighbor, especially in a globalized world in which one is forced (blessed?) to rub up against, to pay attention to people and cultures radically different than one’s Self so that everyone is one’s Neighbor. How can we truly understand and love our Neighbor, then, without becoming her/him? Globalism brings us together but we are still so far apart. I expect Zizek’s book on the Neighbor to be particularly enlightening/challenging on this point, hopefully it will be mine next week.
6. Following Cavanaugh, in the Eucharist I consume Christ, but in turn, I am consumed; I become more and more a part of Christ’s body. Through Christ’s act of becoming us (the Incarnation), He installed the way for us to become more like Him (the Eucharist). Since we share the Eucharist with the Universal Church which spans nations, continents and cultures, the Eucharist is the way in which each individual Self becomes the Other. If you’ll allow a little analogical liberty, the alien substance which changes the human protagonist of District 9 into an alien can represent the Eucharist which changes each of us into body of Christ, thus uniting us (whether we like it or not) with each Other.
What do you think? I’ve got about 30,000 pages of Levinas, Lacan, Bidiou, Zizek, Derrida, Critchley, Foucault and maybe some Milbank (and many more who I haven’t yet thought about or discovered) to read before I can bring this all together into some sort of cogency. Any suggestions?
Toward a Theology of Food: Introduction
January 10, 2010
Please forgive me if the whole toward-a-theology-of-whatever-the-hell-you-want thing bugs you. It is something of a theological cliché these days with your “Toward a Theology of Economics,” your “Toward a Theology of Fundraising, ” and the slightly more sanctimonious “Toward a Theology of Feet.” There’s “Toward an Evangelical Theology of Cussing,” and who could forget the ever popular “Toward a Theology of Rabbit Breeding” (I haven’t made any of these up, I promise). Name aside, I will attempt to make these series of posts as thought-provoking as possible, though I don’t see any reason to be too serious.
These posts are inspired by Reed’s excellent series on Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America (especially Part III) in conjunction with some reading I’ve been doing on Agrarianism, and especially a book entitled Scripture, Culture and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible by Dr. Ellen F. Davis (Episcopal, Awesome, Duke Univ.), as well as a year-long (or so) infatuation with the Agrarian himself, Wendell Berry. On top of all that, I’ve recently become a stay-at-home da…delitante, and consequently have been honing the cooking and baking skills that I’ve aquired over the course of my marriage, but have, up to this point, usually been too tired after work to really care. So, as a consequence of all these stimuli, I really want to talk about food. Are you hungry, yet?
Here’s what I envision for this series: I want to talk about the morality of food, and I also want to talk about the connection food has to living the everyday simple life of the Church Kalender (that’s right, I spell it with a K now), I also want to chronicle my quest to create the world’s greatest beer bread; yes, there will be recipes in this series, that is, if all goes well, and I don’t burn down the house.
First, let us begin by gnawing on some thought provoking passages from various sources concerning the morality of food and where we get it. These are about the morality of food generally. I hope to approach the topic more specifically in a later post.
What does the Bible have to say about the food we as Christians eat? Nothing, right? Oh, except for all that crap in Leviticus. Here’s what theophiliacs’ own Reed Carlson has to say about that:
“Too often such foreign sounding prohibitions [as those found in Leviticus concerning food] can be explained away as the archaic superstitions of an agricultural, pre-modern people. In reality, such interpretations say far more about how removed the average American has really gone from the source of his or her food than it does about the text itself. These clever little things called “farmer’s markets” which we believe ourselves to have invented are actually one of the oldest and still by far the most common methods for human beings to get their food.” [Emphasis is his]
Maybe the reason the Bible isn’t saying anything to us about the food we eat is because we have removed ourselves so thoroughly from the context of the biblical authors–who were all thoroughly agrarian in outlook–that we have become blind and deaf to their message. Open our eyes, Lord, that we might see!
When one contemplates the careful protection of food, the respect for created beings, and the demand to care for the land that one finds in the Mosaic law (as well as in the rest of the OT), and when one takes a careful look at one’s own environment and discovers the multiple ways in which it is affected by one’s own eating habits, one is drawn to the same conclusion (though probably one would not be able to formulate it so clearly) as the estimable Dr. Davis:
“The essential understanding that informs the agrarian mind-set, in multiple cultures from ancient times to the present, is that agriculture has an ineluctably ethical dimension. Our largest and most indispensable industry, food production entails at every stage judgments and practices that bear directly on the health of the earth and living creatures, on the emotional, economic, and physical well-being of families and communities, and ultimately on their survival. Therefore, sound agricultural practice depends upon knowledge that is at one and the same time chemical and biological, economic, cultural, philosophical, and (following the understanding of most farmer in most places and times) religious. Agriculture involves questions of value and therefore of moral choice, whether or not we care to admit it.” [Emphasis is mine]
In short, to live a consistently moral life, we must not neglect the sanctification our food aquiring, and food eating habits. How do we do that?
Holiness for the Obama Generation
November 27, 2009
Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America
Part of an ongoing series on Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America.
As the pool of candidates narrowed in the 2008 Presidential Election primaries, pundits noticed a peculiar strength in eventual victor, Barack Obama. The 47-year-old African American was perceived by many as a peacemaker who would bring an end to the so-called “Culture Wars” which had dominated American politics since the Vietnam War. Laying aside whether or not one believes this really was Obama’s intention—and to what extent he has been successful—it is remarkable that our country has reached a juncture where such a perceived intent could be a political strength.
The factors contributing to this change of public heart are diverse and disputed, but at least one underlying cause is shifting views on the nature of personal morality and societal ethics—especially amongst those voting for the first time in the 21st century. Reflecting from within the Judeo-Christian tradition, I believe we can find a fresh relevance for our ancient texts in this environment of cultural redefinition. In particular, the portrait of Holiness as defined by ritual purity, individual behavior and social justice as found in the Law passages of Exodus and Leviticus offer a unique moral vision to the upcoming post-culture war generation.
The command from God to Moses in Leviticus 19:2 “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy,” presupposes two audacious ideas:
1) that the personal decisions of an individual has lingering effects on the Holiness of the community, and
2) no amount of personal Holiness can cleanse the stain of an individual who participates in an unjust system.
These two ideas—often held as conflicting by both sides in the culture wars—demand we revisit our definition of “Holiness.” What contemporary implications exist for a text which discusses premeditated murder in the same language as the unrestrained slaughter of created animals (Lev. 17:6) or a holiness code which equates the consequences of sexual immorality (Lev. 18) with those of defrauding the poor (Lev. 19)? Is the idea of a Jubilee year—and the specific notions of Sabbath and debt forgiveness—pertinent to a society of runaway resource exploitation and restless consumption?
Obviously, one cannot lift a context-less English translation from a printed page and call it a “relevant ethic” any easier than one can create a papier-mâché rod from its pages and demand he be called “Moses.” Yet, we do the text, our traditions and ourselves a great disservice when we delegate the messages of these Pentateuchal passages merely to the realms of ancient cult or antiquated superstition. As our societies revisit the entrenched battles and political labels of previous generations, the ancient law of the Pentateuch can provide us with refreshing perspective on ageless questions.
|
||||||||||
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
