Do we really get Romans?

Do we really get Romans? A little Badiou and Žižek can help.

It's been said that reformations and revolutions in Christianity begin with a re-reading of Romans.

That is certainly true of the Protestant Reformation with Luther's epoch-shaking insight into the meaning of the phrase "the righteousness of God."

It is true as well of Barth's commentary The Epistle to the Romans, which in the words of a Catholic commentator "burst like a bombshell on the playground of the European theologians." Barth's leveraging of Paul's argument in Romans served, in the shocking aftermath and disillusionment of the First World War, to turn the scholarly, cozy, and complex arguments of 19th century Protestant thinkers on their head and usher in the relatively long era that we today know as Neo-Orthodoxy.

The long-tenured regime of Neo-Orthodoxy collapsed - quite quickly really - in the mid-to-late 1960s with the cultural revolution of that period, which coincided with the rise of both religious studies as an "alternative", at least in America, to the intellectual cartel of Barthianism and the Barth-based mainline Protestant establishment and the emergence of so-called "secular theology," which gradually morphed into a new establishment with its own signature and features. Much of today's Christian postmodernism has this latter development as both its source and heritage, although it is also fair to say that its initial impulse in the form of applied Derrideanism was derived from the sense of a thoroughgoing "gappiness" in conventional liberal constructions of God along with the realization that there was room for postulating a "holiness" that could be glimpsed in all the holes of the not-so-monolithic text. That is the genealogy of all "religion without religion."

Secular theologies, whether they be grounded in the grand narratives of 19th century bourgeois progressivism or the "apocalypse now" and "destruction of metaphysics" themes of the post-Sixties decades, are always the products of good economic times and social stability. The varieties of "crisis" theology" - the original terminology for Neo-Orthodoxy - find fertile soil in political or economic anxiety and social upheaval. All the current discussion of what may be coming "after postmodernism" may be setting the stage for the emergence of a 21st century crisis theology, though one completely and obviously unlike what reigned from the 1930 up to the 1960s.

Besides Romans, crisis theologies - if that's really the word we want to use - always turn out to carry the genetics of a previous and hitherto marginalized philosophical movement. Luther relied indirectly on nominalism for his critique of Thomism, indulgences, and Catholic sacramental theology. Barth "discovered" Kierkegaard. If a new crisis theology is in the making - most likely with its own re-appropriation of Romans - what might that be?

H/T: THE CHURCH AND POSTMODERN CULTURE: Conversation .

Biblical Inerrancy: From the Bible, or the Enlightenment?

Aaron Rathburn has an interesting post (dated March 14, 2009) on biblical inerrancy and it's connection to the Enlightenment. Here's a quote from that post:

What if a supremely powerful God wanted to reveal himself with a text? Can we give him the freedom to do it how he wants, and not have to bend to our expectations? I mean, he’s the god, not us—right?

If you are expecting the Bible to be a a propositional-style manual of ethics, then it is wildly and completely errant. But similarly, if you are expecting a science textbook, it is wildly errant. If you are expecting it to be a 21st-century history book, it is wildly errant. But is God capable of using human mistakes for his divine purposes? I would say absolutely.

The Bible is perfect, but it is perfect for God’s will and purposes, according to his standards and expectations—not our preconceived notions of how it “should” be. I can’t help but hear the echo of Paul—who are you, oh man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “why have you made our Bible like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay? (Rom 9)

The Bible is not the 4th-member of the Trinity, and the Bible didn’t climb up on the cross and die for our sins. But it is his text that he has used to reveal himself to us—and we should take it very, very seriously, as the fully inspired, fully divine, authoritative and infallible word of God.

I agree with Aaron that the scriptures are very important but only as they point to Christ. However, I'm more partial to ScottL's comment on Aaron's post:

Unfortunately, I feel that, due to the influence of the Enlightenment, scholars and most Christians alike have now tried to push onto the Bible a 20th/21st century idea of accuracy and inerrancy. ‘Inerrancy’ seems to be a word that has only come about in the last 100+ years.

Therefore, coming to the Gospels, we see contradictory passages where there were either one (Matt 28:2) or two (John 20:12) angels at the tomb of Jesus’ resurrection. Some (more liberal) see this and claim the Bible as ‘inaccurate’. Some (more conservative) see this and therefore think of all sorts of explanations so the Scripture can maintain its status of inerrancy. But I can’t see this being a problem in the days that the Scripture was being recorded. But for us westerners who love our empirically based ‘inerrant’ evidence, it becomes a problem.

The Scripture was first and foremost recorded as the story of God’s redemptive acts, summed up in Jesus Christ. To that, I believe it is completely faithful and that God has communicated faithfully through these human authors, though there might be a handful of places which seem contradictory from the perspective of our day and age, but were of no consequence in the day when the Scripture was being recorded.

I’m glad the Scripture authors weren’t dictated to as their eyes rolled back in their sockets and they foamed at their mouths. I am so glad God delights in the personality, historical and cultural context of those to whom and through whom He communicates.

Both are excellent quotes all the same.

Bierlein on Christians and Mythology

Here's an interesting post from The Sci Fi Catholic: Bierlein on Christians and Mythology:

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Bierlein on Christians and Mythology

I recently finished J. F. Bierlein's Parallel Myths and found it a fine little introduction to comparative mythology. Of most interest to readers of The Sci Fi Catholic will probably be Bierlein's essay in the final chapter on the relationship between myth and the three major monotheistic religions. Bierlein relates the following:

Some years ago, I attended a Christian conference and had occasion to speak to two women with dramatically different reactions to their experience in the study of myth.

The first woman had nothing whatsoever good to say about myth or mythology. The subject matter, she pointed out, exalted false gods. For her, the study of myth was merely a "tool of the devil" in the hands of "secular humanists" in a wholesale effort to devalue Christianity and excise its influence from society. The study of myth caused her to doubt her own faith. She did not want her children to study mythology in the public schools. She had even gone so far as to throw out her books on the subject in order to make certain that her home, her children's minds, and her own mind would never be contaminated by them.

The second woman drew the opposite conclusion from her studies. Lest you think that she was a "liberal" Christian, a New Age adherent, or anything but orthodox in her beliefs, think again. She was from Alabama, the heart of the American Bible Belt, and described herself as "born again" and "spirit-filled" She could not even remotely be construed as a "secular humanist." She had just completed the third of three classes in comparative religion at her local university and was enthusiastic about the effects on her religious life. The parallels between the myths of distant cultures and the stories of the Bible intrigued her and led her to see her faith as the satisfaction of universal human needs. She was fascinated, not threatened, by parallel virgin births and resurrections. For her, these motifs persisted in myth--and were expressed in Christianity--because they are true. [pp. 308-309]

Posted by D. G. D. Davidson at 5:48 PM
Labels: books, J. F. Bierlein, Parallel Myths, quotes of note

A Smurf-tastic Post

Thanks to the heads up by Drew Tatusko who recently had this as a Facebook status message:

Drew Tatusko i have two daughters who have not smurfed with man; please let me bring them out to you, and smurf them as you like; #thesmurfbible

Here is a post about the Smurf Bible:

Friday, May 06, 2005
The Wycliffe Bible Translation Project: Smurf

We are commanded by Christ to spread the Gospel throughout the world and thankfully, the humble workers of the Wycliffe Bible Translators are hard at work translating the Scriptures into every language on earth.

Most recently, Wycliffe has released its translation of the Bible into the Smurf language. Here is a sample from Luke 6:

20Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are smurfily you who the smurf are smurfily poor, for yours is smurfily the kingdom of God. Smurfilicious!

21Blessed are smurfily you who the smurf hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Smurfy, isn't it? Blessed are smurfily you who the smurf weep now, for you will laugh.

22Blessed are smurfily you when smurfs hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Smurfy, isn't it?

23"Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because smurfy is smurfily your reward in heaven. Smurfy, isn't it? For that is smurfily how their fathers treated the prophets. Smurfilicious!

24"But woe to you who the smurf are smurfily rich, for you have already received your comfort.

25Woe to you who the smurf are smurfily well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who the smurf laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

26Woe to you when all smurfs speak well of you, for that is smurfily how their fathers treated the false prophets.

Papa Smurf hailed the move as "...a great leap forward in the evangelism of all Smurfkind. History will mark this day as a great milestone."

Brainy Smurf, however, criticized some of the Greek translation as misunderstanding Smurf verb tenses.

Purpose Driven Smurf, smiling to reporters at a press conference, responded, "This translation stresses formal equivalence too strongly. I will continue to use The Message paraphrase, although I respect the viewpoints of other Smurfs who will make use of Wycliffe's efforts."

KJV Onlyist Smurf could not be reached for comment.

posted by John @ 8:52 AM

Here's something about those postmodern Smurfs at work:

A Smurf-tastic Satire by William Hrdina

SUMMARY: Postmodern Smurfs running amok. NOW AVAILABLE: “Where the Fnords Linger- A Short Story Collection” By William Hrdina- collects 27 of my most popular stories. To order go to Amazon or www.williamhrdina.com.

A Smurf-tastic Satire
By William Hrdina

Somewhere, deep, deep in an enchanted forest, there was a village. The village was hidden away in a secret grove inhabited by tiny blue creatures, two and a half apples tall. They wore white hats crammed over the top of their little blue heads. They were all male, except one, and they were known most commonly as The Smurfs.
The village was made up of about twenty huts carved out of bright white and red polka-dotted psychedelic mushrooms. One Smurf lived in each hut. Usually all the Smurfs went to bed early. But on this night, no one was at home (Except for agoraphobic Smurf- he never left his hut), all of the Smurfs were gathered around a bonfire they'd built up in the middle of a clearing.
Lying in a comparatively massive heap, enormous compared to the tiny Smurfs, was the unconscious and thoroughly bound figure of Gargamel, the Smurfs sworn enemy. The capture of Gargamel was the fruition of a two month, overly elaborate plan that boiled down to bribing Azreal, Gargamel's long suffering cat, to switch sides for a lifetime's supply of primo Northern Lights Catnip and the opportunity to piss on Gargamel's head in retribution for far too many hits and kicks delivered out of nothing but his master's inability to outsmart a single Smurf- despite several years effort.
"We're going to need more fire." Neocon Smurf demanded of Fundamentalist Christian Smurf. "God demands we burn Gargamel good and crispy."
Fundamentalist Christian Smurf nodded in vehement agreement, "It says so in the Smurf Bible." He stood up straight, put his arms behind his back, and recited, "And lo anyone who smurfs with you, you need to smurf them up good and proper, really smurf their ass and don't take no smurf from them!"
"Praise Smurf Jesus!" Neocon Smurf agreed and rolled his eyes. Neocon Smurf only used religion to manipulate the tiny brain of Fundamentalist Christian Smurf. You could get him to do damn near everything so long as you told him it was what Jesus Smurf wanted him to do.
It wasn't like Jesus Smurf was around to contradict what Neocon Smurf said, he spent all of his time wandering around the woods alone- only returning long enough to hit up Stoner Smurf for a bag of smurf and to grab another hunk off of his psychedelic mushroom hut.
Emo Smurf wandered by, wearing all black and muttering poetry to himself. He saw what was happening with Gargamel and said, "Not that I care, but what are you going to do with him?"
"Burn him! Burn him!" declared Pyromaniac Smurf, his eyes twinkling in the firelight.
Corporate Smurf wandered up to the growing crowd gathering around Gargamel. "What's this I hear about burning? That's perfectly good human meat. We should make Migrant Worker Smurf cut up his body and package it and then I can sell it and keep all the money! That would be a sound business solution."
"I hate sound business solutions." Proclaimed Grouchy Smurf, kicking the ground.
Hypochondriac Smurf tried to get the attention of anyone willing to listen.

(Read more: Here).

Oh and for your info the Smurfs are an evil communist plot---just kidding but here you go for laughs: The Smurfs: Communist Allegory with an Undercurrent of Misogyny and Anti-semitism.

New Doctor Who And Theology

Doctor Who and the Theology of Identity
By Abigail L. Sines

I admit it: I’m a sci-fi fan. I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a sci-fi “geek;” I don’t think I’m technical enough for that. For me the realm of sci-fi is interesting and entertaining because it allows so much latitude to explore what it is to be human: We learn about ourselves when we encounter what is different. In the imaginary worlds of sci-fi there are infinite possibilities to explore human identity.
Plus, today’s CGI and special effects produce some spectacularly cool-looking aliens and interstellar shoot-em-ups! This is fun.



Star Trek has always been my sci-fi flavor of choice and it was always the conflicted characters that captured my fancy: Mr. Spock balancing his human and Vulcan halves; Lt. Worf, a Klingon, making his way through the ranks of Starfleet; Lt. Commander Data, an android, making forays into the world of human emotions; even the holographic doctor in the Voyager series coming “alive” through his increasingly complex and personal interactions with the rest of the crew.
Recently I’ve taken to watching the latest version of the BBC Doctor Who franchise, featuring David Tennant as the 10th Doctor. (If you care to watch the last couple of years of Doctor Who on DVD in the U.S., you're looking for sets labeled “Third Series” and “Fourth Series.”)
Tennant masterfully presents a quirky, boisterous, and witty Doctor. Who could resist the ongoing battle between good and evil in a universe still plagued by vintage Daleks and Cybermen? Like a bad penny, they just keep turning up. Those ‘70s era robotic designs and digitized “exterminate” and “delete” refrains seem clunky by today’s slick sci-fi standards, yet they still manage to embody evil. But, I'm most interested in the Doctor’s interaction with his human companions, all women: Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, and Donna Noble.
The Doctor is fascinated by humans. Yes, us. You see, the Doctor really is a lonely Time Lord with all of time and space at his doorstep thanks to his faithful TARDIS contraption (shaped like a telephone booth on the outside). The Doctor is so far advanced beyond humans that he almost seems omnipotent by comparison—yet, at times, he seems quite in awe of us. He remarks on the human inclination for curiosity, exploration and survival.

...

But this current version of Doctor Who is far more than a sci-fi action flick. Yes, there’s a lot of fun and high adventure in these episodes—but there are deeper questions as well.
In fact, when the human John Smith is confronted with giving up his life to resume the Doctor’s cosmic duties, he is not pleased. In one scene, he cries out: “I’m John Smith…that’s all I want to be…John Smith. With his life and his job and his love. Why can’t I be John Smith? Isn’t he a good man?”

The climax of the drama is remarkably gripping. One schoolboy looks to Smith as an important mentor in his life, describing his beloved teacher this way: “He’s like fire and ice and rage. He’s like a knight and a storm in the heart of the sun…. He’s ancient and forever and burns at the center of the universe…. And he’s wonderful.”
John Smith realizes that he is being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice: He is being asked to die so that the Doctor can resume his bodily existence and foil the plans of the Family. As he holds the watch in his hand, he pleads desperately for a way out, “I should have thought of it before, I can give them this, just the watch…. Then they can leave earth and I can stay as I am.”
I won’t spoil the plot by revealing more, but the script is pointing at larger theological reflections.

As I watched these scenes, I thought of Psalm 139: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well” (vs. 14). The psalmist marvels that humans are the object of God’s attention, that God even takes note of us: “When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (vs. 14b–15). The psalmists reaches out to God: “How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand” (vs. 17–18).
These themes echo throughout the Bible. Read Ecclesiastes, 3:11: “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Or, think of Romans 11:33: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” These biblical writers are grappling with the mystery and perfection of divine love—and human limitation within that divine relationship. “For we know in part…but when perfection come, the imperfect disappears…. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (I Corinthians 13:9,12).

(If I wetted your appetite, read the full article: Here).

Originally caught from Peter Wallace's Blog.