after the death of god--caputo, spectral hermenuetics

Having read and commented on Vattimo's essay, I move on to Caputo's. And to do so, I want to begin with a quote from Chesterton, from Orthodoxy.

Most of the machinery of modern language is labour-saving machinery; and it saves mental labour very much more than it ought. Scientific phrases are used like scientific wheels and piston-rods to make swifter and smoother yet the path of the comfortable. Long words go rattling by us like long railway trains. We know they are carrying thousands who are too tired or too indolent to walk and think for themselves. It is a good exercise to try for once in a way to express any opinion one holds in words of one syllable. If you say "The social utility of the indeterminate sentence is recognized by all criminologists as a part of our sociological evolution towards a more humane and scientific view of punishment," you can go on talking like that for hours with hardly a movement of the gray matter inside your skull. But if you begin "I wish Jones to go to gaol and Brown to say when Jones shall come out," you will discover, with a thrill of horror, that you are obliged to think. The long words are not the hard words, it is the short words that are hard. There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word "damn" than in the word "degeneration."

For all that I disagree, and rather vehemently, with Vattimo, in my comments about what he wrote, I still have to credit him for writing rather plainly. I must, because with Caputo's essay, we enter a realm of words used in an almost meaningless way.

Caputo begins be trying to describe what he calls "events". Of course, how most people use that word is not what Caputo means by the word. Here is his definition, on p. 47.

An event is not precisely what happens, which is what the word suggests in English, but something going on in what is happening, something that is being expressed or realized or given shape in what happens; it is not something present, but something seeking to make itself felt in what is present.

Caputo says a lot about events, both from what I guess are his own thoughts and from the writings of a few other people, but the above is good summation. I don't think it would be inaccurate to say that an event as Caputo uses the word is really a non-event as most of the English-speaking world uses the word.

Is that a fair summation on my part? I think it is, yes. Caputo cannot even say for certain if these 'events' actually are, and even seems to say they are not and will never be. From p. 55.

The event is always already ahead of us, always provoking and soliciting us, eternally luring us on with its promise. The truth of the event is its promise to come true. Events make promises that are never kept by any actual occasion.

So, while 'events' are not only nonevents, their truths are lies, and they never keep a promise.

(And at the moment, I have the few lines I remember from Chagall Guevara's song "I'm living in Escher's World" running through my head)

Ok, what does this have to do with religion and God? From p. 50.

We might even say, to put all this a bold and simple stroke, that in postmodern theology what happens to us is God, which is why we call it postmodern theology. Or, to couch it in slightly more cautious terms, in postmodern theology what happens to us is the event that is harbored in the name of God...

And from p. 53.

In the Scriptures the covenant is a promise or a covenant cut by God--that is why I speak unabashedly of theology--where the name of God is the name of an event, of something that stirs within the name, something I know not what, some sacred spark or fire.

Ok, let's see. 'Events' are nonevents which may not even be real and lie and don't keep promises, and now the name of God is the name of an 'event', so that must mean that God is an 'event'.

(In case you haven't noticed, I'm doing what Chesterton suggested, and trying to put Caputo's ideas into words of one syllable, or to modify it a bit, to use words that are common and easily understandable. So, whiles "promises" is a three-syllable word, I figure it's a common enough word so that it will not take away from the baldness and boldness of the statements)

Ok, what does this do to God, or at least Caputo's idea of God? Here is something from p. 57, about prayer but it also states some things about his 'god'.

Prayer is not a transaction or interaction with some hyperbeing in the sky, a communication with some ultrareality behind the scenes, the invocation or appeasement of a magical power of supernatural intervention from on high.

And on p. 58.

I would put the same idea by saying that our desire is for the Messiah who never shows up, which is what keeps desire going.

And on p. 65, in a statement of unusual bluntness for him.

God is not a cosmic force, a worldly power, a physical or metaphysical energy or power source that supplies energy to the world, who designs it, starts it up and keeps it going, and who occasionally intervenes here and there with strategic course corrections, a tsunami averted here, a cancerous tumor there, a bloody war quieted over there.

So, to do a Chestertonian "in other words", his god is not all of the things the Bible says God is. When we pray to his god, we pray to a nothing. We long for a Messiah who will not come, even though the Bible promised He would come and He has come and will come again. His god does nothing in the world, does not work miracles, did not create and does not keep, and does not love us or care for us

And what about Jesus? From p. 66.

I ask, what is happening on the Cross? What is happening to us? What events pulsate through that unforgettable scene? It is a mystification to think that there is some celstial transaction going on here, some settling of accounts between the divinity and humanity, as if this death is the amortization of a debt of long standing and staggering dimensions. If anything, no debt is lifted from us in this scene but a responsibility imposed on us... The crucified body of Jesus is a site--one among many-- of divine eventiveness...and we are to make ourselves worthy of this event.

From p. 63

Jesus was crucified, not freely, but against his will, against the will of everything that is good and just, human or divine...The radical uprooting of the heresy of Docetism dmeands that we locate the divinity of this scene of misery and defeat, the sacredness of its memory, not in some hidden power play or long-term investment in a divine economy of salvation.

So, Jesus did not lay down His life, it was taken from Him, making His words about laying down His life only more lies. Jesus' death was not a sacrifice for sins, is not the way in which we may be made right with God. We are still in our sins, and if anything we now have more of a burden put on us, because we must work to make ourselves worthy of an 'event'.

This is getting long, and some things I've already written about a few weeks ago, concerning his ideas of the God being weak and without power. I'll not comment on his cheap and stupid shots on the US, except to say that they are there.

His ideas remind me of a Bible verse, which gives a list of things indicative of how things will be "in the last days". Among them will be people who will "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof".

And the next words are an injunction to believers in regards to such people, "From such turn away".

book review, part 1--after the death of god--toward a nonreligious christianity

A week or two ago, I found a book at a bookstore called "After the Death of God", with some writings in it by two men, Caputo and Vattimo. Try to give the reasons such a work may have come to be of more then casual interest would be too long, but both names have come up in their own ways, and in regards to Caputo, I have heard some presentations of his on podcasts from a certain religious website. A few weeks ago I even commented on some things Caputo has written.

The book has an introduction, not by one of the authors above, then begins with what I guess could be called an essay by Vattimo, called "Toward a Nonreligious Christianity".

One thing I want to say is that the essay is written in an accessible way. Not that it is all of that easy to understand, and I can't claim perfect understanding of it all, but I'll take the chance that I do understand him to some degree.

Vattimo seems to claim so kind of Christian belief, but it also seems to be of a peculiar sort. For example, on p. 42, in regards to the Lord's prayer, he says

...I know preciese that the words I am using are not intended to convey some literal truth. I pray these words more for the love of a tradition than I do for the love of some mythic reality.

and here, on p. 38

Likewise, with the language of the gospel, I can only understand it as that which is not ontic, not given in the external world, not is it meant to be interpreted realistically.

Given such statements, then, I don't think it's unrealistic sees the Bible as largely mythic, not history; as mostly a collection of stories, whether divinely inspired or not I'm uncertain as of yet. In fact, I'm pretty well convince, reading other things he's said and written, that he doesn't believe in God at all.

There are two things I want to focus on from this essay. The first is in regards to truth. From p. 37

In Christianity there is a fundamental commitment to freedom. And, to add a bit of scandal, by standing for freedom, this includes freedom from (the idea of) truth. After all, if there really is an objective truth, there will always be someone who is more in possession of it than I and thereby authorized to impose its law obligation on me.

And further down that page.

...if Christianity did not liberate us from objective truth, how could we even maintain our belief in Scripture, or how could we prevent Scripture from being logically inconsistent, if not utterly absurd?

There are several lines this ideas of the Bible being illogical and absurd could have taken. For example, "historical Jesus" which seeks to de-mythologize Him, meaning that it begins with the assumption that accounts of His miracles and His claims to divinity are untrue. There have also been question about the historical reliability of other parts of the Bible, particularly in regards to the early part of Genesis. I think this is partially was on his mind, at least by some things he said in other parts of the essay.

And so we have one of the fruit being born from the compromise with evolution--Scripture when taken as truth becomes "logically inconsistent, if not utterly absurd". What is left? from p. 41

In this sense, emancipation actually consists in pursuing secularization, which is to say, emancipation relies on the process of desacralization, in having a better understanding of the spiritual sense of Scriptures by reading them spiritually.

Which leads us in the direction of the other thing I want focus on. From p. 44

As I see it, Christianity is moving in a direction that cannot but lighten adn weaken its moral load in favor of its pracrical-moral charity. And not only the weakening of its moral-metaphysical assumptions, but, by this transformation, charity will eventually replace truth.

I cannot say how familiar that sounds, how much what he says seems like things others are saying. There does seem to be a movement to treat the record of Jesus' life in the Bible as some kind of myth, while also wanting to treat them to some extent seriously. It really does seem as if their object of faith is not so much Christ, not even so much the stories about him, but their ideas and the 'truths' they claim to glean from them.

And as a consequence, what is left? We have some people who try to make concepts of Heaven and Hell being real places where we go when we die into a form of what they say is some kind of unbiblical dualism. They try to downplay the role of beliefs and creeds, and emphasize their forms of social and charitable works. Charity replaces truth, a Vattimo says.

I do not think that I need to defend the importance of charity or love in Christianity, but I do see the need to defend the importance of belief in Christianity now. To more-or-less quote C.S. Lewis from "The Four Loves", "Love, having become a god, becomes a demon". Not even charity can take the place rightfully belonging to God without become an evil thing. One can see that welfare systems which allow those meant to be helped to live lives of sloth, and which make the people dependent on an organization or a government to provide for them. One can see it as well in socialistic ideas such as taking from those who have, irregardless of whether they gained rightly or wrongly, and giving to those who have not, again irregardless of whether they can manage their gains or not.

After all, does the Bible also not say "If a man will not work, he shall not eat"? Didn't Paul tell some in Thessalonica to stop living idle lives and start doing something productive? Charity is good, but it is not God.

Vattimo seems to be saying that charity is somehow the main thing. But in making the Bible nothing more then a book of nice stories, he undercuts his own position. Because if the Bible is only a book of nice stories, if its morals are now of no importance, then by definition even the commands to charity are only human constructs, and his holding them over some other ethic--for example, one which says charity is an evil which must be done away with--becomes in the end only his own preference. If there is no divine command behind it, then there is no compulsion to live by it. If there is no objective truth, then not even charity can be something we must pursue. Vattimo's "message of charity" becomes only a message, not something we must follow, not a command, only a preference, which people can (and no doubt will) discard or use as they see fit.

What you will find behind the "death of God" and the "Scriptures as mythology" rhetoric is simply a 'god' who is made in the image of people like Vattimo. Vattimo is openly gay and a socialist, and it would not be surprising if his 'god' and his 'mythologized bible' wind up agreeing with his economics and politics, and also doesn't look with disapproval on his sexual activities.

in the interest of fairness and balance

I try to be fair. Whether I am always successful is, of course, subject to debate, but the attempt is there. In the interest of that idea of fairness, and because I think it's thoughtful and does a good job at presenting a balance, I thought it a good idea to present this professor's thoughts concerning the Emergent Church and it's offshoots.

It is fair, I think, because I am critical of the movement, or at least of some who are leaders in the movement. And not without reason, I contend. People like McLaren can tend to talk and write in vagueness, but sometimes whenever they stumble into clarity, what they say can at the least be troubling.

And in recent times, the movement has fragmented, as some who were in the movement have become uncomfortable with its direction and have broken from it. Perhaps most notable is Mark Driscoll, a pastor in Seattle, who recently called out people like McLaren in some of the things they have written and said.

In this, I think this professor, Bock, gives a fairly balanced view of the movement, in regards to its strengths and its faults.

.link to "bock's blog"

At the risk of countering what I just wrote, I'm not so certain of his first three points, where he says that he sees "these clear strengths". He may have some good points in them, but I also question them. In the first, I would have liked if he had explained what he labelled "its (modernity's) spirit of freedom and quest for human autonomy". The second tries to bring up "consumer culture", as if greed were some kind of new thing. I'm also not certain of what he's saying about the the church's budgets. Perhaps church's could spend differently, though that is also something each church must decide for itself. The third seems to want to blame things like technology for our supposed disconnectedness. While, much like Chesterton, I'm not a big fan of efficiency, it has it's place but can become a demon when made a god.

I'm simply not certain that we are to some extent more isolated because of technology then we were in olden times. I'm not certain there isn't a kind of "good old days" time of golden fog over how some people see the past, and I realize that is at least borderline arrogant of me. But I am a person of this day and time, and without apology. I have a liking for things like e-mail, the internet, computers, cars, airplanes, television. Maybe not telephones, maybe those can be labelled as 'spawns of evil'.

Anyway, concerning the next list of strengths, nine in number, I have no problems with. And the six concerns he gives are things I have seen as well.

If I may give one more possible strength of the movement, it is in the idea of trying to do church services in different kinds of ways. I do like the idea of church being something more then a gathering to sit and listen, sing a few songs, and meet and greet a bit. Most churches are, though, in that they often have more then just a couple of services a week.

The movement must not be condemned as a whole--there are some good things coming out of it. At the same time, as Professor Bock says, there are things to be concerned about it in. And the sad things is, those who want to be known as leaders in the movement are not helping it by their words

the voice 2--politics

It's all political.

That is something to keep in mind in regards to McLaren nowadays. Maybe it wasn't as strong in something like "A Different Kind of Christian", which I wrote a bit about a few months ago, but it's showing up now and stronger. The association with people like Jim Wallis and Sojourers has seemed to encourage him to voice political views.

Luke is very interested in the ways that disadvantaged people of his day--the poor, the sick, the women--respond to God...

This is echoed a few pages later, regarding the story in Luke of the shepherd's visit to the child Jesus.

Remember what we said about Luke's fascination with disadvantaged people? Here we have it again...They (the shepherds) had little to no status in the world. They were the humble and the poor whom God was now raising up to receive heavenly messages and an audience with the great King...

Is this a 'for certain' thing?

First off, was this something new God was doing, something He hadn't done before? How about Joseph--slave, prisoner, made second in command of a powerful nation. How about Moses--very topsy-turvy in this regard, child of slaves made child of royalty who became an exile and a shepherd who met God and became a leader and an instrument of deliverance for his people. How about Gideon--a little guy who was out doing his job in very adverse condition when God called him to go to war. How about David--little kid keeping sheep becomes a war hero and after some tumulous times of running becomes a king and a poet and a prophet. And there're people like Elijah, of whose background little is known.

Of course, one could just as easily point out examples of people in other social spheres who were used by God--Abraham, Job, Daniel, Solomon. I've read where Isaiah may have been of pretty high family, though I'm not certain of that.

And there is one more thing about Jesus--the fact that for all that the humbleness surrounding His birth, He still came of Israel's kingly line, going back to David. His geneology is given twice in the Gospels, so one would think that it must be pretty important.

Does Luke care about the social status of those he is writing about? Maybe. But maybe not, too. It is something being read into the story, perhaps with reason, or perhaps not. At the least, making Luke into some kind of polemic about the disadvantaged and the lowly is questionable, and seems more like the writer's attempts to insert his politics then any kind of biblical thinking.

My purpose here is not to say that God does not use those of low social status, and doesn't care about them. My purpose is to say that God does not exclusively use such people, but has used people of all kinds of social classes and statuses. The Christmas story does have shepherds of little wealth and status, but it also has wise men who do bring rich offerings for the Christ child.

movie review--national treasure: book of secrets--putting the fun in patriotism

This movie was pretty much what I expected--lite, fun, witty, a kind of Indiana Jones but not a deep or serious, certainly not as serious as "...Temple of Doom".

Among the fun-ness was: breaking into the offices of two heads of state; a chase scene in Britain involving a beer truck and the most satisfying squashing of a Euro-bug type of car; high-flying high-balancing high-jinx in a cave; escape from a library; and other things that I'll not mention lest I give away too much for those who haven't yet seen it and wish to.

The only really negative thing was probably the relationship thing. Apparently, Gates, the adventuring problem-solving treasure hunter, had been living with his girlfriend and been kicked out in the time between the first movie and the opening of this one. It does raise concerns about the whole 'living together instead of marrying' issue.

There were several good things in it, too. The basic story is that one of the Gates' ancestors, who lived during and a bit after the US Civil War (1860ish) was suppose to have been a quiet hero in keeping the South from finding a large source of funds to continue the war, but then is accused of actually having conspired to kill President Lincoln, and the Gates, father and son, set out with their friends to clear his name.

Along the way, both Gates, father and son, are reunited with their respective lady-loves--the father had not spoken to the mother for many years, and the son is of course reunited with the former girlfriend. There are adventures in Europe and back in the States, as clues are found and the puzzle pieces come together in, of course, the discovery of the treasure.

The movie has lots of banter in it, and humorous situations. There is some violence and shooting, like in the chase scene, but nothing comes of it. The only death is merely implied, and it's not beyond the realm of possibility to discover that that person actually lived rather then died.

Actually, there were two deaths, one at the first of the movie. That one was pretty much 'real', in the movie sense.

It wasn't a "bashing" movie in any way. The US president is depicted, and plays along on the search for the treasure, which is said to maybe be of national importance. It doesn't deal with what would be considered 'big issues', but it does portray the country positively.

In summary, I recommend it. It was fun, without much bad it in.

movie review--i am legend--good but tough

I want to say first off that "I Am Legend" is a very good movie. I want to say further that "I Am Legend" is one of the roughest movies I've ever watched through.

Last week, in "AvP: Requiem", I saw what is could be considered an example of the typical 'monster movie'. It was a 'fantastic' type of movie, and while creepy and scary, it didn't give much of an impression of being realistic in almost any way. The monsters were obviously fictitious, alien, unrealistic, and the characters had that kind of movie-ish unrealistic element to them that is common in such movies.

"...Legend" had a disturbingly realistic edge to it. The story itself is rather fantastic--a virus used to cure cancer mutates and causes people to turn into albino-ish carnivorous bat-like creatures who try to avoid the light. Regular humans are for all that we know when the movie begins down to one man, who along with his dog is living in the wilds of New York City while avoiding being detected by the mutated creatures.

What gives it such a realistic edge is Will Smith. He does a terrific job with a character the is remarkably complex--a scientist who bears the guilt of how wrong his experiment turned out, a man truly alone in a big city, a father and husband who had lost his family, a scientist trying and failing to correct the mistake, a lonely man whose need for company has come down to talking to mannequins and whose family is a dog, and a man who goes over the edge when that dog becomes infected and is killed.

Another thing that made it tough was the creatures. We get the impression early that they are mindless, crazed, without any spark of humanity left in them. That is what Smith's character thinks of them, and then he comes on one that is different--when one of its tribe is captured by the scientist, it acts as if it may actually try to attempt to rescue it, although it was unable to enter the sunlight. Then they set a trap for him, like one he set for them. Then they show signs of having leadership and even communication and an ability to organize. When at one point the scientist says that they have lost all signs of humanity, I think that he knows he's lying to himself.

Much of what Smith does is probably all too realistic--it's not a stretch to think that a man alone for at least two years would become too attached to mannequins, or to his dog, and considering that it was his research that caused the disaster to happen, that he should fight guilt over it and try to remedy it on his own.

The guilt part if tricky, because it is not explicitly said--we don't have a stereotypical breakdown-and-confession, even if it would be with no-one else around. There is the scene where he thinks one remedy fails and he slams some things around, but even that doesn't get out of control. Probably the closest it comes is at the end when he thinks he's found the cure but will be killed by the creatures before he may be able to help them.

But it seems like that guilt is always there in him, pushing him to find the cure and then goading the helplessness he feels into a rash act of revenge, and maybe also having a part in his last act of sacrifice to pass on the cure.

Much has been made of the God-talk in the movie, and it is there, and it is done with respect. A set of too-convenient coincidents are given as signs of divine guidance, and such may well be. Then the fact that Anna's knowledge of the human colony in Vermont (I think that's the right state) is correct only emphasizes the divine guidance.

Of course, it's a work of fiction, but still, it was good to see that the writers didn't leave God out, which would have been understandable in such a bleak story, but that they show His hand even in their troubles.

I really don't know if it's a movie I would want to watch again. It is a very good movie, and I recommend it, but it's harsh and bleak and at times gut-wrenching. It's not a easy movie, not by any stretch, but it is powerful.

Christians Under Siege in Indian State

Christians Under Siege in Indian State

From the article...

Three days of violence against Christians in India have raised fears that the recent election victory of a Hindu hardliner in India's most-developed state may be prompting other activists to turn on non-Hindu minorities.

A curfew has been imposed in a remote part of eastern Orissa state after clashes over the Christmas holiday that reportedly left at least one and possibly three people dead.

Up to 12 churches and dozens of homes of Christians were ransacked or torched, state officials and Christian groups reported.

...

Dayal urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to intervene and said Christian leaders would try to see him on Thursday.

"The Hindu attackers are announcing openly, even on television, that every person who become a Christian becomes an enemy," he said.

Earlier this week, another Christian group, Gospel for Asia, reported that "anti-Christian extremists" in Orissa had badly beaten one of its missionaries, Matish Junni, shaved his head and paraded him around his local village.

It said Junni, who pastors 25 local believers, had just days earlier begun construction on a small church building.

"The extremists who attacked the pastor on Sunday demanded that the church members halt construction immediately," Gospel for Asia said.

Hindu hardliners accuse Christians of luring low-caste Hindus to covert to Christianity.

Hinduism's rigid social hierarchical system places at the very bottom of the ladder so-called "untouchables" or "dalits." Converting to Christianity, or Islam, allows dalits to escape from the caste system.