On Faith

Faith, being that which names an Object and thus obliterates it in the name of following, is that thing which no one can seem to speak clearly about. Mostly since faith eludes naming, at least true faith eludes naming. As Critchley argues in Very Little...Almost Nothing (paraphrased), "Adam was the first serial killer." Why? Because he named things. Faith does this all the while being unnameable itself.

I claim faith is unnameable (undefinable) because in any attempt to define it becomes simplified and therefore, most times, meaningless. Faith kills that which it has as an Object since it tries to grasp and name that Object. But at the same time faith is oddly needed.

Maybe the beauty of Christianity is that it requires a faith which, in naming as its Object the person of Jesus, can kill God because God has already died. In so doing, then, we find life.

On Leaving

I'm quitting social media for a time. It may be permanent. It may be temporary. I'm unsure whether or not I will be coming back to it soon or ever. I do know, though, that it's taking away from things I could be doing, things more beneficial and enjoyable in the long run. Primarily I'm finding that I'm not actually savoring life but living solely through a screen. Sure, I go out and walk and wander and go to school but I'm not truly living. As well, separating myself from social media will better allow me to read and write and thus pursue my goals and dreams. My blog (this site) and my email will be the primary means by which you can contact me.

Part One of a Series on Death of God Theology: Eucharist as God's Perpetual Death

"You are sacrificing Christ all over again," or so the objection to real-presence in the Eucharist goes.

  The objection states that we continue to re-sacrifice Christ on the cross. Guess what? It's true, we do. In fact, we do so in many ways. But the taking of the Eucharist is an important, institutional, global and very visceral way in which we declare God is dead. God is no longer out there. God's death, if it means anything, means that God is no longer Other. God is not the Object but the Subject. As Heidegger states:

“If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself. ” 

By the eating of God, if you will, we face God's death and free ourselves. We take his death into ourselves in a very real sense. By re-sacrificing Christ we continually destroy the Other. We continually embrace the world we have all around us (yes, that is a reference to The Orphans) and live in a Spirit inhabited world. Thus, the common evangelical complaint gets turned on its head and can be embraced.

This is part one of an ongoing series as I read more about death of God theology/radical theology.
 

On Fundamentalism

There are fundamentalists [connotation] and then there are fundamentalists [denotation]. The fear of being labeled a fundamentalist [connotation] only perpetuates the illusion that some people are not bigoted or fundamentalist. When, in fact, all are fundamentalists because all have specific fundamentals to which they think we should return. Thus, to label someone a fundamentalist [connotation] is to accept that you implicitly have fundamentals to which you would like to return but cannot because that fundamentalist [connotation] is stopping you. It's all a vicious cycle. Thus, the only difference between the connotation and the denotation is that of method and approach.

On Exchange

Previously I began to address the radical nature of law vs. gospel within the scriptural context. But, did not set out any nuance (mainly because I am not fond of nuance-ing everything). This post is an attempt at that.

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

Not only did death come via the Law but perfection could not be attained through it. The Law was created to pass away. 

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

The priesthood is no longer with Aaron and his heirs but is now with Melchizedek and his heir. And with this heir there comes a change in the Law. But saying the Law has changed seems okay. It's kosher within Christian circles to say the nature of the Law changed but isn't set aside. Yet, the bible leaves us no room for the comfortable. 

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless...

The Law was created to pass because it is weak and useless. The goal was perfection and the Law was useless in achieving this goal. Ergo, it has to pass. 

...and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

This hope is one of an indestructible life. Again, the tension of death vs. life. Death in and by the Law and life in and by Christ. 

Through whom we live and move and have our being. 

On Law and Gospel

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was...

The Law had a temporary glory, one which passed away into a newer, more full one. The language we use to discuss this is that of law vs. gospel. While accurate it isn't quite as blunt as the language of the bible. 

...For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 

What are these letters? ...The ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone... 

The letters that kill(ed) are/have passing/passed away, and are now gone/going. 

...The same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

In Jesus there is freedom, a radical freedom, from these letters, this Law. It's not about a bunch of laws and some euangelion but about death and life. The Law brought death, but no longer because it is taken away. In its stead there is the Spirit which brings life to all. 

On the Abuse of Truth

I feel bad for truth. It's been so abused of late. And more, I feel anger at Churches. There's this mentality that biblical faithfulness should trump all. "I want to be faithful to the bible," and the statement which underlies that one is this, "so I'll trumpet the biblical text from the rooftops exactly how it's stated therein." No, no, no. Can I say it any more clearly?

We, as Christians, tend to treat the lifestyles or actions we call sin as if they are some abstract idea/entity/thing/whatever that has taken hold of some group of people. This is where the problem lies. We, too often, tend to address the sins of people (when we also fail to have a clear, and effective definition of sin) without realizing they're still (shocker) human. They have feelings, emotions, reactions, thoughts, desires. They feel pain. The reason why people become so outraged at Christian ideals and call us bigots is because we forget their humanness in the desire to be faithful to a book.

Last I checked Christ calls us to be gracious in our speech. He wants us to speak with truth and grace. When we fail to speak truth with grace, in some ways, we fail to speak truth at all. It becomes a clanging noise. Just empty words which we shout in the name of biblical faithfulness and, therefore, words without meaning.

On Christianity as Absurdity

"Modern man must descend the spiral of his own absurdity to the lowest point; only then can he look beyond it. It is obviously impossible to get around it, jump over it, or simply avoid it." Vaclev Havel

Much of what I believe has become absurd, or seemingly so. I've come up against the limits of reason where one can do nothing other than embrace the absurdity. Is that not faith itself? To embrace the utter strangeness of the gospel, its inherently radical nature.

And maybe that's why Christians are so obsessed with having a rational explanation because we have to defend ourselves against the attack of atheists. But is this not the absurdity of the gospel? That we don't defend the validity of our beliefs because they cannot, in fact, be defended. This is not to say they're invalid but rather that the so aptly called 'Christ-event' is absurd and as such cannot be explained.

But once more we encounter an absurdity. By realizing the absurd nature of reason and going onward in faith we embrace absurdity once more. Absurdity is given up for lack of power and replaced by an absurdity of power in weakness: the cross.

On Heresy

  Heresy is a good thing. I know the church proper should be opposed to heresy but I honestly cannot find good reason to stand against it as it is. By this I mean, simply, that heresy, is over rated. It is a word thrown around in the church today, especially by Protestants who want to sound like they have some grasp and/or appreciation for church tradition, and is so often used (and abused, frankly) that it is essentially meaningless. So, how is a word that is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless, a good thing?

  Heresy is simply any doctrine/dogma/idea contrary to orthodox Christianity. Leaving aside the issue of what orthodox Christianity is, it would seem rather wrong of me to suggest that heresy is a good thing in light of this basic definition. But I will suggest such a proposition. And my basis for this claim is simply that seeking Truth (whatever that may entail or be) requires one to step on toes. Truth is to be sought and in doing so one may find that they are enjoining themselves with a heretical notion. And the notion that this is a bad thing, to enjoin oneself with heresy, must be done away with. Inherent in the search for Truth is the risk of heresy. Heresy serves two purposes in the church: 1) to cause reevaluation of dearly held beliefs so as to test whether those things are True and 2) to spur the Church proper into action (I am grateful to Dr. Michael Bauman for this clarifying point). As such heresy is a good thing. It serves a long run purpose. However, does this mean one should arbitrarily become a heretic? No. But one must accept that inherent to Truth seeking is the risk of heresy and that holding a heretical notion (if, indeed it is heretical) can be a good thing for your beliefs and the vitality of the Church.