The distinction between church and world is apocalyptic
Dave Belcher has insisted that we all read J. Louis Martyn’s commentary on Galatians. Rarely does one hear that a commentary is “superb in a way you cannot even imagine,” as Dave puts it. I think he might just be right. Here is a gem I ran across yesterday that helps to substantiate the argument I am trying to make about apocalyptic and secularity in Bonhoeffer.
For Paul religion is the human being’s superstitious effort to come to know and to influence God, rather than the faith that is elicited by God’s invasive grace and that is active in the love of neighbor (Gal 4:8-10; 5:6, 13-14; Rom 1:25). To be sure, the new community created by God’s act in Christ engages in the thankful worship of God, indeed worship in everyday life (Romans 12). This community even has rites, such as baptism (Gal 3:26-28) and the eucharist (Gal 2:12; 1 Cor 11:23-26), and it knows that it is distinct from the world at large. . . .worship of God is the corporate act in which the religious distinction of sacred from profane is confessed to have been abolished in God’s redemptive deed in Christ. The Christ who is confessed in the formula solus Christus is the Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Instead of being the holy community that stands apart from the profane orb of the world, then, the church is the beachhead God is planting in his war of liberation from all religious differentiations. The distinction between church and world is in nature apocalyptic rather than religious. In short, it is in the birth and life of the church that Paul perceives the polarity between human religion and God’s apocalypse; and for that reason a significant commentary on Paul’s letters can be found in the remark of Dietrich Bonhoeffer that “God has founded his church beyond religion. . .” (Swords, 118; cf. idem, Letters, 168).
J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: a new translation with introduction and commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1997) 37, fn. 66.
Is that really a footnote? That’s quite a quote, and quite a claim, to be relegated to small print!
Brad E.
July 13, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Totally a footnote. A good reason to read long footnotes–even in a commentary!
R.O. Flyer
July 13, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Someone told me that Richard Hayes said Martyn’s commentary is the equivalent of Barth’s Epistle to the Romans of our day–that is quite a claim.
Thomas J Bridges
July 13, 2009 at 1:00 pm
gotta wonder about a god that sets up beachheads in the world … certainly not my taste
dbarber
July 13, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Maybe you’re just a wuss.
R.O. Flyer
July 13, 2009 at 4:06 pm
??????
Thomas J Bridges
July 13, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Yeah, Richard Hays called it the greatest biblical commentary since Barth’s commentary on Romans. This year we’ll be doing a panel on Martyn at AAR, trying to bring his exegetical work to the attention of theologians. I reckon he’s a vital resource for theology.
Ben Myers
July 13, 2009 at 6:10 pm
yeah
?????
what beachhead?
roger flyer
July 13, 2009 at 6:37 pm
ohhhhh…
Instead of being the holy community that stands apart from the profane orb of the world, then, the church is the beachhead God is planting in his war of liberation from all religious differentiations.
roger flyer
July 13, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I find the language of beachhead refreshing as posited next to liberal accounts of God’s love that turn God into some sort of benevolent grandfather/sugardaddy/tolerant-One-in-chief. This brings into sharp relief the apocalyptic differentiation between church and world, and helps remind the church that its vocation is to be the church amidst a world hostile to the gift of life in Christ that it attempts to be faithful to.
The only problem would be if beachhead language were used exclusively to describe the church vis-à-vis the world, as this would tend to produce a too-militaristic church, which has never done the church or the world any good.
mattwiebe
July 13, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I’m just not a big fan of the idea of a God that invades the world, conducts war against it, etc. Though that has less to do with a desire for a “sugardaddy” (really mattwiebe?!?), and more with my love of this world.
dbarber
July 13, 2009 at 11:40 pm
My question mark-set was about the wuss comment.
I have to say, with Dan, that I am not too keen on the idea of God “invading the world.” I understand the metaphors, etc. but once we make this an ontological invasion, I think we are in trouble (we act as if there is some realm outside of God for God to invade).
Thomas J Bridges
July 14, 2009 at 12:00 am
Thomas, I was just kidding around, of course. I’m sure Dan could kick my ass. As far as the “ontological invasion” goes, I don’t know, I guess I don’t have a big problem with that. But, really, I was calling Dan a wuss, not because I’m looking for some militaristic God, but because I think considering Martyn and the context it was just kind of a silly thing to quibble about.
R.O. Flyer
July 14, 2009 at 12:51 am
Not to be thick, but can you explain why “considering Martyn and the context” it was a “silly thing to quibble about”? It seems like this sort of attitude is really what differentiates the current orthodox, confessional theology from attempts to recast theology. I guess all of that can’t be battled out in comment boxes through the universe, but “silly”?
Anthony Paul Smith
July 14, 2009 at 7:59 am
I guess I’m not too sure what you’re after here, Anthony. Perhaps my lack commas made my last comment kind of vague. I’m not saying considering Martyn and the context is a silly thing to do. I’m saying that, considering Martyn and the context, I don’t think we have to be worried about him intending to literally set up beachheads in order to go about invading the world. In other words, it is just a metaphor.
Does that clear anything up? Or have I misunderstood you? What exactly “differentiates the current, orthodox, confessional theology from attempts to recast theology?” Do you think that saying “considering Martyn and the context” was some attempt to section him off from criticism–because I had already made up my mind that he was sufficiently orthodox or “safe” or something?
R.O. Flyer
July 14, 2009 at 9:25 am
Perhaps my sentence was unclear, apologies. I was aware that you meant that it was silly because of the context and Martyn, but I don’t understand why. I also don’t understand why you are now saying it is just a metaphor. Either the Church really is the beachhead of God’s invasion of the world or it is not. If it is just a metaphor then call it enthusiastic poetry and be done with it, but if it is theology I hardly see how it is a metaphor.
So, yeah, I guess I do think calling it silly was a way to section him off from criticism (might as well be honest). My point about the sufficiency of orthodoxy and the established position of confessional theology is just this – the most radical attempts made there seem to me to cast, not properly apocalyptic thinking, but a sort of Messianic Nihilism or a Nihilism-to-Come. So I think that the debate that really matters right now is between a kind of apocalyptic insurrectionary theology and this radical attempt within the confines of orthodoxy to, well, destroy the whole world. I guess I am only registering my complaint at calling that silly and do not understand why you would characterize that way.
Anthony Paul Smith
July 14, 2009 at 9:47 am
Okay, I’ll bite: say more about the Messianic nihilism vs. the nihilism-to-come, Anthony.
mwerntz
July 14, 2009 at 9:56 am
Beachhead is a metaphor. Authentic theology can be done using metaphor. I fail to see how this somehow inevitably turns it into “enthusiastic poetry.”
I guess if Dan has a real concern over the use of metaphor “beachhead” to describe the church then he could elaborate on why. At this point, all he has really said is that it is distasteful.
I find it odd that you would characterize a theology that attempts to destroy the world as in any way “orthodox.” In what sense is this orthodox? It seems to me that an “insurrectionary theology” would be much closer to orthodoxy than the attempt to destroy the world.
It seems to me that there is an ongoing tendency on your part to categorize folks as “orthodox” as an easy way to dismiss their thinking.
R.O. Flyer
July 14, 2009 at 10:35 am
Thanks for the explanation, Ry.
As for the more recent conversation between Ry and APS: I think there is something to learn from what Anthony is saying, even if I disagree with him after this learning is done. I can’t elaborate much here due to time constraints, but let me say that military metaphors are only one category among many that speak of redemption within scripture. When I say that I am uncomfortable with the idea of an ontological invasion, that does not mean that I don’t think God is doing/will consummate an ontological transformation of the world. What I mean is that We cannot speak of the Kingdom and the “world” as two ontologically separate realms, such that one would “invade” the other. They are the same thing; what separates them are different ages: this age, and the age to come, which has already begun dawning. “The world” which we are warned against, e.g. by 1 John (we are told not to love “the world”), is the same world, which I am sure you (Ry) would agree, and it is this world which will be transformed. What I find helpful from Anthony’s critique (here and elsewhere I find him to be a provocative conversation partner) is a reminder to look closely at the language we use: if we are committed to nonviolence, ought we make military metaphors ultimate, or ought we balance them with other metaphors? When we draw sharp distinctions between Creator and creation (and I think we ought to), shouldn’t we be careful not to portray something we don’t believe in, i.e, a God waging a certain kind of war than the war of the lamb, which is waged through patience and suffering love, rather than violent force.
Sorry for the brevity of the comment–it does not allow the nuance needed for what I want to say. I need to read Martyn, and need to work on developing more clearly what I mean when I take a critique like Anthony’s seriously, and yet consider myself “orthodox.” I really think apocalyptic brings our attention to something new, coming from the future, which is not a production of the present, and this is where I currently part ways most clearly with Anthony and Dan (though I don’t want to understate how helpful I find their comments here and there).
Thanks again for the post and conversation Ry.
Peace~Thomas
Thomas J Bridges
July 14, 2009 at 11:08 am
A clarification: by not acording to my taste, what I meant to get at was not that it was distasteful, but that I didn’t like it. And the reason I didn’t like it was the way it plays into this idea of God invading the world. That’s all. I have a review coming out someday of Kerr’s book, which I suppose will say a little bit more about this “invasive action”, apocalyptic, etc.
dbarber
July 14, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Ry,
You seem to be reacting badly to my asking questions here. I’m not trying to be annoying. However, if you’re really just bewildered by the way I’m casting this debate I can accept that and do my best to clarify my presentation (limited as it is to blogs and comment boxes). Just let me know.
From the perspective of orthodox theology it isn’t “destroying the world”, but when I read the recent “apocalyptic” theologies and the sources of these theologies I can’t see it any other way. The task isn’t that of Creation, but salvation is simply the complete destruction of that Creation in the presence of the Christ-event. I have been working on a typology of recent theologies and I really think this is the most radical theology within orthodoxy, so I’m not simply writing it off even if I ultimately don’t agree with it. Many of my friends do this sort of theology (Thomas being one of them, but also Nate Kerr and Dave Belcher and others coming out of Vanderbilt). It isn’t that I think all forms of theology working within orthodoxy is this sort of Messianic-nihilism or Nihilism-to-come (maybe another name for it would be Christo-nihlism), but I think this is a form within orthodoxy. I don’t think orthodoxy is one thing, but I don’t think most kind of insurrectionary theology will be concerned with Orthodoxy. Obviously I would have to say more about what characterizes this, but I don’t mean something like the theology that sees the fulfillment of the world in the Christ-event or something. For me that’s actually an example of the Christo-nihilism.
Now, the metaphor thing. In this case saying it is a metaphor seems like an attempt to safeguard it from criticism. Of course metaphor can be used, but calling something a beachhead for a future war of liberation (against the world? against the religious differenation of the world?) seems not to be a metaphor. Not that the Church is an actual beachhead, that would be weird, but it is saying there is something between a beachhead and the Church that is equal. Now, tell me what that equality is if it isn’t an entry point to a larger invasion? Or is that a metaphor too? And then when, with these thinkers, do we get to decide that they aren’t metaphors and that I can actually say “Oh I do/don’t like that”?
I am sorry if I’ve given the impression that I simply dismiss people based on whether or not I think they are orthodox. I do not accept that it is true, if it were I wouldn’t have to read a lot of stuff I don’t want to, but I understand that it can be frustrating to be on the side of a lot of criticism. I will just say that I intend these to edifying, if sometimes harsh, exchanges and that my mind does change on matters through discussion with others.
Anthony Paul Smith
July 14, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Anthony, I appreciate your response. I guess a box was just waiting to be opened here. I really was joking about Dan being a wuss, and didn’t mean to dismiss his comment as unimportant. I guess I just wasn’t sure how productive a conversation would be on the metaphorical use of military language in theology. Or maybe I just was lazy and didn’t want to have that discussion.
But, I do think that there is a more substantial discussion that could be had here, not with regard to metaphor in theology, but with regard to the question of “destruction” in the apocalyptic framework. Certainly, for Paul, the powers aren’t destroyed–they are subdued. This is an important point. In Pauline apocalyptic I don’t think we have a God who utterly destroys creation so as to reinvent or create some new eschatological one. In other words there must remain some continuity. At the same time, the NT theme of death and resurrection, of which Jesus is the first fruits, cannot be ignored in this discussion.
Again, I do appreciate your clarifications, Anthony, and your criticisms.
R.O. Flyer
July 14, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I do think it is important to note that for Martyn talk of God’s apocalyptic invasion of the world is inseparable from talk about Sin and the way in which this “world” (in the Johannine and Pauline) is the “world” precisely as creation itself has been enslaved by the power of Sin. See Martyn’s essay, “World without End or Twice-Invaded World?” I also think it is important to keep in mind that biblically and theologically “world” is not necessarily synonymous with “creation.” Jean-Yves Lacoste makes this point; but Herbert McCabe perhaps makes it most helpfully in his essay “Original Sin.”
Nate Kerr
July 14, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I think a distinction between world and creation is difficult if not impossible to pull off, and imo not desirable — but … assuming such a distinction is admitted, it would have to be purely semantic unless one provides some kind of account of determination/individuation. My own interest here, wrt Yoder, is to see the Powers themselves as enemies of the world, rather than as essential definitions of the world.
As an aside, would a world/creation distinction, as it is has been suggested, mean that creation was perceptible once upon a time, but not perceptible now since now we have the world?
If so, what meaning does creation have, except through the apocalyptic Christ that reveals it, meaning that we are once again back in a strict apocalyptic vs. world binary?
dbarber
July 14, 2009 at 2:47 pm
This is a really fantastic discussion. I can’t wait for the forthcoming scholarly work mentioned here to become available. Back to work, please.
Hill
July 14, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I don’t find the world/creation distinction problematic if by “world” we mean the world-in-rebellion and by “creation” we mean the world-as-it-is-made-to-be. I would say that this “creation” does reveal itself even if only dimly because of its enslavement by the powers. I think Dan is right to say that the powers are the enemies of the world (or creation, in my terminology). Or, perhaps I’m missing your point? In this perspective, it is in fact the powers that are “invasive” and it is Christ’s work to reveal the meaning of creation by unmasking and subduing the powers.
R.O. Flyer
July 14, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“…worship of God is the corporate act in which the religious distinction of sacred from profane is confessed to have been abolished in God’s redemptive deed in Christ.”
I’m not quite sure I follow. If there is absolutely no distinction, then is nothing sacred (or profane)? Isn’t this is a tad over-realized? Or is he simply suggesting that among the community of Christ, specifically during the worship of said community, the distinction is abolished? But isn’t that tautological? Couldn’t we emend Martyn here to suggest that while “the holy community” is not to stand “apart from the profane orb of the world” (in its everday life), its corporate worship is, in some sense, separate or sacred?
Chris Donato
July 14, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I tentatively put my toe in the water regarding the creation/world. If one can’t separate the human world from creation, the New Testament seems to promote environmental destruction.
Is a squirrel part of creation or the world? Does the Good News apply to a squirrel? The Good News does not seem to call out to squirreldom but to our world. Yet we have much in common with the squirrel, the need for water and food and fresh air – all part of creation. We are in creation and of creation.
By contrast, we create our world, through knowledge and ideology, culture and oath. It is our specific love for the world as the center of wisdom that is admonished in the New Testament. I hardly believe that God is also telling us to hate our place in His creation.
I know this is not a developed argument, just throwing it out for your discussion and my enlightenment.
dlbords
July 14, 2009 at 5:50 pm
[...] is an interesting discussion going on over at Rain & the Rhinoceros on the differing forms of contemporary apocalyptic philosophical theologies. There I make public my [...]
Philosophy and Theology Link Post « An und für sich
July 15, 2009 at 5:39 am
I’m reminded of James Alison’s insights:
If we take the notion of the ‘end’ understood as vengeance, just as it is found in 1 Thessalonians, it is a vengeful end which depends exactly on there being insiders and outsiders, so that the afflicted are vindicated, and the persecutors punished. But in the degree to which the perception of God changes, becoming, as we have seen, shorn of violence, two realities are altered simultaneously: the separation between goodies and baddies, insiders and outsiders, enters into a process of continuous collapse and subversion, and at the same time the “end” cannot remain as a vengeance if there is no longer any clarity about who’s an insider and who an outsider, and under these circumstances the notion of the end itself changes towards what we see in 2 Peter: it becomes a principle of revelation of what had really been going on during the time that has been left for the changing of hearts. The Matthean parables of the wheat and the tares and of the good and bad fishes which we saw in chapter 4 say exactly the same thing. That is, as God is shorn of violence, of necessity a new conception of time is discovered, the time in which the new universality is built. In this way the End, rather than being a vengeful conclusion to time, comes to be a principle, operative in time, by means of which we may live out the arrival of the Son of Man, the being alert for the thief in the night, the whole time.
cybertheology
July 15, 2009 at 10:59 am
great conversation (and thanks APS for sending the link over).
I somewhat agree with dan that creation and world should not be so greatly distinguished (sound very nature/grace although I’m sure many will protest).
could a better metaphor be that of the dawn. In a sense the morning light ‘invades’ the darkness, but the darkness is not a something to be invaded, but exactly a nothing. Likewise, the ‘world’ is merely creation amid darkness of sin, a darkness with is nothing itself, but covers creation. to those accustomed to darkness the rising light would certainly be perceived as an apocalypse, and ontological destruction, when in reality it is a ontological preservation and revelation of how things really are.
could it be the case that in desiring not to ontologize the Christ-event that we instead ontologize sin and the ‘world’? but ought not we do the exact opposite?
lastly, ASP, what do you have in mind for insurrectional theology? are you saying that orthodoxy theologies can’t also be insurrectional?
Geoff Holsclaw
July 15, 2009 at 12:40 pm
In one of Halden’s more recent post on idolatry and sexuality he quotes James Alison who nicely distinguishes between the “cultural reality of death” and presumably the biological or cosmic reality of death. The distinction suggests a way of uniting the Johannine and Pauline understandings of “world”.
The “cosmic reality of death” will be resolved at the eschaton, while the “cultural reality of death” is getting resolved — by God’s grace — here and now as we start thinking and feeling and acting like death doesn’t have the last word. That’s hope, after all.
I think it’s important for Christians to recognize that the human and (for lack of a better word) non-human “worlds” are both death-bound, albeit in different ways. They’re not identical or exclusive of each other. Rather, they complement each other, revealing the seeming omnipresence of death wherever Christ is missing.
cybertheology
July 15, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Thanks to everyone for your comments, but this discussion seems to be going in a number of directions.
1) On the question of the use of military metaphors in theology/Bible. I tend to agree with Thomas on this. Considering the history of violence in Christianity and the abuse of scripture to justify it, we should be cautious about using military metaphors–even when such metaphors are about nonviolence. That said, I am also sympathetic to Matt Wiebe’s point. A central element of apocalyptic is expressing the polarity between God’s coming kingdom and “the world” enslaved by sin and the powers. And we should highlight the fact that apocalyptic biblical imagery contains some very violent imagery (even if metaphorical or visionary).
All of this reminds me that I should clarify a bit on how this relates to Martyn. I’ve been informed that “beachhead” is actually a term that Martyn has appropriated from J. Christiaan Beker. More importantly, the military imagery that Martyn uses throughout the commentary is not meant to be a theological interpolation, but is based on his exegesis of the text. For instance, in his discussion of Galatians 5:13-24 Martyn argues that Paul’s use of aphorme refers to the cosmic struggle with the ‘impulsive desire of the Flesh’ and sin.
2) The question of whether God’s apocalyptic action in Christ amounts to an (ontological) invasion of the world. Such a claim obviously implies that God is in some sense other than the world. This does not necessarily mean “God and the world add up to 2,” but it does say that whatever God “is”–he is not the world. The imagery of invasion does suggest something that is not “natural” to the created order as such. Is this problematic? Do we have to say that everything in Jesus is already intrinsic to the natural order as such? Or can we speak of something extrinsic that “invades”–I suppose this would make speech about this invasion quite troublesome.
3) The third issue I think we’re discussing here is related to APS’ line of thought. APS thinks he’s discovered something of a “type” in the radical apocalyptic theologies articulated as of late (especially by Nate Kerr, I suppose). APS identifies this type, at least in part, by its “orthodoxy.” I assume by “orthodoxy” APS really means “holding to some idea of transcendence.” I propose that we stop equating a belief in transcendence with the term “orthodoxy.” Not only does this make Dan Barber’s position necessarily “heterodox,” but more importantly “transcendence” is simply not a criterion for orthodoxy. Besides the so-called “orthodox” factor, APS thinks it consists of the destruction of creation, which occurs when the Messiah or Christ comes (hence, “Messianic-nihilism” or “Christo-nihilism”). You probably have more to say about this type of apocalyptic theology, so I’ll leave it up to you, APS, to elaborate before launching into a criticism.
R.O. Flyer
July 15, 2009 at 2:09 pm
You can access much of Beker’s work on Paul at Google Books.
One of his main points is that the climax of salvation history is not Christ’s resurrection and present glory, but the impending glory of God (Romans 8).
Beker likens Christ’s resurrection to D-Day, but insists that our overriding hope is for V-Day.
cybertheology
July 15, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I wish I could participate further, but all I have time to do is say I read all the comments and am still interested in the conversation. I gotta go (don’t tell my wife I commented–today is our anniversary!).
Thomas J Bridges
July 15, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I’m at a conference for 5 days. I want to respond to Geoff, but I won’t have time until I get back to Nottingham. Sorry.
Anthony Paul Smith
July 15, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Anthony,
no problem. i’m very interested. and if you have time to reflect more on that typology I would love to see it (i must confess I wasn’t exactly sure who was going in which category), but I definitely think there is something to it.
Geoff Holsclaw
July 15, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Sorry to skip back over the last few posts, but I wanted to go back to Dan’s last comment.
I think it’s fairly clear that Yoder read Paul as himself positing a “creation” (Grk. ktisis, I think?) and “world” (kosmos) distinction. It’s a common NT distinction, at least – e.g., in the gospel of John. Yet this is only an “ontological” distinction, for Yoder, insofar as we can say that rebellion and sin “is” (and we all know, from Augustine’s “nihil” to Barth’s das Nichtige, and perhaps Paul himself, that theology is prone to equivocate on the nature of sin’s/rebellion’s “reality”). Yoder didn’t approach the issue of the powers existence in those terms; but I do think he should be read as positing a notion of the powers as the enemies of God’s creation and creaturely life itself. God wills the creation, and the life of its creatures, and the powers appear, alongside human sin/rebellion, as ‘anti-creation’, the reifications of our inhumanity.
This is why I think it’s important to read Yoder as Dan has, at least on the point of viewing the cosmic powers as ‘non-essential’ construals of the ‘world’.
The issue of the ‘perception’ of creation in the ‘world’ is, I think, more complex – and my own reading of Yoder, which I admit is somewhat filtered through his and my own reading of Barth, would want to stress here that it comes down to an issue of the nature of revelation. This is because for Barth and (I think) Yoder, the only ‘unity’ we can ascribe to creation/new creation is founded in Godself – it is the unity of Jesus as God’s one word, by which everything comes to be, is preserved, and is then – once subjected to the powers dominion (hence the ‘new’) – redeemed. That creation is only known as such ‘in Christ’ reminds me, for instance, of Barth’s struggle with traditional protestant affirmations of ‘orders of creation’, and Yoder’s suggestion that a doctrine of the powers got at the same issue that line of thinking was on about (in respect of the ‘fundamental’ socio-political structuring of human history), yet in a way that better related Christ and creation. Also Yoder’s claim, in Christian Witness to the State and elsewhere, that the distinction between ‘church’ and ‘world’ (in the sense of ‘creation’) is not finally an ontological one.
There is probably another, less dogmatic way to say what I think is at stake here, in the question of the creation/’world’ distinction, and the ability to perceive ‘creation’ as such. My apologies for not being able to find better words. I do think it’s an important question to press when faced with accounts of ‘ontological’ invasion – but perhaps a better account of the powers’ location vis-a-vis a Christologically driven doctrine of creation would clarify precisely if that’s what ‘apocalyptic’ theology is really on about.
scott prather
July 15, 2009 at 8:41 pm
To wit:
‘It follows from the “already, but not yet” nature of Christ’s lordship over the powers that there is no one tangible, definable quantity that we can call “world.” The aion houtous is at the same time chaos and a kingdom. The “world” of politics, the “world” of economics, the “world” of the theater, the “world” of sports, the under-”world”, and a host of others – each is a demonic blend of order and revolt. The world “as such” has no intrinsic ontological dignity. It is creaturely order in the state of rebellion; rebellion is, however, for the creature estrangement from what it “really is”; therefore, we cannot ask what the world “really is,” somehow “in itself.”… All that the Powers have in common is their revolt, and revolt is not a principle of unity…. Only the lordship of Christ holds this chaos of idolatrous “worlds” together.’
- Yoder, ‘The Otherness of the Church’, in The Royal Priesthood, 56-7.
scott prather
July 16, 2009 at 7:13 am
I think Scott Prather is on target in his understanding of the creation/world distinction, both in the NT and in Yoder. In an apocalyptic theology (i.e., the NT) the “powers” are more seriously taken into account than in typical mainstream construals of “what’s going on” theologically speaking. Just so, however, the military metaphors cannot be avoided. Beker and Martyn did not make them up: they are all over in the gospels as well as in Paul, and of course in the Apocalypse of John. Trying to avoid the military metaphors, rather than seeing how they are conscripted (oops, another one), sublated, and transformed by the gospel, is like trying to avoid the term Messiah when talking about Jesus. Just as Jesus redefines Messiah (rather than avoiding the term), so also Jesus redefines warfare, rather than pretending that there are no battles to be engaged.
An excellent conversation.
Doug Harink
July 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I’m coming late to this conversation, and have never been to this site before or conversed with any of you (hello, all!), but I thought I would add some comments.
1. Re: metaphor:
Ryan has already suggested that authentic theology can be formulated metaphorically, in answer to Anthony Paul Smith’s concerns about what the church “really” is. Yet even Ryan uses the language of something being “just” a metaphor. There is an inadequate understanding of the nature of figurative language at work here.
Human language is very tied to our concrete experience, but we constantly have to use it to express things that are not concrete. For example, I might have a particular psychological experience that I want to describe. But to do so inevitably requires figurative language. All that can be concretely said of a man falling in love, for example, is that his endorphin levels have increased, which tells us very little (he might also be eating chocolate or getting a massage or something). To know that he is in love, we need to hear him say things about how she lights up the room, warms his heart, etc., all of which are figurative. And these figurative statements are the only way to express this truth. The concrete statements are incapable of making true statements about him falling in love; they can make true statements about related facts, but not about the matter itself.
Often it is assumed that metaphor and other forms of figurative language are less true than non-figurative language. But this conflates truth and falsehood with concreteness and figurativeness, when in fact these are orthogonal axes. The range between figurative and concrete is mostly about intended frames of reference and which parts of one relationship are being paralleled with another. Thus, the phrase “falling in love” may be true or false of a given situation depending on whether the person feels that their transition into a particular psychological state is inexorable and beyond their control. And then of course there is the fact that “falling in love” actually captures a different nuance than “inexorably, uncontrollably transitioning into a psychological state called ‘love,’” (which is itself also a string of metaphors, incidentally).
So on the one hand, beachhead is not “just” a metaphor that can be dismissed with terms like “enthusiastic poetry”: it is a metaphor and therefore has to considered carefully for its truth value. On the other hand, it is also misleading to expect to shell off the metaphorical husk to get at a literal kernel: the metaphor is the truth claim, and its truth has to be evaluated based on what relational parallels it draws between its abstract and concrete references. The question is not whether God “really” is outside the world and has to invade it; the question is how similar are the relationships of God to the world and an invading general to hostile territory. To the degree there is similarity, to that degree the metaphor is true.
I expect that this idea of truth-value and figurativeness as being orthogonal axes in evaluating statements will serve simply as clarification of what everyone already knew intuitively, but explicating such things is often helpful for reducing inconsistency.
2. Re: creation and world:
Cybertheology already posted about this, and I want to add my support to his/her suggestion. English’s “world” has a similar range of meanings as Greek’s κοσμος, which can be broadly grouped under the headings “the created realm” and “human culture and society.” Sometimes the NT uses the word in one way, and sometimes in the other. Rather than getting ourselves tied up in theological and philosophical knots by thinking the term is univocal, let’s recognize that it is multivalent and make it our task first to discern what exactly the meaning is in a particular case, and then to theologize about that meaning, not about that word.
3. Re: the kingdom of God:
I am inclined to agree with Ladd, etc., that βασιλεια primarily means reign or rule, and that the meaning of a realm that is ruled is secondary (incidentally, this also used to be the rank of meanings for “kingdom,” but modern English has switched them). So when we talk about the coming of the kingdom of God, we should probably not think primarily in terms of realms (God entering a place where before he was not), but rather in terms of (re-)establishing authority. Rather than, say, D-Day and V-Day, which traces back to Oscar Cullman, a better analogy is the idea of a king deploying troops to quell a rebellion in a city within his borders. On one level, the rebelling city was never not in his kingdom understood as a realm, but on another level the city was, for a time, not under his kingdom because his authority was not being acknowledged and obeyed.
I would add more, but responsibilities demand my attention and a glass of milk in her sippy cup.
Jon Stovell
July 16, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’m in agreement that the way to address military metaphors must involve some kind of contextualization, looking at redefinition, etc. Fair enough.
However, there are two larger difficulties, from my end anyway. First, there is the concept of invasion — the problem with this is not that it is a military metaphor as such, it is the sort of spatialization, both geographically and ontologically speaking, that invasion implies.
Second, I’m largely symphathetic to what Scott has said (and even where I’m not sympathetic, I admire its precision and level of sophistication). What all of this raises, however, is the conceptual relation between world and creation (I think the question of “how to perceive world” points to the need for such a relation). Even if we grant that the world is not identified with creation, to leave it at that is to remain implicitly (though no longer explicitly) within an oppositional stance to the world as such.
World as such? One might respond, no, there is the world in thrall to the powers, and then there is creation. But this is precisely my point — if there is no way of mediating “creation” with the world as such (or as it is irreducible to the determination of the Powers), then one is effectively anti-worldly. Citing the NT distinction between creation and world does not on its own solve this problem.
(Let me make clear that I think Scott has moved towards genuinely addressing this problem — my object of critique here lies closer to those who would simply point to the creation/world distinction under the apparent supposition that this suffices.)
dbarber
July 16, 2009 at 5:09 pm
A related point: Yoder is frequently critical of the attempt to get a “handle” (i believe that is the word) on history. My sense, though, is that apocalyptic theology can be, at least effectively, yet another handle.
To anticipate: Perhaps some here might say, the problem is not having a handle itself, it is having the wrong handle. For what it’s worth, I find this response to be inadequate.
dbarber
July 16, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Jon Stovel is right to say that in the NT (in fact, even in Paul) there is not a simple distinction between kosmos and ktisis, and that one would have to pay attention to the word in use rather than simply to the term itself to determine what it means in a particular text. The distinction is only a rough one.
With respect to dbarber’s comments about the ktisis/kosmos distinction rendering up an anti-worldly stance: If we take Col 1:15-20 (also Rom 8:38-39) into account (as Yoder does, for example) we also have to develop a nuanced account of the powers vis a vis ktisis. In Col. the powers too are created and reconciled in Christ, as included in ta panta. In 2 Cor 5:19 Paul speaks of God reconciling the kosmos to himself in Christ (there it seems the human world is particularly in view). If kosmos is in some sense ktisis (as such?) plus the work of humans plus the work of the powers, we would have to develop a complex understanding of the ktisis/kosmos relationship that couldn’t be simply “anti-world,” since “world” itself isn’t simply creation in its negative aspect. We must, as dbarber says, be able to discern ktisis in kosmos, or even kosmos itself as in some sense ktisis. Such discernment, as D.B. Hart says somewhere in The Doors of the Sea, requires a “labor of vision that only a faith in Easter can sustain.” And that suggests that “creation” is itself a fundamentally apocalyptic concept. Genesis 1, like Easter, is an apocalypse, not a datum of ordinary experience; it does not give us “origins,” but hope, and enables us to discern beyond this world — but only with and even as this world (Rom 8:17ff) — something of what is to come.
Doug Harink
July 16, 2009 at 6:00 pm
This is a wonderful discussion. Much of it is over my head, but I’m treading water and not (yet) drowning. More, please, from all commentators. I haven’t been in a crowd of such thoughtful, nuanced and respectful people for some time (sorry to be so obviously fawning–and to all at once!)
roger flyer
July 16, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Doug Harink wrote: “Genesis 1, like Easter, is an apocalypse, not a datum of ordinary experience; it does not give us “origins,” but hope, and enables us to discern beyond this world — but only with and even as this world (Rom 8:17ff) — something of what is to come.”
Absolutely. Far from a narrative concerned with material origins, Gen 1 relays the assigning of functions to the cosmos (another signpost of the hope to come), which turns out to be (as the “seventh day” shows) the very temple of the creator God. Kosmos and ktisis are, to borrow from old blue eyes, like love and marriage.
Chris Donato
July 16, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Kosmos and Ktisis Kosmos and Ktisis
They go together like Hugs and kisses
(All together now…)
Damn everytime I post a comment on someone’s blog,
things go south…
roger flyer
July 16, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Damn everytime I post a comment on someone’s blog,
things go south — that, my dear fellow, is because you’re a bloody legend. Just think of it, all the best things are southward: blues, jazz, Kentucky bourbon, Australia…
Ben Myers
July 16, 2009 at 10:49 pm
True that, Ben. But don’t forget the fried chicken. Now if we could just do something about that icky genteel bullshit.
Chris Donato
July 16, 2009 at 11:41 pm
“Now if we could just do something about that icky genteel bullshit.”
Christ came for publicans, too.
Peter Forrester
July 17, 2009 at 8:08 am
Scott Prather has it right in my opinion. Though Doug Harink says that the powers are created, the issue is “created by whom”? And also should we assume that the Bible has a monolithic view of the powers in this regard? 1 Samuel 8 and other places seem to have a very different view of these powers.
I would posit they are not created by God. The powers are human creations that have gone well beyond our control and taken a life of their own. There is nothing in Genesis that says, on the 8th Day God created the state, capitalism/communism, money, militaries, etc. Genesis says that those began with Cain, when went off and built a city. They are human creations.
So if there is a verse here or there that suggests otherwise, the question is why those verses should be put out as the primary motif over against the more robust trajectory in the Bible that suggests otherwise (just like there are trajectories int he Bible that praise the monarchy, there always a trajectory that is critical…which one do we go with? Seems like Jesus went with the latter).
Andy Alexis-Baker
August 3, 2009 at 5:59 am
“Seems like Jesus went with the latter”.
Really? Was Jesus secretly a Zealot?
Jesus very publicly (purposefully?) fraternized with centurions and publicans — isn’t that a clear indication that the popular notion (among theologians at least) of Jesus as archenemy of the “empire” needs revision or at least a little nuance?
It would be like fraternizing with mid-level army officers and investment bankers and IRS auditors, today.
Or maybe Jesus was a limousine (sic) liberal, trying to promote the Zealots’ agenda from the inside?
It seems to me that we’re “discovering” out own left liberal democratic politics in Jesus, when it’s not quite there, in fact.
Peter Forrester
August 3, 2009 at 8:02 am
He’s actually discovering his own anarcho-luddite-anti/democratic-anti/urban politics in Jesus. Just to be clear.
Anthony Paul Smith
August 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Anthony, who? Yoder?
R.O. Flyer
August 4, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Andy Alexis-Baker.
Anthony Paul Smith
August 5, 2009 at 6:46 am
I believe Yoder, not just Doug Harink, says the powers were created–by God. To say that the powers are created by God does not mean that the “state, capitalism/communism, money, militaries” are–these are not equivalent to the powers. This is an important point Andy.
R.O. Flyer
August 5, 2009 at 12:16 pm
The state has a birthdate. The police have a birthdate. Capitalism has a birthdate. We know how and who created these things. God’s hand was not in it. Doesn’t mean God cannot use it for God’s purposes and subvert it. But god did not come in and do any of those things. We did it. To say God did it gives it status it does not deserve.
I constantly find that people appeal to Yoder based on limited reading of him, and often a quick and superficial one at that. I have read almost all of his work, including much of his unpublished pieces, and unpublished pieces that only I and one other person have read. I know his work well.
Consider this comment in Christian Witness to the State, 37, footnote 8: “To say that a
state is demonic then means not that that state is rebellious … but only that it has a kind of
independence of its own. A hypothetical just, sober, and modest state would still be in the
order of the demonic.”
“Demonic”? Even a just state.
In the Politics to Jesus, Yoder says the exact opposite of what you said he says. The entire chapter on Romans 13 is meant to debunk the notion that the state and its war machine are created by God, and therefore have some sort of special status to do what they do. Yoder says that is not what the text says. It is “ordered” by God, not created:
“One of the ways of understanding the ‘institution’ of government by god is to claim that whatever government exists, it is by virtue of an act of institution, that is, a specific providential action by God, that is came into being. Therefore government exists by revelation. . . . The other option . . . is [that] what is ordained is not a particular government but the concept of proper government, the principle of government as such.” (Politics of Jesus, 200).
That is Yoder’s description of Lutheran and Catholic views of God creating the state (either particualr governments or the government in general).
In response he says:
“God is not said to create or institute or ordain the powers that be, but only to order them, to put them in order, sovereignly to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time when there was no government and then God made government through a new creative intervention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed. Its exercise has involved domination, disrespect for human dignity, and real or potential violence ever since sin has existed.” (Politics of Jesus, 201).
Yoder here explicitly says God did not create the state. It is a result of human society, and sin has made that human creation into something quite monstrous.
This is standard Yoder fair and should be known to anyone who read Yoder. At AMBS, we actually have to read Yoder!
I won’t dignify the two bone-heads who posted before you.
Andy Alexis-Baker
August 5, 2009 at 4:09 pm
By the way, that post is not meant to be confrontational R.O. Sorry if the tone leads you to that reading. Know that is not my intention (I struggle with the internet and communication through this medium). At AMBS YOder is drilled into all the students. Politics of Jesus is required reading for at least two mandatory courses, and there is an entire course devoted to Yoder. In virtually every class we have to read at least one book of his. So we get steeped in his thought, and then some of us go well beyond that.
By the way, I appreciated the reference to Martyn’s work! I just read his book on theological issues in Paul because of your post here. It is really good. So thanks for the reference there, I would not have picked that up without this thread.
Andy Alexis-Baker
August 5, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Yoder also has a chapter in Politics of Jesus called “Christ and the powers” where he says the powers are created by God. What does he mean by powers though? That is the issue:
“The concept ’structure’ functions to point to the patterns or regularities that transcend or precede or condition the individual phenomena we can immediately perceive . The bridge is more than the cables and girders that compose it ; the psychic ‘complex’ or ’syndrome’ is much more than the thoughts and reflexes it organizes ; the ‘class’ is much more than the individual persons who make it up ; a ‘religion’ is much more than a bagful of assorted practices. It is this patternedness that the word ’structure’ tries to enable us to perceive within all the varieties of its appearance. Similarly, ‘power’ points in all its modulations to some kind of capacity to make things happen.”
So in that sense, the powers are created (and you are right that he says that), but that is not usually what I think of or what I believe most people think of when we hear “principalities and powers.” We think of “empire,” “state” kings, etc. We pinpoint the specific states and regimes and see in them power at work, and those are created by God, just fallen.
I doubt that is what Yoder means given the quotes I have posted. He simply means that there is some force in and behind what we do collectively that we cannot quite control, but cannot quite do without socially. They are social powers for the most part it seems. If the state is a manifestation of the powers, it is a fallen one, and it is not created by God. Yoder, it seems to me, denies that outright. He would not deny that what the state wants to do, in being part of the structure that orders society, is part of God’s creative purposes, but he would deny that we have to have such a “state” to have structure and order.
I am not sure the activist peace advocates quite get that. I can affirm what Yoder says about the powers being created by God, and if that is what Doug meant, then I agree with him too. But if that language gets transferred to our present systems, I have to disagree and point to history: there is where it was born!
Andy Alexis-Baker
August 5, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Andy Alexis-Baker wrote:
“I doubt that is what Yoder means given the quotes I have posted. He simply means that there is some force in and behind what we do collectively that we cannot quite control, but cannot quite do without socially. They are social powers for the most part it seems. If the state is a manifestation of the powers, it is a fallen one, and it is not created by God. Yoder, it seems to me, denies that outright. He would not deny that what the state wants to do, in being part of the structure that orders society, is part of God’s creative purposes, but he would deny that we have to have such a “state” to have structure and order.
“I am not sure the activist peace advocates quite get that. I can affirm what Yoder says about the powers being created by God, and if that is what Doug meant, then I agree with him too. But if that language gets transferred to our present systems, I have to disagree and point to history: there is where it was born!”
Andy, I think you are right about this. Yoder is not so easy to figure out, but I take him to mean something like this: every actually existing institution (“power”) is a human creation, made up out of the hopes and dreams of humans for identity, belonging, sociality, safety, order, etc. Those things hoped for and dreamed of are the “structures” and “patterns” that belong rightly to human creatureliness. When they become embodied in human institutions, which in turn become the objects of human hope, they become demonic powers. I think you are right to say that we do not look for the redemption of those powers, but for their destruction, a destruction which comes about through the crucifixion. The kosmos (the humanly created world of demonic institutions of domination) is “crucified,” in order that we might receive kaine ktisis through resurrection from the dead–that is, human belonging, sociality, etc., structured and patterned according to the form of the crucified and risen one.
My earlier comments should not be taken to mean that I somehow think the “state” or even more generally worldly “government” can be affirmed and fixed through Christian activism, pacifist or otherwise. Such “powers” are destined for destruction, and Christians have no reason to support them, even in the interim.
Doug Harink
August 11, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Hi Doug,
I agree with your post completely. Thanks for clarifying.
We’ll have to meet in person someday hopefully. I enjoy your published work.
Peace
Andy
Andy Alexis-Baker
August 19, 2009 at 12:38 am