I Am An Impure Thinker - Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy

"Starting Before the Beginning"

For Christmas, Kev gave me a copy of The Baptized Body by Leithart focusing on the efficacy of baptism. For the record, I haven't read the book and didn't get him anything. Chapter 1: "Starting Before the Beginning" addresses common modes of understanding baptism. The issue is these popular modes are loaded with baggage rendering them problematic for understanding baptism biblically. We bring with us in our interpretation many assumptions which prevent us from accurately formulating an understanding allowed by the text. We're biased. So this chapter deals with these biases and their wider theological implications.

Leithart explains the basis for modern interpreters as an a priori rejection of a sensus literalis read. They divorce signs from signified and deny the power of water both naturally and in itself. After excluding what we "know" is impossible, they then seek out an alternative interpretation to what they are forced to affirm.

Baptism and the Real Me

Leithart goes one anthropological step further and critiques Reformed ontological assumptions, primarily its dualism. Whereas Catholics believe that grace is infused through baptism, Protestants deny anything external can affect our soul, our "real me". Both share the assumption that who we truly are is an incorporeal soul, denying the possibility that the world can affect the core of us. In contrast the Scriptures both cede to a mutual rationality and conceptualize the inner self physically. While a strong inner/outer distinction remains intact, it's flushed out radically different from the Christianized Platonism of today. Here external events can and do change who we really and fundamentally are.

Baptism and the Social Contract

Further compounding the problem is the use of the social contract theory as a heuristic for understanding. Humans are individualistically and atomistically conceived entering and dissolving contractual relationships while remaining largely unaffected (an integrity model of relationships). Moreover, the "I" is primary and fundamental to our social interaction. In reality though, we become an I after primarily and fundamentally being a "you". We are socially and existentially placed within a community prior to forming a sense of self.

Do Baptist Talk to Their Babies?

Leithart then humorously explores the inconsistencies of credo-baptist practices. On the one hand, they often selectively employ intellectual criteria in arbitrating a capacity for faith. On the other, tied to their conversionism is a hesitancy for imposing such a Christian identity which can only "authentically" be assumed via a conscientious choice on the part of the child.

Why Sacraments Are Not Signs

At last Leithart begins to get into it. He acknowledges that baptism is a sign; however, argues that traditional theological conceptualizations leave an impoverished account of signs. Signs cannot be reduced to mere receptacles for presencing something other than the sign, as Augustine did. They are also to be enacted by God or us, not primarily for some realm only accessible through imagination, but for this world. A purely pedagogical purpose is too limiting for understanding signs.

Why Sacraments Are Not Means of Grace

Leithart argues that this understanding often reflects a false metaphysical view that reverts to a type of mediation between God and humanity. Rather grace has no ontological status; it's a mere token, the gift of God's favor. The moment of personal encounter is obscured by a linguistic schizophrenia that's impersonalizing and formulaic. More specifically he characterizes it as "mechanistic", analogously inaccurate. Grace becomes either thingified or some emanating quality. The formula itself doesn't do much; it's a faux-explanation instilling a false sense of understanding that is superfluous, sloppy, and obnoxious. Heuristic benefits are overplayed and need to be strategically discarded. Baptism is a type (grace) of favor.

Why Sacraments Are Not Symbols

Symbols too are problematic. Typically symbols are understood as:

1) reality can be distinguished from its external form
2) reality is non-symbolic
3) reality underlies the symbols

In reality by contrast, the distinction is blurred and ambiguous. For instance all language is symbolic and metaphorical, even literal language. Moreover, reality is dependent on symbols, without which it's merely internally imaginary. We have to "shake hands", exchange emails, or some other vestige of actual contact. So for instance when explaining our relationships we typically describe the ritualistic extent of a relationship, e.g. "we slept together", "we've only talked a few times", "we went to high school together". Sometimes though, people do utilize phrases like "we just had this bond", "I prefer conversing with dead authors", or the classic example of a bleeding heart who empathizes with all humanity despite never lifting a finger to do good for anyone other than themselves.

Sacraments Are Rituals

Leithart recommends this by virtue of its emphasizing action, the nature of communal performance, and entailment of ideals. Ritual highlights realization, as opposed to accoutrements. Rituals are how we transform status, beyond mere legitimizing and recognition. Hermeneutically it expands the descriptive power, as well as explain nullification due to requirement stipulations or inappropriate performances contrary to the intended spirit. Rituals are non-magical, yet allow for the reality of a "privileged nearness denied others".

God, Time, and Change

The last section was a sort of housekeeping, where Leithart clarifies the issues at stake. He advocates a holding in tension contradictions, rather than resolving them to the denial of Biblical affirmations. Often specific theological notions of transcendence particularly undermine other Biblical testaments of God.

Leithart subtly suggests that folks arbitrarily interpret the truths they affirm either through a Hellenistic lens (which he doesn't call that; after-all, subtlety) pr a contemporary one (equally improper). These in turn lead to not just issues with the character of God and a softening of implications, but what amounts to existential problems with our very practice, e.g. the efficacy of prayer.

Socrates' Introduction to His Defense

Socrates' intro serves three main purposes. Within the narrative, Plato executes his strategy to distinguish Socrates from Sophists. He introduces what will unfold as a poignant critique that the Athenian jury will not listen to reason. Finally, Plato privileges philosophical discourse (logos) as above petty speech and contrast Socrates with the miscreants who inhabit the political sphere. Plato though also uses this space for subtler literary and political purposes, such as introducing the motif of a "jeering" mob (tied to 2nd purpose) and a "stranger" w/ political life (tied to 3rd) and Socrates' humble demeanor.

And Socrates' character shines through. The opening sarcasm demonstrates wit, rather than arrogance. Plato begins establishing that Socrates is not an academic dweeb. His character is deferential to the jury, rather than disrespectfully insolent or snubbing them.

We're to of assumed Socrates' accusers have poisoned the well. Socrates responds by shifting through a series of contrasts: Socrates/accusers, speaking truth/rhetoric, spontaneous/crafted, stranger/familiar. He does not mince words, contrasting "lying" and "truthfulness". Socrates mocks the warning against him to the jury, unpacking its meaning by claiming a commitment to truth. And the truth of his speech unfolds in one way as a critique of the injustice of Athens' political activities. There's the archetype here of the elderly who's too old for young men's games.

Socrates then ask the jury to forgive his non-custom conforming speech as he'll be employing the same type as he typically does in the market place. The customary speech is supposedly foreign to his tongue, so they should treat him as a stranger. Rather than be prejudiced, the jury should evaluate Socrates' claims. Plato suggest that this is excellence (ἀρετή) just as Socrates' excellence is telling the truth.

The implied audience is picking up Apology asking themselves "why did we convict Socrates?" By this point in time, they know how the drama ends. They're familiar with the idea that it was Socrates' own fault for not adjusting to "the way things are done", a familiar logic in our own time. They've heard he was an ass. They've heard that these led to the unfortunate mistake of convicting him. They've heard he was an "atheist". They've heard he was a sophist. They've heard that these led him to being justly convicted. For now Plato's polemic argues against those who wish to shift responsibility for Socrates' sentence upon his "unconventional" manner, offering the reader a differing perspective.

Obviously, there's danger of reading into any text. Plato is not concerned with Athens' rhetorical atmosphere excluding other types of voices ignored at Justice's expense, but rather its refusal to hear logos discourse. Today folks still wish to privilege rational discourse over the rhetorical theatrics of the political sphere.

Plato's First Tetralogy

In each of the four narratives, the reader is invited into a world inhabited by Socrates, to follow his last days and witness his character.

In Euthyphro we walk beside him as we watch him expose Euthyphro's bs, marveling at his ability to unravel Euthyphro's claims. We laugh at his wit and worry over his fate.

In the Apology we sit amongst the jurors, critically evaluating what is said and meditating on the transpired events now removed from the theatrics.

In Crito, if we sympathetic we plea alongside, hoping he'll be persuaded to reason, while if antagonistic patiently watch if he proves himself all too human, thereby vindicating ourselves.

In the death scene of Phaedo, we find hope in Socrates' fate yet are embarrassed by our grief. We marvel at his courage, learn from his counsel, relish our final moments with this great man.

Here we explore for ourselves a man quite unlike who we imagined from his reputation. We accede to some points, form our own views, distance ourselves from shortcomings of other characters, and enjoy the pleasure of discoursing w/ a man who threw all of Athens into an uproar.

The Book of Common Prayers

I've become increasingly fascinated with this text and have found myself incorporating it into my religious practice with greater frequency.

The text, to the surprise of my roommate, is not a book of prayers. There is a collection in our copy, mainly in a section titled "Prayers and Thanksgiving"; however, it is merely 35 pages and doesn't appear until p. 810.

The full title to Curtis' copy is The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, And Other Rights and Ceremonies of the Church Together with The Psalter or Psalms of David According to the Use of the Episcopal Church as ratified in 1979. The short title is The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, And Other Rights and Ceremonies of the Church, which shortened further is The Book of Common Prayers.

A prayer book primarily contains detailed written accounts of the liturgical services of a practicing community (which often involves the prayers used in specific services in the ecclesiastical calender or on special occasions). This copy though also has a lectionary, Church calender, Catechism with prefaced outlining of its purpose, and transliterations of various monumental Christian documents (e.g. Definition of the Union of the Divine and Human Natures in the Person of Christ from the Council of Chalcedon and the Athanasius Creed). Others will have things like a concise collection of canticles.

I think the text is a remarkable resource for Christians, particularly those struggling with prayer. It definitely has more utility in a high liturgically structured worship service, but that doesn't imply it excludes other value.

Not the Way It's Supposed To Be

Introduction

Précis

Plantinga began by illustrating the way annoyances, regrets, and miseries have impacted our lives, before he hit upon what he saw as the primary cause of suffering: sin. The author justified this insight with two reasons; the first reason was that sin corrupts the core of our being and character, and the second was that it underlined many of the other misseries, e.g. loneliness, restlessness, estrangement, shame and meaninglessness. Cornelius understood the relationship between sin and misery as one of give and take, or mutually affecting each other in a cyclical fashion. This was seen regardless of whether the sin was intentional or involuntarily. Even with metaphysical evils, while not morally evil, the actual event of suffering is also in part compounded by our past choices or responsive ones. Plantinga argues that the gospel narratives go to great lengths to explaining the efforts God took to defeat sin and addressing the urgency with which humanity too needs to address the issue. He explained that sin was structurally presented though the ideas of lawlessness or faithlessness and a plethora of metaphors. Before the author ended on a note about how the book could explore the issue, Cornelius stated that sin was a negative not positive force, and that it should be discussed against the backdrop of creation and redemption. The tone was more concrete than the preface, and the writing more heuristic.

Commentary

We're still in the intro, so there's obviously not that much to comment on. I do appreciate how he's going at lengths not to collapse some phenomenological distinctions, as well not oversimplify the issues that he's addressing. He's still introducing themes and concepts here that he's going to unpack later on in a multifaceted manner; however, he does state some noteworthy things which should cause us to pay attention and ruminate on rather than allow to slide by.

One was when he was addressing natural disasters, he made the statement, "Many accidents are, in retrospect, both accidental and predictable" (Plantinga 4). He then gives some examples, some of which I agree with and some I'm taking pause to ask if we agree? Yes, when climbing in nature, one should respect it and not party above the tree-line during the afternoon, and doing otherwise is not only at one's own risk, but is tantamount to stupidity. So he's implicitly laying out a relationship to the natural order that includes moral virtues like respect. He mentions shortcuts that constructors and inspectors take in the functioning of their jobs which can afterwards have "unexpected" repercussions during natural events. He also mentions though "greedy condominium development in known hurricane alleys or flood plains" (Plantinga 4). Are they merely thoughtlessly endangering humans in order to quickly turn a profit? I'm sure Plantinga would agree, but what of the complicit consumers driving the demand? Are they actually driving the demand with advertisements and brochures proliferating like bunnies, or are the developers also manipulating our desires? What struck me as odd though is not these questions, but the disregard for questions pertaining to nature attributed to the developers (which was obviously a caricature), without really questioning the assumption of whether these questions were legit. In other words, how much should our consideration for possible natural events prudently factor in, and do they deserve the characterization of sinful? Yes, he's right here that human control does factor in, but might not attributing it to human evil be a categorical mistake?

He made the comment briefly that "the main human trouble is desperately difficult to fix, even for God, and that sin is the longest-running of human emergences" (Plantinga 5). This also caught my attention, sin is hard to remedy "even for God." I'm not sure how well that gels with my conceptions of Him, so it challenges me to rethink both the severity of sin and ask if my conceptions in this regard of God might not be trite?

One quote though I loved was that "People also suffer boredom, what Walker Percy called 'the self being stuffed with itself.'" (Plantinga 2). I see it all around me, and is a common plight with those whom I love. I wanna share two of my favorite paragraphs of all time from the intro to Theology of Hope:

Thus despair, too, presupposes hope. 'What we do not long for, can be the object neither of our hope nor of our despair' (Augustine). The pain of despair surely lies in the fact that a hope is there, but no way opens up towards its fulfillment. Thus the kindled hope turns against the one who hopes and consumes him. 'Living means burying hopes', says Fontane in one of his novels, and it is these 'dead hopes' that he portrays in it. Our hopes are bereft of faith and confidence. Hence despair would seek to preserve the soul from disappointments. 'Hope as a rule makes many a fool.' Hence we try to remain on the solid ground of reality, 'to think clearly and not hope any more' (Camus), and yet in adopting this so-called realism dictated by the facts we fall victim to the worst of all utopias - the utopia of the status quo, as R. Musil has called this kind of realism.

The despairing surrender of hope does not even need to have a desperate appearance. it can also be the mere tacit absence of meaning, prospects, future and purpose. It can wear the face of smiling resignation: bonjour tristesse!All that remains is a certain smile on the part of those who have tried out the full range of their possibilities and found nothing in them that could give cause for hope. All that remains is a taedium vitae a life that has little further interest in itself. Of all the attitudes produced by the decay of a non-eschatological, bourgeois Christianity, and then consequently found in a no longer Christian world, there is hardly any which is so general as acedia, tristesse, the cultivation and dandling manipulation of faded hopes. But where hope does not find its way to the source of new, unknown possibilities, there the trifling, ironical play with the existing possibilities ends in boredom, or in outbreaks of absurdity. (Moltmann 1993, 23-24)

Obviously, this is a place where someone like Plantinga and Wright can be brought into conversation with one another. Although Plantinga is not here treating boredom as sin, it's directly related to the notion of hope and seems to spawn on a lot of Christian's obsessive behavior with insignificant time-occupying activities due to their impoverished understanding and self-absorption. Like sin, despair is a leaching drive. The tie to being self-absorbed though, beyond the outward difficulties of boredom, is a negligence on the part of contemporaries to be sincerely committed to and interested in the other, whether God, people, or the created order. It's counter-intuitive, especially to a society that has reached a degree of decadence which is unnatural historically, and to explain that we would need to look at the modern social development since the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It gets back to some of the comments pertaining to modernity noted in the earlier post.

Beyond the boredom hinting to the possibility that we weren't created in such a way, it raises questions as to why we aren't more vulnerable to others. One such reason is pain and fear of others; another is a rejection of meaningful givens which either aren't recognized by autonomously free individuals or are only very partially grasped. This includes a concept of sin. It also God's redemptive work in the world and the role God's people play. The focus in Christian circles can often instead by on either what God has done for them personally, and vain attempts to convince themselves and others of this idolatrous focus and false reality either through legalism and a concentration on doing or not doing certain things or through attempting to grapple with the hollowness and emptiness that they experience and to which the American church answers sound meaningless. It can also result in other Christian circles in abandoning even hope of resolution and a coming to terms with just "living life" no matter what it "throws their way".

Although my treatment of the text is a little pretentious, in that what interests me is of both a personal and intellectual flavor, I relate predominately publicly via the scholastic. And the text does lend itself easily to other perspectives, but not to the degree I'm portraying it. Let me allow the author to use his own words to describe what he's trying to do:

My project in this book is to show these things, to discuss them, to look at them from several angles, and to sharpen the profile of sin by comparing it with a couple of its conceptual neighbors. In short the project is to present the nature and dynamics of sin...

The plan may look pretty academic, but the treatment will be only partly so. Or let me put it a little differently: this study has a traditional theological table setting, but the food comes not only from the Bible and St. Augustine but also from books on crime and addictions, from books by Garry Wills and William Manchester and Daniel Akst, from Newsweek, the movies, and NBC's Today show. The book is about sin, but a lot of the paragraphs are about sins. (Plantinga 5,6)

On this note, Plantinga does a brilliant job in my opinion.

Not the Way It's Supposed to Be

Preface

Précis

Plantinga explicitly pointed out in the first sentence that his project was an attempt to recreate a consciousness of an age old theme: that of sin. He began by sketching out the flippancy with which we address the issue, in contrast to the seriousness in which it was once dealt with, not without fault in its inappropriate tone or hypocritical self-righteous air, yet taken seriously nonetheless. The author wrote that people possessed both an understanding and shared communal outlook in regards to it. Plantinga noted its contemporary loss of poignancy, to which he raised the question of the purpose of a more serious treatment. He outlined two major themes of informing and reminding people as its very nature he saw requiring continual diligence. The author then notes the difficulties of such an endeavor (informing), laying it in part on the shift in our cultural backdrop. Despite this, Cornelius explained its cultural relevancy, that being the hope offered through a diagnosis of sin in the ails which engrossing us. He explained though the need for our rearticulation of this traditional theme to be responsive to contemporary problems unique to our situation. He wrote that moreover, this rearticulating was not merely for Christian audiences, but rather for society as a whole, who would then share in the value of a common understanding and awareness of a Christian outlook, even while rejecting particular features. After Plantinga mapped out a gap in our treatment, due to the inaccessibility of some tomes, fragmentary and specialized coverage, and the increasing infrequency of exposure in church institutions, he reasserted his purpose of providing an avenue of revitalizing this doctrine so that it would once again be capable of profound personal confrontation/engagement. Written slightly melodramatically and with an air of nostalgia, the preface was regardless rhetorically well-written, introducing some thematic elements of the book.

Commentary

We are in really fucked up times. Seriously. This post is coming this late cause a friend called me up, drunk, wanting to know if I would come out and talk. We talked for two hours until two at night. And what was the one word which never ushered out of either of our mouths? Sin. It wasn't from me being scared of what he might think if I brought it up or its inappropriateness to the conversation. We just had no common basis on this point for which to bring it up. This is despite amongst other things us talking a great length on the topic of sexual infatuation, a general loss of consideration for him by others, loneliness and anxiety about a lack of intimacy, and the stresses of life at age 21. Anger at religion and the bs he experienced growing up and how he had been brainwashed negatively was also a theme. I mainly listened and tried to be there for him (with frozen barefeet). Amongst other things, tried taking the time to explain to him, that when some women say they're raped, they aren't kidding. That what he's telling me is "women know what's going on and should expect", I had to gently explain leaves one of my friends crying hours everyday. We talked about a lot of things that I'm not going to share, but it left me filling empathetically frustrated. He would say things like, "I fully trust you man," to which I would respond, "No, you don't, and I don't full trust you. You trust me a lot, more than most, but at some level you're afraid I'm gonna reject you." He would agree. He would frequently say, "Freud is a genius!" to which I eventually suggested, "Freud is full of shit, but I once thought that too." Still, he knows the reality of disillusioned ideals and expectations of others and life. He knows it all too well and is heading for cynicism. He's drunk too often. People seem to oscillate between burying their heads in the sand of wishful thinking with false dogmatism and coping by conforming themselves with "straight-thinking", emulating debase practices, and accepting as the way-things-are this decadent social order we've constructed, this below-the-bar standard for what it means to be human. People should have certain expectations of others, and have not only a right but a duty to demand it of others.

What the hell? We know a lot of our ideas are bankrupt, reality shouts that at us! Our incredulity to the hope of promise is overwhelming.

Meanwhile I'm on another site, where an interlocutor is arguing against an "understand-first" culture, to which I agree is bs, but not the desire to listen and understand. I agree in other words that we suck at it. This concern with compromising "speaking the truth" to the point where we neglect a theology of suffering, and people are suffering even if it's partially self-inflicted, to which the truth can actually effectively break us out of, is a religious abuse of the gospel. The two are not necessarily opposed to one another. But how to wisely go about them being intertwined?

Ah, I'm ranting not commenting.

The book is full of examples that I'm glossing over but which really help in illustrating what he's talking about. My favorite though was:

[S]chool teachers no longer say anything as pointed as "Stop it, please! You're disturbing the class!" For these are judgmental words. Instead, to a strong-armed youth who is rattling classroom windows with his tennis ball, educationally correct teachers put a sequence of caring questions: "What are you doing? Why are you doing it? How does this make you feel?"

Do we honestly believe people are going to take that crap seriously? Wake up to the real world! Making people feel immensely "cared for" in some segmented window of their existence doesn't seriously impact people's lives, it makes the "caring" people tools.

I heard a phrase in a lecture on relativism that is relevant, we've in our attempts to be loving "cut the vocal cords" of what a Biblical message has to say to ourselves and society. We forfeited our calling to be culturally subversive on both conservative and liberal fronts, participating in God's redemptive work of righting the wrongs of this world. We rather willingly participate in muddling things further, focusing on a shallow self-fulfilling of our mediocre lives. Through our bankrupt doctrines of sin, we've undercut our abilities to address social and individual injustices, settling for the pretense of concern or smugly complacent in self-absorption or both.

He's also in this part explaining the need for the books focus, commenting:

Books on sin today must meet concerns and untie knots that did not worry Augustine and Calvin. They were not worried about the flattening of human majesty in modern naturalism or of human corruption in Enlightenment humanism. They did not wonder at the Californian tendency to conflate salvation and self-esteem. Nor did they meet a widespread cultural assumption that the proper place to inquire about the root causes of human evil is a department of psychology or sociology....

Modernity has shaped the human, and even the Christian, understanding of sin in important ways, some of them welcome and some not, and any restatement of the Christian understanding of sin must pay attention to these shapings.

Modernity briefly generally refers to in most context (this included) the 19th and 20th centuries, with the advent of industrialization. There are also certain political allusions entailed, as well as a trust in science. The term though is frequently employed with a focus on huge totalizing narratives or ideologies with themes of human progress or emancipation. Modernity is typically viewed paradoxically as providing both benefits and losses, for instance technology, medicine, and human rights but a weakening of community, a loss of meaning and narcissism, and a preoccupation with instrumentality. I'll explain more later.

Again, the topic needs understanding, not just a check-list of things we know about. This understanding entails its application in reality, a reality that has shifted over time. This lack of understanding I would suggest is why impoverished Evangelicals who repeat well-rehearsed lines, seem out-of-touch with God's work.

What's devastating about [our loss of consciousness of sin and self-deception] is that when we lack an ear for wrong notes in our lives, we cannot play right ones or even recognize them in the performances of others. Eventually we make ourselves religiously so unmusical that we miss both the exposition and the recapitulation of the main themes God plays in human life. The music of creation and the still greater music of grace whistle right through our skulls, causing no catch of breath and leaving no residue. Moral beauty begins to bore us. The idea that the human race needs a Savior sounds quaint.

So the broader goal of this study is to renew our memory of the integrity of creation and to sharpen our eye for the beauty of grace.

A great blog post, on this subject.

I for one look forward with anticipation to the predicted collapse of Evangelicalism, a post-God church bastardizing religious faithfulness.