After the last installment of my review of Peter Rollins' forthcoming book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" (Paraclete, June 2008), it became apparent to me, thanks to Dr. Rollins' point, that I failed to address the notion of the "Biblical Parallax", which was so crucial to the development of the ideas presented in chapter 3. Thus, before moving on, I thought it would be best to bring the review of chapter 3 full circle by dealing with this aspect of Rollins' proposal.
According to Rollins, the "Biblical Parallax" is a concept based on the notion that an idea or concept can appear completely different, even contrary to how it appeared to manifest itself previously, as the position or vantage of the observer or reader changes. In terms of the Bible itself, the suggestion is that,
"The Bible testifies to this parallactical situation precisely in its rich cacophony of stories, parables, and teachings, all of which, when taken together, defy any vain attempt at rendering the source of faith into a simple, coherent vision.31 The “true” description of God seems to lie always just beyond the reach of our grasp. The final “word” is always frustratingly elusive, dwelling just beyond the horizon of our thought, and the conflicting images that we encounter within the Bible continually remind us that the source of this living work is not captured in our petty observations. In acknowledging this, the believer testifies to the Scriptures as infused with a presence that dwells both in the midst and in excess of the text, a some(no)thing that cannot be contained within the narrative but that makes its presence felt in the fractures and ruptures within it. The words of the text, like Christ, are wounded."
From this point, Rollins introduces the Biblical notion of "Eschatology", which is the accounting or study of last things; or to put it another way, the area of thought or study aimed at discussing possible modes for the consummation of God's kingdom. Rollins suggests that the Bible presents an eschatological perspective where the 'kingdom is absent, although already here',
"Here the eschatological kingdom of God is located in the not-yet of the future. However, within the Bible we find a much more radical view of the eschatological kingdom, not as the absence of something that is to come, but rather as the absence of a kingdom that is already here. Indeed, this distinction is one of the prime differences between the message of John the Baptist and the message of Jesus. While John the Baptist preached that the kingdom was coming, Jesus preached that this kingdom was already among us.32 However, in saying this he did not overturn the message of John the Baptist but rather deepened it, for Jesus spoke of a kingdom that was here and yet as simultaneously being something that was looked to as still to come.
Following the image of the kingdom that was spoken of by Jesus, we encounter the idea that while it is still thought of as “to come” this does not mean that it will one day arrive at the end of a certain period of time, but rather that the kingdom is “to come,” i.e., the kingdom is already among us but in a manner that implies it is absent. Here the opening created by the eschatological kingdom of God is not an opening into the future but rather an opening into the present that acts much like the portable holes we see in cartoons that can be placed onto any solid surface, thus creating a gap. This view of the kingdom is something that we also find confirmed in the writings of Paul, such as when he speaks of the kingdom as both the now and the not-yet.33"
Ultimately, it seems that Rollins illustrates the parallax principle by his portrayal of Biblical eschatology, in order to substantiate a notion that he calls the "Biblical wHole" (yes the capitalization is correct). The "Biblical wHole" is an illustration of the idea that the tensions, or various portrayals in the text, which make a coherent, unified vision impossible, testify to the reality that the Word of God cannot be captured neatly in the words of the Biblical text.
Now, at this point, the main contention, in my opinion, is the way in which Dr. Rollins discusses biblical eschatology as a means of illustrating tension in the text, and ultimately, as a means of developing this notion of the "Biblical wHole". Much of the chapter seems to rest on Rollins' particular portrayal of this concept. Consider the comment below,
"However, within the Bible we find a much more radical view of the eschatological kingdom, not as the absence of something that is to come, but rather as the absence of a kingdom that is already here."
From this point, as we saw in the large block quote above, Rollins rightly suggests that the messages of John the Baptist and Jesus were different in certain respects. The problem is, in my opinion, that Rollins has identified, incorrectly, the differences in their eschatological perspectives on the kingdom. Incorrect in the sense that he reads their perspectives isolated from available eveidence we have regarding the basis from which the 1st century eschatological perspective was derived. The most reasonable explanation, I believe, can be inferred by examining the evidence that informs our understanding of the 1st century Jewish Cultural milieu. Consider a comment from my review of the 1st chapter of Rollins' book, where this topic came up in response to a suggested reading of another aspect of the text,
"Extra-biblical Jewish literature and the Old Testament suggest that their was a relatively crystallized expectation among 1st century Jews regarding the messiah. Basically, this literature seems to indicate that Jews expected a sudden in-breaking of the kingdom of God, on earth, in which the messiah would usher in a new-age for Israel by ending the long history of foreign oppression via political and military means."
My citation of this comment is not to say that all the pieces of the puzzle are neatly interlocking, and readily apparent in every instance. But I also do not think it is valid to highlight an aspect of the Biblical text without considering what factors might inform our perspective; I would also say that this is true regardless of whether one adopts either a skeptical or apologetic posture toward the text. In other words, this point is not derived from a simple desire to render the text intelligible or coherent in the face of objections, but a reasonable method for addressing the text in order to help explain what is going on; this, I would say, is a stance that the mainstream academy adopts across a fairly wide spectrum.
May 06, 2008
The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief
In regard to Rollins' specific eschatological proposal, what I would first suggest is that despite the differences in perspective between John the Baptist and 1st century Judaism, and Jesus on this issue, there is an explanation that is more reasonable than the other available options. In one sense, Rollins is right in affirming the difference between John the Baptist and Jesus; but the real question is why is this the case? Is it because there is some irreconciliable discrepency in the text, or is there a legitimate and reasonable inference to be drawn here? Ultimately, I think it is plausible to assert that John the Baptist was still operating off of the paradigm that was common to 1st century Judaism. Rollins is also correct by suggesting that Jesus adjusted the message by asserting that the kingdom was actually already present.
In fact, this difference of understanding, between the popular expectation of 1st century Judaism, and Jesus' presentation of the consummation of the Kingdom of God, is the pivot point for the entire gospel narrative. It informs not only the nature of Jesus' message, but it helps the reader to appreciate why Jesus was ultimately misunderstood by the Jewish leadership and much of the mainstream Jewish population. Judaism was working from a paradigm that we call "Realized eschatology", whereas Jesus, just as Rollins implicitly hints at, was operating from a position of "Inaugurated Eschatology". It is the difference between that sudden in-breaking of the kingdom, which even John the Baptist seemed to have expected, and a quiet, imperceptible in-breaking of the kingdom, which would grow to all-encompassing proportions leading up to the time of Christ's ultimate consummation of the kingdom. It is different not because of a tension in text, but because Judaism had developed an expectation of God's kingdom that had drifted away from the heart of the law. Jesus came not to bring violence as a means to usher in the kingdom, but the means to change man's heart through redemption. Judiasm was blinded by their expectation, and thus rejected Jesus' message. In my opinion, this is the most consistent way of reading text in light of all of the available evidence from primary source materials.
I am simply reticent about suggesting that their are gross inconsistencies in the text on this point, and then using the notion of a pre-critical reading in order to look beyond much of the evidence that informs our understanding. I sympathize with Rollins' suggestion that we have to move beyond academic, critical issues at some point in our reading; but I don't think its appropriate to use a skeptical critical posture toward the text as a presupposition, and then move from there to suggest a pre-critical reading that functions out of this assumption.
Now I also realize that many may object on postmodern grounds; that our reading of texts is simply not stable or objective. Some may also suggest that I have simply missed the point by moving so thoroughly into the realm of escahtology; in response, let me remind readers that not only is the subject of eschatology specifically pertinent because of the way in which Rollins argues his point, but we also must remember that the thesis of the book is dealing with the status of the Biblical text, and our consequent reading of it. Thus, it is a valid move; not only to critique Rollins' reading, but in light of objections to it, to offer another proposal in response. While the philosophical issues are always present, the discussion has rightly moved into the area of the Biblical text itself. This is one of the reasons why I think Dr. Rollins' book is so important for postmodern movements within the church; I think it would be somewhat naive to think that postmodern manifestations of Christianity would be able to avoid specific discussion regarding the text, and I think Rollins sees that fact.
Despite all of this, I will be the first to admit that I am also not a professionally trained philospher like Dr. Rollins, which may put me at a certain disadvantage. At the same time, as an amateur philosopher, allow me to suggest that perhaps my proposal is consistent with a coherentist epistemological perspective. Again, just as thought, but I think this might lend a degre of obejctivity to the proposal, while also calling into the question the degree to which Dr. Rollins is able to emphasize inconsistency in the text as means for facilitating his variant reading.
Again, I appreciate Dr. Rollins' willingness to interact, and I would value any corrections he might offer to my descriptions of his proposal, while also offering critiques of the alternative reading I have presented here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 COMMENTS...:
Good post. I'm sure that Rollins will continue to be flattered and impressed by the amount of effort you're putting into understanding his work.
It doesn't seem wide of the mark at all to take time to consider the biblical topic of eschatology, since the supposedly different eschatologies of John and Jesus are precisely the proof for Rollin's notion of "biblical parallax." If you challenge his reading of the Scriptures on this point, only a few possibilities remain: 1) you're wrong and he's right, 2) he's right about the concept being Scriptural, but these particular passages don't establish it, or 3) it'll become apparent that Rollins' "biblical parallax" concept is taken from somewhere else (postmodern philosophy?) and imposed upon the text.
If we could, however, get beyond the particular issue of eschatology and talk about Rollins' general principle, I'd like to know where he takes this. From what you've quoted, it seems that he is trying to (dis)establish the notion of a definitive reading of the text and say that, instead, we've got readings that are all over the map. The reason for this is: 1) our position has changed, and 2)the subject matter of the Bible (God) can not be contained within the text.
I believe the second point can be countered in some sense, although Rollins is onto something.
The first point, however, I take some issue with. I might not even be on the right track, but it seems like Rollins presupposes some fundamental differences between this age that we are living in now and the ages that have read the text in times past. He'd probably also want to say that the different contexts and perspectives even within our own age lead to different readings, thereby establishing the idea that we have no definitive reading, we have no hope of coming to 'a reading.' The end result is that we really can't say much about God, other than that he's mysterious and un-containable. Judging by Rollins' little asides, we can't even say that God 'exists.' Presumably, God is beyond existence (a la Tillich? Heidegger?).
Well, I'm not so sure that the position of the reader is so different from the reader in other ages or places. That is, it is theologically impossible to establish that our situation or position has changed; we are still in the 'age of grace.'
Further, Rollins seems to treat the text as a passive object which is acted upon by the reader. While that may be fine from a postmodern philosophical perspective, it simply won't work from a Christian perspective; the text is active, since it the mediator of God's presence and will.
To me, the question remains very, very simple: can we have personal and propositional knowledge about God? The Christian answer is a resounding 'yes!'
"This is eternal life that they may know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3
Of course, we can't know God exhaustively or infallibly, but that doesn't mean that we can't have true knowledge of him.
Thank you for another very careful reading of my work. As Matthew mentioned I am indeed flattered. I think I will limit my comments to one area of your analysis, namely that of eschatology. In relation to this Matthew in his comment mentioned three possibilities in relation to our differing approach to eschatology,
1) you're wrong and he's right, 2) he's right about the concept being Scriptural, but these particular passages don't establish it, or 3) it'll become apparent that Rollins' "biblical parallax" concept is taken from somewhere else (postmodern philosophy?) and imposed upon the text.
However I think that there is another. Before mentioning it I will make a quick comment on number 3. I would say that I have been influenced by postmodern thought (or what I would prefer to call phenomenology) although I try not to impose that on the text, but rather bring it into dialogue with the text (for my theoretical position is not a closed whole that I bring to life but an ever expanding and changing network of ideas which are developed as I engage in life). The less we know about the theories which guide us the more we are enslaved by them and the more we impose them. When one understands ones theoretical positioning one can be more self-consciously careful about how one employs it and thus be less likely to just see it as ‘the way things are’. Interestingly I came to phenomenology late academically speaking (doing my primary degree in a department that had mixed feelings about it) and long after I had immersed myself in the bible. I advocate the idea of a fusion of horizons in which I encounter the living, dynamic text (which I, like Matthew, affirm) as I am – here in the intersubjective relationship meaning is located.
Anyway this is merely a side-point. To return to the main point I would say that my use of the term ‘eschatological’ is not in opposition to certain positions within the historical-critical debate you mention (say between realised eschatology and inaugurated eschatology) but rather seeks to penetrate deeper than the historical-critical debates. Hence I would broadly agree with your overview of eschatology as understood at the time of Jesus. However I want to put the term to different/deeper work. Perhaps I could speak of eschatology (historical) and Eschatology (theological/phenomenological). My claim is that the term ‘Eschatology’ can be employed/expanded in order to help us appreciate a phenomenological unity between John and Jesus (not a disparity) as well as tie together certain readings of the kingdom as both here now and to come. By employing a visual metaphor we could say, T-H-E-K-I-N-G-D-O-M-I-S-N-O-W-H-E-R-E (i.e. both ‘now here’ and ‘nowhere’ at one and the same time). By putting the term Eschatology to work in this way I am attempting to show that it can open up a deep understanding of the kingdom which does not require unity in terms of the Christian communities understanding of Jesus’, John’s or the author of revelation’s understanding of the temporal culmination of history.
My claim is that if eschatology is the study of the ‘to come’ in theology then it must deepen its appreciation of the ‘to come’, not merely in terms of temporal culmination, but in terms of its structural depth. Hence we can talk not only about the kingdom that is to come, but also of the kingdom that is the ‘to come’.
Thanks
Peter
Thanks for your comments and feedback Peter!
There are just couple, very brief things I might say as a follow-up. First, many of your distinctions are obviously finely nuanced, and I think I need to keep reading and think more about what you have said here.
One comment I might add is simply to say that I do not understand the distinction you make when you separate uses of 'eschatological' in terms of history, on the one hand, and theology and phenomonology on the other. I don't know that you are suggesting this, but it seems that the distinction implies a divorce between history and theology. Perhaps you might be able to explain that a bit further.
I was also wondering if you might explain your description of postmodern thought as phenomenology.
I really appreciated the comment from Rollins cited below,
"The less we know about the theories which guide us the more we are enslaved by them and the more we impose them. When one understands ones theoretical positioning one can be more self-consciously careful about how one employs it and thus be less likely to just see it as ‘the way things are’."
I think this is a key point for theological discussion. I think this idea explains why many of us are not able to get to the point of dialogue, but simply talk past each other. Unfortunately, our lack of self-awareness often leads to name-calling and rhetoric.
Finally, in some sense, I think the next chapter in Dr. Rollins' book anticiaptes some of my questions. I have not finished chapter 4 yet, but he does offer some interesting analysis regarding the academy in the Western world in terms of how we approach and give priority to certain questions regarding truth.
It will be interesting to see where the discussion takes us.
Hi
I can understand why the distinction I made between two types of eschatology is confusing. In the post I labeled, for shorthand, one as historical and the other as theological/phenomenological. However, as you noted, the way I said this made it seem that only the latter was theological. Instead of saying theological/phenomenological I should have said phenomenological theology. There are different ways I could name these two approaches, for instance I would say that the first includes a mix of historical research (want did the people of Jesus’ day think of the end of history), biblical exegesis (what did the biblical writers think of this end) and metaphysical theology (what does God think). While the latter could be said to be phenomenological eschatology in so much as it employs the term as a way of describing an experience of the kingdom that believers have. In this way phenomenological eschatology is about ones experience of the kingdom as still to come.
Note that this is not a lack of experience of that which is still to arrive, but rather a positive experience of a lack that is felt. In the book I use the analogy of ones beloved – his or her presence opens up and testifies to an absence. Like the Tardis in Doctor Who the fragile physical frame of my beloved belies an interior world of infinite proportions that I have yet to explore. Each person is thus a rupture in the world of mute being similar to those cartoon holes that make space appear on the side of a cliff.
In terms of your second question I will just make a quick comment that the term post-modern is too popular now to be rigorous. In philosophy it is rarely used because it is so wide a term (referring to everything from an architectural style to a type of youth culture) and instead people talk about different types of phenomenology and post-structuralism. These are more technical terms that communicate a more specific theoretical positioning. While I have a number of influences, if someone wanted to name my approach it could be broadly seen as phenomenological (though in a specific way). Phenomenology, briefly, is the study of that which appears to us in the mode that it appears. Ironically I am interested in the religious category of felt non-appearance so my phenomenology is not strictly phenomenological!
Hope that clarifies rather than muddies the water.
Peter
Post a Comment