The Evil Amongst Us: The Suffering of Refugee and Immigrant Children at American Borders

Central American migrant in southern Mexico on his way north to the United States.
Creative Commons Copyright: Peter Haden

The Evil at Our Borders: Migrants, Refugees, and the Spiritual Crisis of Immigration

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2014/07/the-evil-at-our-borders-migrants-refugees-and-the-spiritual-crisis-of-immigration/

by David R. Henson

July 15, 2014

Comments

David Henson received his Master of Arts from Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, after receiving a Lilly Grant for religious education for journalists. He is priest in the Episcopal Church, canonically resident in the Diocese of Northern California. He is a father of two young sons and the husband of a medical school student. He is behind on the laundry.

---

It is evil.

Period.

Treating child refugees like criminals is evil.

Since October, some 52,000 children from Central America have been taken into custody as they crossed into the United States, overwhelming the U.S. system meant to handle only a few thousand. For more than a week, politicians, pundits, and pastors have debated how to handle this crisis.

For conservatives, it is an immigration crisis, demonstrating the failures of the U.S. immigration policy and the need for militarized borders.

For liberals, it is a humanitarian crisis, demonstrating the failures of U.S. economic policy, the immediate need for aid, and the necessity of immigration reform.

For me, while I agree with progressives here, it is also a profoundly spiritual crisis. It is a crisis of faith, and right now, we are not the bearers of liberty, hope, democracy, or good news. Rather, we are the bearers of evil.

These children are fleeing a region with the highest murder rates of any place on the planet. The majority of children — 75 percent — come from Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, countries with the highest murder rates in the world thanks to violent drug gangs. These children are fleeing forcible enlistment into the violent armies of Central American drug cartels.

They are fleeing a culture of death. Treating them as anything other than refugees in need of asylum is evil.

Imagine a child risking life and limb to escape only to be sent straight back to the guns, the drugs, and near-conscription. Imagine a child trying to find a life that doesn’t involve the high likelihood they will die in excessively violent streets only to be told not to worry because they’ll be back home soon, where everything is safe and sound. But that home country is overrun by violence and death. That home is what they were fleeing in the first place. Not because they had bad, unloving families, or were chasing the American Dream, or were looking for Easy Street in the U.S. social service system, or wanting to steal jobs from hard-working Americans.

Central American migrants ride atop a train, nicknamed the Beast,
as they travel toward the United States-Mexico border.
Creative Commons copyright Peter Haden

Central American migrants ride atop a train, nicknamed the Beast, as they travel toward the United States-Mexico border. Creative Commons copyright Peter Haden

But simply because they didn’t want to die.

And that’s the reality for many of them. If we deport them to their home countries, we might as well sign their death certificates.

So, if you consider yourself pro-life, you had better be on the side of life on this one. And that means asylum for these child refugees.

If you take the Bible to be God’s literal, inerrant truth, then you had better be on the side of these refugee children. God is unequivocally clear in Scripture that we are to welcome the alien and the refugee, not question them, detain them, and deport them.

If you want to be a Christian, you have no choice but to let the little children come. You have no choice but to welcome the stranger, who just happens to be your neighbor.

Otherwise, you’re just a damned liar. Or at the very least, you are lying to yourself.

You cannot be a Christian and reject these children.

The protests that greeted these child refugees in Murrieta?

Evil.

The political posturing by politicians and pastors pontificating that securing borders, building walls, deporting children is somehow humane or what Jesus wants?

Evil.

It is evil to send children to their deaths.

Especially when you have the power to do otherwise.

And it is evil, profoundly evil, to create a world with so few good options for children that they take to the tops of deadly trains rather than taking to their own streets. That is precisely what the United States has done to Central America.

We have been unmasked in this crisis. Our deeds have been exposed. We have done evil, this evil that enslaves us, this evil done on our behalf.

There is evil at our borders, most certainly. But it’s on our side. And it’s of our own making.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Pope Francis

Pope Francis: Immigrant Children Must Be 'Welcomed And Protected'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/pope-francis-immigrant-children_n_5588442.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

The Huffington Post | By Antonia Blumberg

Posted: July 15, 2014

Pope Francis confronted the "racist and xenophobic attitudes" that often face undocumented immigrants by addressing the thousands of unaccompanied children included in their ranks.

In a message delivered to the Mexico-Holy See Colloquium on Migration and Development on Monday, the pope drew attention to these migrant children who he said often undertake the dangerous border crossing alone in order to escape violence in their home countries:

"This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that promote development in their countries of origin."

Pope Francis noted the urgency of this predicament, saying that the numbers of migrant children "are increasing day by day." U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports that more than 50,000 unaccompanied migrant children have crossed the Southwest border so far in 2014.

While Pope Francis delivered his message, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin spoke at Mexico's Foreign Relations Secretariat and urged clergy and foreign ministers to protect young migrants.

"Whether they travel for reasons of poverty, violence or the hope of uniting with families on the other side of the border," Parolin said, "it is urgent to protect and assist them, because their frailty is greater and they're defenseless, they're at the mercy of any abuse or misfortune."

The cardinal reiterated the Vatican's support for this cause, saying, "The church will always support at the national and international level any initiative directed at the adoption of correct policies."

Outside of the church, though, the pope also called for the international community to take steps toward finding a humanitarian solution to the immigration crisis.

"This challenge demands the attention of the entire international community so that new forms of legal and secure migration may be adopted."

On Sunday Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell met privately with dozens of governors of states that will host thousands of unaccompanied migrant children from Central America. The program, initiated by the Obama administration, will go into effect in October and aims to tackle the growing influx of child migrants.

"We want to make sure they're placed in a safe and supportive home or placement," Burwell said, "but also, it should be somebody that is legal and somebody that will be responsible to see that they show up for the hearing."

* * * * * * * * * * *

The Children of the Drug Wars

A Refugee Crisis, Not an Immigration Crisis

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/a-refugee-crisis-not-an-immigration-crisis.html?emc=edit_th_20140713&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=51067901&_r=3&referrer

by Sonia Nazario

July 11, 2014

CRISTIAN OMAR REYES, an 11-year-old sixth grader in the neighborhood of Nueva Suyapa, on the outskirts of Tegucigalpa, tells me he has to get out of Honduras soon — “no matter what.”

In March, his father was robbed and murdered by gangs while working as a security guard protecting a pastry truck. His mother used the life insurance payout to hire a smuggler to take her to Florida. She promised to send for him quickly, but she has not.

Three people he knows were murdered this year. Four others were gunned down on a nearby corner in the span of two weeks at the beginning of this year. A girl his age resisted being robbed of $5. She was clubbed over the head and dragged off by two men who cut a hole in her throat, stuffed her panties in it, and left her body in a ravine across the street from Cristian’s house.

“I’m going this year,” he tells me.

I last went to Nueva Suyapa in 2003, to write about another boy, Luis Enrique Motiño Pineda, who had grown up there and left to find his mother in the United States. Children from Central America have been making that journey, often without their parents, for two decades. But lately something has changed, and the predictable flow has turned into an exodus. Three years ago, about 6,800 children were detained by United States immigration authorities and placed in federal custody; this year, as many as 90,000 children are expected to be picked up. Around a quarter come from Honduras — more than from anywhere else.

Children still leave Honduras to reunite with a parent, or for better educational and economic opportunities. But, as I learned when I returned to Nueva Suyapa last month, a vast majority of child migrants are fleeing not poverty, but violence. As a result, what the United States is seeing on its borders now is not an immigration crisis. It is a refugee crisis.

Gangs arrived in force in Honduras in the 1990s, as 18th Street and Mara Salvatrucha members were deported in large numbers from Los Angeles to Central America, joining homegrown groups like Los Puchos. But the dominance in the past few years of foreign drug cartels in Honduras, especially ones from Mexico, has increased the reach and viciousness of the violence. As the United States and Colombia spent billions of dollars to disrupt the movement of drugs up the Caribbean corridor, traffickers rerouted inland through Honduras, and 79 percent of cocaine-smuggling flights bound for the United States now pass through there.

Cristian Omar Reyes, 11, wants to get out of

Honduras “no matter what.” - SONIA NAZARIO

Narco groups and gangs are vying for control over this turf, neighborhood by neighborhood, to gain more foot soldiers for drug sales and distribution, expand their customer base, and make money through extortion in a country left with an especially weak, corrupt government following a 2009 coup.

Enrique’s 33-year-old sister, Belky, who still lives in Nueva Suyapa, says children began leaving en masse for the United States three years ago. That was around the time that the narcos started putting serious pressure on kids to work for them. At Cristian’s school, older students working with the cartels push drugs on the younger ones — some as young as 6. If they agree, children are recruited to serve as lookouts, make deliveries in backpacks, rob people and extort businesses. They are given food, shoes and money in return. Later, they might work as traffickers or hit men.

Teachers at Cristian’s school described a 12-year-old who demanded that the school release three students one day to help him distribute crack cocaine; he brandished a pistol and threatened to kill a teacher when she tried to question him.

At Nueva Suyapa’s only public high school, narcos “recruit inside the school,” says Yadira Sauceda, a counselor there. Until he was killed a few weeks ago, a 23-year-old “student” controlled the school. Each day, he was checked by security at the door, then had someone sneak his gun to him over the school wall. Five students, mostly 12- and 13-year-olds, tearfully told Ms. Sauceda that the man had ordered them to use and distribute drugs or he would kill their parents. By March, one month into the new school year, 67 of 450 students had left the school.

Teachers must pay a “war tax” to teach in certain neighborhoods, and students must pay to attend.

Carlos Baquedano Sánchez and his mother, Lovena Lidibeth Baquedano Sánchez, in

their home in Nueva Suyapa, Honduras. Carlos is determined to leave. - SONIA NAZARIO

Carlos Baquedano Sánchez, a slender 14-year-old with hair sticking straight up, explained how hard it was to stay away from the cartels. He lives in a shack made of corrugated tin in a neighborhood in Nueva Suyapa called El Infiernito — Little Hell — and usually doesn’t have anything to eat one out of every three days. He started working in a dump when he was 7, picking out iron or copper to recycle, for $1 or $2 a day. But bigger boys often beat him to steal his haul, and he quit a year ago when an older man nearly killed him for a coveted car-engine piston. Now he sells scrap wood.

But all of this was nothing, he says, compared to the relentless pressure to join narco gangs and the constant danger they have brought to his life. When he was 9, he barely escaped from two narcos who were trying to rape him, while terrified neighbors looked on. When he was 10, he was pressured to try marijuana and crack. “You’ll feel better. Like you are in the clouds,” a teenager working with a gang told him. But he resisted.

He has known eight people who were murdered and seen three killed right in front of him. He saw a man shot three years ago and still remembers the plums the man was holding rolling down the street, coated in blood. Recently he witnessed two teenage hit men shooting a pair of brothers for refusing to hand over the keys and title to their motorcycle. Carlos hit the dirt and prayed. The killers calmly walked down the street. Carlos shrugs. “Now seeing someone dead is nothing.”

He longs to be an engineer or mechanic, but he quit school after sixth grade, too poor and too afraid to attend. “A lot of kids know what can happen in school. So they leave.”

He wants to go to the United States, even though he knows how dangerous the journey can be; a man in his neighborhood lost both legs after falling off the top of a Mexican freight train, and a family friend drowned in the Rio Grande. “I want to avoid drugs and death. The government can’t pull up its pants and help people,” he says angrily. “My country has lost its way.”

Girls face particular dangers — one reason around 40 percent of children who arrived in the United States this year were girls, compared with 27 percent in the past. Recently three girls were raped and killed in Nueva Suyapa, one only 8 years old. Two 15-year-olds were abducted and raped. The kidnappers told them that if they didn’t get in the car they would kill their entire families. Some parents no longer let their girls go to school for fear of their being kidnapped, says Luis López, an educator with Asociación Compartir, a nonprofit in Nueva Suyapa.

Milagro Noemi Martínez, a petite 19-year-old with clear green eyes, has been told repeatedly by narcos that she would be theirs — or end up dead. Last summer, she made her first attempt to reach the United States. “Here there is only evil,” she says. “It’s better to leave than have them kill me here.” She headed north with her 21-year-old sister, a friend who had also been threatened, and $170 among them. But she was stopped and deported from Mexico. Now back in Nueva Suyapa, she stays locked inside her mother’s house. “I hope God protects me. I am afraid to step outside.” Last year, she says, six minors, as young as 15, were killed in her neighborhood. Some were hacked apart. She plans to try the journey again soon. Asking for help from the police or the government is not an option in what some consider a failed state. The drugs that pass through Honduras each year are worth more than the country’s entire gross domestic product. Narcos have bought off police officers, politicians and judges. In recent years, four out of five homicides were never investigated. No one is immune to the carnage. Several Honduran mayors have been killed. The sons of both the former head of the police department and the head of the national university were murdered, the latter, an investigation showed, by the police.

“You never call the cops. The cops themselves will retaliate and kill you,” says Henry Carías Aguilar, a pastor in Nueva Suyapa. A majority of small businesses in Nueva Suyapa have shuttered because of extortion demands, while churches have doubled in number in the past decade, as people pray for salvation from what they see as the plague predicted in the Bible. Taxis and homes have signs on them asking God for mercy.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently interviewed 404 children who had arrived in the United States from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico; 58 percent said their primary reason for leaving was violence. (A similar survey in 2006, of Central American children coming into Mexico, found that only 13 percent were fleeing violence.) They aren’t just going to the United States: Less conflicted countries in Central America had a 712 percent increase in asylum claims between 2008 and 2013.

“If a house is burning, people will jump out the window,” says Michelle Brané, director of the migrant rights and justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission.

TO permanently stem this flow of children, we must address the complex root causes of violence in Honduras, as well as the demand for illegal drugs in the United States that is fueling that violence.

In the meantime, however, we must recognize this as a refugee crisis, as the United Nations just recommended. These children are facing threats similar to the forceful conscription of child soldiers by warlords in Sudan or during the civil war in Bosnia. Being forced to sell drugs by narcos is no different from being forced into military service.

Many Americans, myself included, believe in deporting unlawful immigrants, but see a different imperative with refugees.

The United States should immediately create emergency refugee centers inside our borders, tent cities — operated by the United Nations and other relief groups like the International Rescue Committee — where immigrant children could be held for 60 to 90 days instead of being released. The government would post immigration judges at these centers and adjudicate children’s cases there.

To ensure this isn’t a sham process, asylum officers and judges must be trained in child-sensitive interviewing techniques to help elicit information from fearful, traumatized youngsters. All children must also be represented by a volunteer or government-funded lawyer. Kids in Need of Defense, a nonprofit that recruits pro bono lawyers to represent immigrant children and whose board I serve on, estimates that 40 percent to 60 percent of these children potentially qualify to stay under current immigration laws — and do, if they have a lawyer by their side. The vast majority do not. The only way to ensure we are not hurtling children back to circumstances that could cost them their lives is by providing them with real due process.

Judges, who currently deny seven in 10 applications for asylum by people who are in deportation proceedings, must better understand the conditions these children are facing. They should be more open to considering relief for those fleeing gang recruitment or threats by criminal organizations when they come from countries like Honduras that are clearly unwilling or unable to protect them.

If many children don’t meet strict asylum criteria but face significant dangers if they return, the United States should consider allowing them to stay using humanitarian parole procedures we have employed in the past, for Cambodians and Haitians. It may be possible to transfer children and resettle them in other safe countries willing to share the burden. We should also make it easier for children to apply as refugees when they are still in Central America, as we have done for people in Iraq, Cuba, countries in the former Soviet Union, Vietnam and Haiti. Those who showed a well-founded fear of persecution wouldn’t have to make the perilous journey north alone.

Of course, many migrant children come for economic reasons, and not because they fear for their lives. In those cases, they should quickly be deported if they have at least one parent in their country of origin. By deporting them directly from the refugee centers, the United States would discourage future non-refugees by showing that immigrants cannot be caught and released, and then avoid deportation by ignoring court orders to attend immigration hearings.

Instead of advocating such a humane, practical approach, the Obama administration wants to intercept and return children en route. On Tuesday the president asked for $3.7 billion in emergency funding. Some money would be spent on new detention facilities and more immigration judges, but the main goal seems to be to strengthen border control and speed up deportations. He also asked Congress to grant powers that could eliminate legal protections for children from Central America in order to expedite removals, a change that Republicans in Congress have also advocated.

This would allow life-or-death decisions to be made within hours by Homeland Security officials, even though studies have shown that border patrol agents fail to adequately screen Mexican children to see if they are being sexually exploited by traffickers or fear persecution, as the agents are supposed to do. Why would they start asking Central American children key questions needed to prove refugee status?

The United States expects other countries to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees on humanitarian grounds. Countries neighboring Syria have absorbed nearly 3 million people. Jordan has accepted in two days what the United States has received in an entire month during the height of this immigration flow — more than 9,000 children in May. The United States should also increase to pre-9/11 levels the number of refugees we accept to 90,000 from the current 70,000 per year and, unlike in recent years, actually admit that many.

By sending these children away, “you are handing them a death sentence,” says José Arnulfo Ochoa Ochoa, an expert in Honduras with World Vision International, a Christian humanitarian aid group. This abrogates international conventions we have signed and undermines our credibility as a humane country. It would be a disgrace if this wealthy nation turned its back on the 52,000 children who have arrived since October, many of them legitimate refugees.

This is not how a great nation treats children.

Transparent Moments of Scholarship when a Theologian Must Either Stay or Change, Part 10 - Anthony Le Donne

Anthony Le Donne

“aha” moments: biblical scholars tell their stories (9): Anthony Le Donne

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/07/aha-moments-biblical-scholars-tell-their-stories-9-anthony-le-donne/

by Peter Enns

July 16, 2014

Comments

The 9th installment in our “aha moments” series is by Anthony Le Donne, assistant professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, OH, and formerly of Lincoln Christian University. He was terminated from that position as a direct result of his popular book Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? Le Donne, a widely respected New Testament scholar, has also written The Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals and blogs at The Jesus Blog.

---

It would be fair to say that I’ve moved from conservative to liberal in my views about the Bible. But since my perspective on what constitutes “conservative” and “liberal” has evolved, perhaps these labels are misplaced.

I will say, however, that if my teenage self could meet who I am now, that dashing young man would call me a liberal. He would also be dismayed to learn how poorly Italians age. It’s like going from Johnny Fontane to Luca Brasi overnight. [a reference to the film, The Godfather]

In my Johnny Fontane years I viewed Scripture as an owner’s manual for life. I remember hearing this metaphor used at church. Life would just be better, smoother, happier if we just adhered to the owner’s manual.

The Bible cautions against drunkenness, so we avoided alcohol. Simple. The Bible tells us to resolve our conflicts before coming together in communion. Who wants to hold a grudge anyway? So simple. The Bible tells us not to murder. Less murder seemed like a positive thing to us (Luca Brasi notwithstanding).

Following these instructions seemed beneficial. Sunday school taught me this: if I did what the Bible told me to do, I’d be on the right track.

Both now and then, I see great virtue in this paradigm. The legal instructions of Israel exhort care for resident foreigners. These Scriptures command good stewardship of the earth and care for animals. Jesus tells me to feed the poor. He tells me to help folks who cannot pay me back. I’m supposed to love people considered outsiders by most.

I think that I’m a better person for following, meditating on, and wrestling with these teachings whenever I can. So what’s the problem?

Part of having a “high view” of Scripture for evangelicals is reading the Bible closely and often. I did. When I did, one of the things I found was a teaching from Jesus about lust.

Lust was a big deal when I was an adolescent. For boys of a certain age, lust is a fulltime job. I tried to think about baseball. I really did. But biology is a Super Bowl commercial. I—like most boys—was at war with myself.

I turned to the Bible often with fear and trembling. Jesus told me that if I looked upon Daisy Duke [sic, Dukes of Hazzard] with lust in my heart, I was guilty of adultery. I kept reading. Jesus told me that if my right eye continued to sin, I should pluck it out. And here I was looking upon Linda Carter [sic, Wonder Woman] with both eyes!

I asked around. The standard evangelical advice I got was that this command wasn’t to be taken literally. The proper evangelical reading of this passage was to get the main point. What was the “didactic thrust” of Jesus’ words? Well, according to my youth pastors and mentors, Jesus was just using a bit of rhetorical flare to warn me against the dangers of lust. It would all make perfect sense if I just took it as a figurative speech.

I began to look for the didactic thrust of biblical teaching. The owner’s manual might command us to throw literal rocks at literal homosexuals, but the gist of that passage was that God hates homosexuality… but LOVES and FORGIVES all sinners (we’ve taken to shouting that last part—more for ourselves than for anyone else).

The rock-throwing part wasn’t to be taken literally, but the meaning behind the text seemed quite clear to us. Sometimes it seems that the clearest meaning of Scripture is the one that reinforces our own comfort zones.

Already as a high school student, the owner’s manual paradigm was stretched beyond usefulness. My evangelical world began to accommodate figural readings by looking for the underlying message. I think that this is where most evangelicals land.

We treat the Bible as an owner’s manual that we’re forced to interpret creatively at times. As long as we read selectively, we’re able to use the Bible to reinforce our “commonsense.” This way we get to keep our eyeballs and hands on our persons (Matt 5:27-30) but continue to reinforce our commonsense notions of sexual purity.

But what of the “underlying message” of Ezra 9-10?

By the grace of God, both my eyes survived adolescence and I was able to keep reading the Bible as a young adult. I was in high school when I first set my eyes on Ezra 9-10. I was able to sidestep the command to divorce and abandon children without much thought to the “literal sense” of this story. Obviously such a command shouldn’t be taken literally. After all, Jesus condemns divorce.

So I looked for the gist of God’s words through Ezra. The underlying message—it occurred to me—was that interracial marriage is sinful and disastrous to the purity of bloodlines. This teaching seemed remarkably similar to my grandmother’s disapproval of my parents’ relationship because my father was dark-skinned.

I’m not claiming that my 16-year-old exegesis was all that sophisticated. But any way you slice it, Ezra 9-10 is deeply troubling—especially so to folks with an owner’s manual view of the Bible.

My salvation during this crisis came from a fellow evangelical who pointed me to Jeremiah 29. In this passage, the Lord seems to command intermarriage as the Israelites find themselves in Babylon.

An owner’s manual view of the Bible might see this as a contradiction. But I found Jeremiah’s exhortations to be comforting. The prophet commands Israel to be culturally integrated within a milieu of religious and ethnic pluralism.

This wasn’t my only “aha” moment, but it was a significant realization in my life. The Bible—it occurred to me then—was much more than an owner’s manual.

In my adulthood, the Bible has become a multi-vocal conversation spanning centuries.

Voices are set against voices for good reason. Job is juxtaposed with Proverbs. Paul is juxtaposed with James. Mark is juxtaposed with Matthew (indeed, four Gospels are set together—as opposed to one official narrative).

Sometimes I heard my own voice set against an ancient one as I read. But my voice wasn’t alone. Sometimes there was a chorus of faithful voices on my side. Viewed as a multi-vocal conversation, I found room for me within the paradigm—me, including my right eye and right hand.

I also found Proverbs 26:4-5 to be a needed corrective to my view of the Bible as an owner’s manual:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,

or you yourself will be just like him.

Answer a fool according to his folly,

or he will be wise in his own eyes.

In my Johnny Fontane years, I might have heard this passage as a contradiction. What am I supposed to do? Answer the fool or not? But when I hear these sayings as two voices collected within a multi-vocal collection, I am invited into a conversation.

More importantly, these divergent views are set side-by-side. Somewhere along the way, a faithful collector of tradition decided that these two sayings should be set into direct relationship. Once put together, these sayings were passed from generation to generation in a relationship of tension. There is something beautiful here that cannot be captured by the owner’s manual paradigm.

I no longer expect biblical voices to harmonize or to provide some sort of absolute Truth. As I encounter God through the many voices of the Bible (even when they debate or sound like my grandmother), I throw myself into a living and evolving relational Mystery.

I enter into the worship of God as I study the Bible. I don’t need the Bible to be infallible because it is just the entry point, not the ultimate destination.

For me the Bible isn’t something that demands my ultimate affirmation of commands and prohibitions. A high view of Scripture—for me at least—is one that views the Bible as much more than an owner’s manual.

But I will admit that I continue to struggle with my roots. I may not look like an evangelical to my younger self, but I find myself in evangelical default mode at times. Just when I think I’m out… they pull me back in!

This is why I rarely trust my own readings. I live within a community of honest academics (some Christian; some not) who have permission to correct me and better me. As such, the multi-vocal tradition continues. Because as much as I’d like to be Johnny Fontane, I’m not much of a soloist.

Index to Series -

Transparent Moments of Scholarship when a Theologian Must Either Stay or Change

Part 1 - Introduction

Part 2 - Peter Enns

Part 3 - John Byron

Part 4 - Daniel Kirk

Part 5 - Michael Pahl

Part 6 - Charles Halton

Part 7 - Christopher W. Skinner

Part 8 - Christopher M. Hays

Part 9 - Michael L. Ruffin

Part 10 - Athony Le Donne

Part 11 - Chris Tilling

Part 12 - Megan DeFranza

Part 13 - Carlos Bovell

Part 14 - Lindsey Trozzo

Book Review (RJS) - Four Views on the Historical Adam, Part 4

Amazon Link

The Historicity of Adam is a Gospel Issue (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/07/15/the-historicity-of-adam-is-a-gospel-issue-rjs/

by RJS

Jul 15, 2014

Comments

The final major essay in Four Views on the Historical Adam is by William D. Barrick. In his chapter Barrick argues for a traditional young earth view of Adam as the unique, supernaturally created, seminal father of all humankind. He argues that this is central to the biblical story and the Christian worldview. If Adam is not historical we must wonder why there is a need for Jesus. According to Barrick “[t]hat makes the historicity of Adam a gospel issue.” (p. 222 – emphasis in the original).

Barrick’s stress on the importance of a young earth and a historical Adam exactly as described in Genesis 1-3 is rooted in his approach to scripture (what we might call his theology of scripture) and his understanding of the gospel story conveyed in scripture.

---

In Barrick’s view, which he calls the traditional view, a historical Adam as the original man from whom all human beings descend is foundational to a biblical understanding of God’s creative activity, the history of the human race, the nature of mankind, the origin and nature of sin, the existence and nature of death, and the reality of salvation from sin; it is foundational to the progressive account of the historical events recorded in Genesis, … “and perhaps most importantly, foundational to a biblical understanding of Scripture’s authority, inspiration, and inerrancy.” (list and quote p. 199, emphasis mine)

This is important – everything in Barrick’s view rests on his approach to scripture as inspired and incapable of error of any sort. In his view the Holy Spirit superintended the writing of scripture and protected it from all error. This leads to very strict readings of the intended meaning and prevents serious consideration of the idea that mistaken understandings may have been included. His theology and, to be fair, the theology of many other Christians rests on this approach to scripture.

First, the traditional view commonly affirms that God gave the Genesis account of creation to Moses by special revelation. Thus the narrator is both omniscient and reliable, because the ultimate author is God himself. After all, if Adam was truly the first human being, there were no human eyewitnesses to his creation. Additionally, Adam could not have described the making of the woman, because he was in a deep sleep throughout the divine procedure. The only eyewitnesses are God and the angels. The only alternative to divine revelation would be an unlikely angelic report....

Second, traditionalists take the position that the declarations of Genesis bear the stamp of divine truth, historical fact, and historiographical accuracy. (p. 199-200)

He believes that the suggestion that the account contains mistaken ancient Near Eastern conceptions of cosmology “impugns God’s moral integrity.”

The Creation Account

The Biblical evidence for the traditional view of origins rests on the straightforward prosaic nature of the account of creation and of Adam and Eve. Evolution is not consistent with the biblical account for a number of reasons – but one is that Adam was created first and was alone … “if it takes countless years to produce one such individual, how will he survive long enough while another similarly developed individual evolves who is his compatible opposite in gender for the human race to begin?” (p. 210) The Genesis account refers explicitly to individuals and not to groups or populations and the traditional view takes this specification seriously.

Adam is the seminal (physical) head of the human race and Eve was produced directly from him using his DNA “altered by God at the time he formed her.”(p. 213) Sin enters into the human race before any children were produces and is transmitted to everyone else through the contribution of the male parent. Immediate death would have put an end to God’s plan for Adam and Eve, thus he allows them to produce offspring and eventually the seed who is the restorer – Christ. Not only is sin transmitted through the male but....

As far as that disobedience is concerned, the second masculine singular grammatical form, verbs, pronouns, and pronominal suffixes, throughout Genesis 3 make it clear that the Creator holds Adam accountable. As Eve’s husband, Adam is head of his family and responsible for both Eve’s and his actions leading to sin’s entrance into the world. (p. 214)

The climax of the Genesis 3 account is that “Adam and Eve produce children bearing their image as rebels against a holy God.” (p. 215)

The Gospel Story

Barrick sees strong support for the traditional view in the New Testament (as well as the rest of the Old). He suggests that the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke connect back to Adam, although only Luke does so explicitly. Paul makes reference to the one man in Acts 17 as well as 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. He does not feel that an archetypal or any view of Adam other than as a single unique individual can fulfill the textual and theological role assigned to Adam. In fact, he argues that the biblical description of sin depends entirely on the historicity of Adam because it is both active rebellion and a state of being, but not an inherent aspect of the created order. The state of being alien from the created order entered through a man (Adam) and an act (Adam’s).

Adam must be a completely righteous person, bearing the image of God, who succumbs to a specific temptation from outside his own person and who represents the entire human race. (p. 221)

He concludes his discussion of the thrust of the argument, connecting Christ, atonement, resurrection, and Adam:

It is no accident or mere coincidence that Paul addresses the issue of Adam in the same context (1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The implication is inescapable: Denial of the historicity of Adam, like denial of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection, destroys the foundations of the Christian faith. (p. 223 emphasis in the original)

In Barrick’s view the only reason that people stray from the view he has described is because they allow extrabiblical sources to trump (or even nuance) the biblical account. This includes extrabiblical information from geology, evolution, and archaeology (especially ancient texts) as well as other errant human studies.

When a reader of the Bible accepts extrabiblical evidence (whether from ancient Near Eastern documentation or from modern scientists’ interpretation of circumstantial evidence) over the biblical record, that denigrates the biblical record and treats it with skepticism rather than as the prima facie evidence. (p. 226)

The adherent to the traditional view turns to science only to refute the secular scientist, not because they care about science as primary evidence. We must stand on the testimony of the biblical text. “Science changes, the Scripture does not.” (p. 227) He finishes by quoting John Walton from his commentary on Genesis to close his essay: “We need to defend the teaching of the text, not a scientific reconstruction of the text or statements that are read between the lines of the text.” (p. 227)

In the next post on this book we will look at the responses offered by Denis Lamoureux, John Walton and Jack Collins along with William Barrick’s rejoinder and some thoughts of my own.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Responses to the Traditional View of Adam (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/07/17/responses-to-the-traditional-view-of-adam-rjs/

by RJS

Jul 17, 2014

Comments

In the final major essay in Four Views on the Historical Adam William Barrick argued for a traditional young earth view of Adam as the unique, supernaturally created, seminal father of all humankind. His view was outlined in the previous post on the book: The Historicity of Adam is a Gospel Issue. In this post we will look at the responses offered by Denis Lamoureux, John Walton, and Jack Collins as well as William Barrick’s rejoinder to their comments.

---

DL's Rebuttal

Denis Lamoureux agrees with Barrick’s summary of the reality and meaning of sin but not with his conclusion that this depends entirely on the historicity of Adam. He feels that Barrick’s strategy of connecting the historicity of Adam with the historicity of Christ and the resurrection, thereby making it a gospel issue, is unwarranted. A serious regard for scripture does not require this:

“The gospel is about Jesus Christ, not Adam. The gospel is about the reality of sin, not about how sin entered the world. The gospel is about Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, not specifically for Adam’s sin. And it is because of the gospel that we are called “Christ-ians” and not “Adam-ites.”(p. 229)

At many places in his essay Barrick responds to statements made by Peter Enns in The Evolution of Adam – in fact this seems to be in his sights more than any of the immediate views presented in this book. Denis is correct however that a criticism of Pete’s view is often a criticism of his as well. He disagrees with Barrick that accommodation to a human perspective, allowing ancient cosmology into the text for example, denigrates ancient Israel or the Bible, and it certainly does not impugn God’s moral integrity (all claims Barrick makes). Rather, we have to take the text we have before us (which does include ancient cosmology) whether we like it or not.

Lamoureux also points out that Christian tradition is not inerrant - and the traditional view is not necessarily the correct view. Martin Luther’s 1534 Bible features a diagram of the universe using the ancient cosmology and Luther’s lectures on creation in Genesis indicate that he believed this cosmology was accurate – including the firmament and waters above. We need to be open to revisions in tradition as we study scripture in each new generation.

Walton's Rebuttal

John Walton believes that Barrick consistently misunderstood or misrepresented what he means by archetype. He equates archetypal with allegorical and this is not what Walton means by archetypal. Rather he (Walton) argues that the authors in scripture were using Adam in an archetypal manner and that this is the role that Adam plays in their arguments. An archtype can be historical, but need not be historical.

Walton lists nine other ways that he thinks that Barrick uses faulty logic and fails to make a case for his position. He objects to the slippery slope argument that Barrick uses at times. Barrick has a tendency to state his conclusions as obvious – which makes it difficult to carry on a useful conversation. Barrick bundles together issues that are not necessarily connected logically – such as when he jumps from Eve’s role in the temptation to gender hierarchy. In a section discussing the ways that Barrick uses logical non sequiturs providing four examples he ends with an example where Barrick quotes Walton’s own NIVAC commentary on Genesis and misapplies it … “When he says “in other words,” he draws illegitimate conclusions from the statement he quotes me as making – a form of non sequitur.” (p. 242 referring to a quote and conclusion by Barrick on pp. 225-226)

In conclusion, my objections to Barrick’s positions derive largely from how he conducts his argumentation and the absence of evidence for the details of the positions he maintains. (p. 243)

Collin's Rebuttal

Jack Collins agrees with some of Barrick’s points including the importance of the historicity of Adam. He disagrees with the tight connection between historicity and a literal hermeneutic. He feels that the definition of inerrancy that Barrick uses suffers from some serious problems. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is more nuanced – Scripture should be evaluated according to its usage and purpose, not according to our standard of truth or error. While Barrick correctly worries about improper use of ancient Near Eastern documents, this shouldn’t prevent the proper use of such documents.

When it comes to whether we should compare the material we find in the Bible to the materials we find from surrounding cultures, it seems almost obvious that of course we should. The biblical writers spoke into a specific context and regularly had to warn their audiences against the blandishments of the competing worldviews. Whether it be an Old Testament prophet inveighing agains idolatry and syncretism, or a New Testament apostle reminding people about Greco-Roman depravity, these warnings are common stuff. Surely a sane interpreter will do what he or she can to discover what these dangers were. (p. 250)

He also thinks that Barrick is too hard on science and scientists – an issue that needs a good deal more nuance (he refers to his book Science and Faith).

Barrick's Rejoinder

In his rejoinder William Barrick reiterates his main point. We must put scripture first, and none of the old earth positions do this. Biblical scholars like Lamoureux, Walton, and Collins minimize to some degree or other the historical accuracy of the text:

“Minimalists rely more heavily on human authority as the lynch-pin for their argumentation than on the divine authority of Scripture. … Their statements indicate that the yardstick for determining biblical truth resides with the most current scientific beliefs, not the objective biblical revelation itself.” (p. 252)

Minimalists pick and choose which statements are truly inerrant based on human reasoning. Young-earth adherents do not do this. Thus, Barrick’s argument for his position on the historicity of Adam is ultimately quite simple.

Young-earth evidence for the historicity of Adam comes from Scripture itself and its own direct statements. Such biblical evidence does not require confirmation from any external scientific, historical, or sociological evidence. When the Genesis record declares that God created the woman out of the material that he took from Adam, we require no other evidence to conclude that they shared DNA and that she was specially created. The fact that Scripture speaks only of a first man and first woman and that it presents them as the actual historical parents of the entire human race is evidence enough to believe those truths. (p. 253)

The Scripture contains God’s very words and these are always completely truthful – no ancient cosmology and no use of myth (a word he views entirely as a negative) or story. The chief difference between his view and that of all who hold to an old-earth is that “old-earth viewpoints accept modern scientist’s interpretations of observable data.” (p. 254) Barrick and others who hold to a traditional young-earth view stand on Scripture alone.

---

RJS' Conclusion

And a final comment of my own. William Barrick is quite clear about the foundation for his view. It is an approach to Scripture as the bedrock of faith that many of us grew up with. But it is not clear that the Scripture we actually possess can stand up to the load that Barrick places upon it.

Denis Lamoureux (the only contributor to this book with a strong science background – Jack Collins has a BS and MS computer science and systems engineering from MIT which is impressive, but not quite the same) comments that it was his study of Genesis 1-11 that first led him away from the young-earth view.

I agree with Denis – it is my reading of the biblical text itself that leads me away from the young-earth view and from the hard view of inerrancy that Barrick defends. Not just Genesis 1-11; but the entirety of Scripture.

Scripture is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. As Paul states it is the Holy Scriptures which are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Useful for training so that we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. But we stand on the reality of God and Christ, this is our only foundation.

I take scripture seriously enough that I have listened to it through many times over the last couple of years in order to allow the sweep from beginning to end to penetrate into my understanding of who and what I am and we are – as God’s people. I don’t find the hard view of inerrancy that gives rise to Barrick’s young-earth view consistent with the Scripture we have inherited. We need to take Scripture seriously but on its own terms.

I accept an old-earth and an evolutionary creation because I see this as where the scientific evidence leads. But I do not think that this is in conflict with the sweep and message of Scripture, including most importantly the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, God’s Messiah for our sins.

The question we need to ask about the young-earth view is quite simple: Is this really the right way to interpret Scripture?

I don’t think that it is. Nor do Lamoureux, Walton, Collins (or Enns who is clearly in Barrick’s sights), although we don’t all agree on exactly what this means for the historicity of Adam.

continue to -

Part 1 - Denis O. Lamoureux: Evolutionary Creationism

Part 2 - John H. Walton: YEC but Ancient Cosmology

Part 3 - C. John Collins: Modified YEC

Part 4 - William D. Barrick: YEC

On Knowing in the Bible: Is God Dead? Badiou's Reflective Thought for Theology, Part 3

The last several days have found me listening to the French Philosopher Alain Badiou describing his life and ideas in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at Kendall College of Art and Design at the behest of GCAS (see HuffPost's article: Something Radical: The Global Center of Advanced Studies). To say this event was surreal would have been an understatement. However, this kindly and gracious man and his wife have spent the past week discussing his philosophy of "Being and Event" by examining his early youth experiences of French colonialism in his homeland Morocco; the Nazi occupation of North Africa and France; his later involvement in the Algerian resistance to French colonialism after WW2; and the philosophical trajectories he has taken on the topic of "Subject and Difference." Especially as this topic related to the political doctrinaires of Fascism, Communism, Maoism, and tyranny, around the understanding of self within society. It has been a thorough undertaking and one that GCAS had arranged masterfully in order to make a complete documentary of Alain's life story.

My own backstory is that of a lay theologian with some university coursework and background in philosophy but nothing formally in a specific degree program unlike most of the attendees whom I have met holding at least one, if not more, Ph.D's to their pedigrees. And so, coming into a setting such as this immediately put me at a disadvantage to the depth of linguistic concepts and ideological structures being knowledgeably discussed amongst participants representing a small cadre of international philosophers, scholars, ethicists, educationalists, sociologists, and the arts, ranging from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Adelaide, Australia, the schools of Switzerland, to the lands of Belarus. Each had come to hear from the man they had read, or studied under, and were in some way associated with, through GCAS' graduate or post-graduate programs as it extended its global outreach beyond the brick-and-mortar walls of academia to help lower the burden of education's expenses while bringing teaching directly to the learner.

Our schedule was as follows:

Mon (10 AM-12:30 PM EST): Badiou in the 1960-70s

Tues (10 AM-12:30 PM EST): Badiou in the 1980-90s

Weds (10 AM-12:30 PM EST): Badiou & the Global

Thurs (10 AM-12:30 PM EST): Badiou in the 2000s

Thurs (2-4:00 PM EST): C. Winter on Africa & Contradiction

Fri (10 AM-12:30 PM EST): Badiou in the 2010s

These included two-hour luncheons with one another and roundtable discussions in the evening from 6-9 pm with Alain and the co-directors of GCAS. It was a thorough undertaking by GCAS who hosted an excellent week of study, sharing, and participation by scholar and student alike.

---

So then, when coming to Badiou's thought and philosophy as a Christian theologian how does one approach the concepts he has constructed so meticulously over a lifetime of historical observation and reflection? One of Alain's descriptions of philosophy is that of a close kinship with theatre whose form imitates life even as "all explanation" is not unlike theatre itself" (sic, clast v. iconoclast). Each has the same goal - that of creating new conditions for thinking about life; or, in providing a different way in which to find a new freedom - some concrete, some aesthetic. And it is our choice as participants in its product as to whether we will be the actors on stage ourselves or to view its play from the seats of the theatre as its dramas unfold. Plato's solution (re: his illustration of "The Cave") was to be on the stage, even as Badiou himself had written many plays in an earlier life in attempt to disclose his perceptions of his times as both playwright and patron.

For myself, I ultimately wish to contemporize and expand the language I use for my postmodern Christian faith but when entering into philosophy's earthly appointments immediately come into conflict with its sublime premises: that all is reason and rationality. As such, I find my Christian faith's theistic basis of knowing self through divine revelation of God's Word in direct opposition to philosophy's premises and assertions. In philosophical  terms, special revelation then becomes merely religious ideology, and must be abandoned in all its forms and structures if we are to proceed on a more proper philosophical basis of deriving our sense of being through the very human means of reason and rationality. Thus is the conflict between human wisdom and the divine of special revelation.

But admittedly, no religion - not even the Christian faith - is without immersion within society's philosophical perspectives. And it would be audacious to pretend that it is lived so separately from this world we live within. Hence, the study of philosophy is to know both thyself, our fellow man, and hopefully, our God, in a fuller, deeper sense. As such, theology must be acquainted with philosophy which itself is a close observer of history, society, movements, and events. Where one looks for meaning in God, the other looks for meaning in event, place, and time. Each carry similar purposes even as each casts a wary eye on the other. For myself, this is not a problem and should be welcomed within the tensions of the disciplines in hopes that in the critique of both disciplines will come an enlightenment to the degree that each might admit the other into the audience of its theatrical stage, if not upon the very stage itself. Each struggling with its own idea of reality and being as versus the real reality that lives and breathes off the stage of performance and show.

---

Now to the topic at hand, that of knowing and being. Badiou presents to us the problem of our postmodern times, namely that "God is Dead" and summarizes it thusly:

"Our times are undoubtedly those of the disappearance of the gods without return. But this disappearance stems from three distinct processes, for there have been three capital gods, namely, of religion, metaphysics, and the poets. Regarding the God of religions, its death must simply be declared.... Regarding the God of metaphysics, thought must accomplish its course in the infinite.... As for the God of poetry, the poem must cleanse language from within by slicing off the agency of loss and return. That is because we have lost nothing and nothing returns.... Committed to the triple destitution of the gods, we, inhabitants of the Earth’s infinite sojourn, can assert that everything is here, always here, and that thought’s reserve lies in the thoroughly informed and firmly declared egalitarian platitude of what befalls upon us here. Here is the place where truths come to be. Here we are infinite. Here nothing is promised to us, only to be faithful to what befalls upon us." (Badiou: Briefings on Existence, pp 30-31)

So then, if "God is Dead," according to Badiou, then how can a Christian faith continue to exist in the face of this statement? More so, how can philosophers such as Badiou be read and used in extending the Christian faith forwards towards an epistemologic declaration of certainty rather than one of an existential despair? (re: a recent sermon's topic which I heard this past Sunday when visiting a more conservative church fellowship declaring its own ground of being and certainty of biblical knowledge).

Notes David Congdon in his research on Badiou ("See What Is Coming to Pass and Not Only What Is: Alain Badiou and the Possibility of a Nonmetaphysical Theology"):

"The question for Christian theology is whether Badiou is merely an antagonist, or whether he can serve as an ally in the task of contemporary theological reflection. And if the latter, under what conditions? (3)"

He then observes towards the end of his research the problem of approaching a subject with a prejudicial set of a priories, or pre-formed assumptions, about a subject - which in this case is my basic theism in opposition to Badiou's non-theistic approach:

"Theological appropriations and translations of philosophical accounts of being and existence are always hazardous endeavors. They continually run the risk of violently conforming each philosophy to fit a presupposed theological paradigm. On some level, this danger is never entirely avoidable, hence the need to critically re-translate and re-appropriate each concept anew, or dispense with them altogether in order to start again on a different footing.

"The goal of this [research] paper has been to demonstrate that Alain Badiou’s mature philosophy is especially congenial to the task of formative Christian theology in the present situation. Badiou provides theology with the terms and ideas to articulate an emancipatory, pluralistic, and nonmetaphysical account of Christian fidelity to Jesus the Christ. The gospel kerygma mobilizes a multiplicity of new communities for the sake of a messianic theo-political witness in the world. Responsible talk of God (i.e., theology without metaphysics) is thus a consequence of this concrete fidelity and always speaks to the ongoing work of subjectivation within a particular situation." (41)

Reading within the pages of David's research will come a beautiful recital of the kerygmatic event of God's being in the world through Christ Jesus' incarnation and resurrection encapsulated within the body of mankind, and more specifically, His church:

"A Badiouan account of nonmetaphysical theology thus understands God to be an unanticipatable event that dialectically unites in Godself both object (site, inexistent, point) and subject (trace, body), without being directly identified with either. God takes place as a local disruption whose singularity embraces ever new situations and new subjective forms. God’s being, we might say, is ontologically located in a transontological event which is transpositionally repeated in the infinite multiplicity of contingent historical worlds. In other words, the above account of the kerygma is here understood as an account of God’s very being - a being that is, in fact, wholly beyond being, beyond the antimony of finite and infinite. God cannot be inscribed within the limits of ontology. The truth of God cannot be described as something that is, but only as something that does. Theology is not a doctrine of being but a doctrine of doing, that is, of God’s own kinetic-kenotic praxis in the economy of grace. God is not a nature or a substance or an idea, but an action, a migration, a proclamation. God happens in the kerygmatic event of Jesus Christ as an apocalyptic interruption of a situation, calls forth a new faithful subject to carry out the consequences of this messianic truth, and repeatedly translates this truth into new contexts. In other words, God translates Godself in the transhistorical movement of this christic-pneumatic event. The subjectivating power of the kerygma is God’s own self-mobilization and self-repetition. A non-metaphysical theology of God-as-event will therefore be apocalyptic, existential, hermeneutical, and missionary." (40)

To see how David arrives at this conclusion I would recommend a close reading of his work and especially the ideas expressed using Badiouian thought behind the deep meaning of Jesus' incarnation into this world, His incarnate death, and incarnated resurrection, for the sins of this world. Especially as encapsulated in the continued paschal-Pentecost event for continued divine affirmation and personal human experience which is revolutionizing the very world that the Redeeming God has created. Though a Christian soteriology of sin is not held by Badiou, in all other aspects of Badiou's work "the death of God" can be capably utilized by theology to verify the necessity of the incarnated resurrection of Jesus as the redeeming Son of God in whose atonement we lie as both subject and event. It defines our being, our knowing, our doing, our hope. And it is in this way that the Christian's sense of being and knowing is reaffirmed, extended, and deepened into the very fabric of life itself, and into the living God Himself, who bespeaks life and death and resurrection:

"In truth, there is no “self-creating” or “self-incorporating” freedom of the individual. There is only the individual who receives his/her freedom as part of his/her newly created identity that occurs in the hearing of God’s word in the kerygma. Therein lies the persistent point of opposition between philosophy and theology: not ontology, but soteriology. Christian faith can travel a long way with Badiou in his exploration of being, event, and subjectivity, but like Virgil in Dante’s Divine Comedy, the purgatory of philosophy’s materialist commitments must give way to the paradise of theology’s kerygmatic affirmation that it is God’s gracious action in Christ which alone makes possible one’s incorporation into the new faithful subject." (42)

In summary,

"Despite this crucial caveat, Christian theology joins Badiou in opposing metaphysics and pursuing an emancipatory politics. Theology can learn from Badiou how to speak of a God who is not necessary, who is beyond all necessity.

At the same time, theology learns how to speak of God from within the multiplicity of worlds. Perhaps most importantly, Badiou provides theological discourse with a way of surpassing the traditional bifurcation between subject and object. The object of faith is an unanticipatable divine event in the contingent historical occurrence of Jesus Christ, but this occurrence cannot be articulated or interpreted apart from the subjective consequences that are bound up within the event itself. Not only are these consequences irreducibly theo-political in nature, but they operate locally as contextual manifestations of fidelity within a particular world.

Christian faith proclaims with Badiou the mobilizing word: “See what is coming to pass and not only what is.” If metaphysics concerns “what is,” then “what is coming to pass” refers to the impossible possibility of a nonmetaphysical event that puts an end to the old regime of being and appearing and inaugurates something decisive and new. It is in this ongoing pursuit of something new in the situation that theology will find Badiou to be a provocative and fruitful dialogue partner." (43)

At the last, theology itself finds its ultimate description not in the sense of "being through knowing" (or knowledge) but in the sense of doing, enacting, and presence, in this world as exampled by the very God Himself in His incarnational atonement. Much like the actor who comes off the stage of the theatre to enter into the reality of life's streams with purpose, with resolve, with conviction, so too the church today must come off its own pulpits to live amongst the peoples of the land. Yes, preach Christ. Yes, preach good doctrine and less dogma. But get off the stage of preaching and into the messy lives of people requiring justice, love, kindness, and mercy. To use hands and feet, tongues and voices, to deliver the good news of the gospel in concrete form and fashion. This is the ultimate definition of a good theology. It is a theology of doing. And from doing, becoming. This is because God is, and will be, in the kergymatic re-enactment of the Paschal-Pneumatic (Christ & Holy Spirit) enlivenment of the Christian faith where the church becomes as both paschal-event and spirit-embodiment of Christ and Spirit to the lives of those requiring a "cup of cold water" or a "good word of gospel cheer".

"God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my
witness how constantly I remember you...." - the Apostle Paul (Romans 1.9)

R.E. Slater

July 16, 2014

"See What Is Coming to Pass and Not Only What Is":

Alain Badiou and the Possibility of a Nonmetaphysical Theology

by David Congdon

On Knowing in the Bible: How Can We Know That We Know? Part 1 & 2

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"