Simon Critchley on Paul's faith
By Mark Vernon on Thursday, November 26 2009, 06:49 - Philosophers - Permalink
Saint Paul is a figure of great interest not only to biblical scholars and theologians but also to continental philosophers. Heidegger wrote a commentary on Paul. Badiou, Zizek, Agamben and others are fascinated by him. Simon Critchley was in London yesterday to explore one facet of Paul in particular, his faith.
Critchley explored how Paul is a dangerous figure, for the spirit of Paul is the spirit of reformation. Even Nietzsche perversely admired him, for Paul achieved a transvaluation of all values. Paul is no stabilizing figure, as if he were the founder of that edifice called Christianity. That's just to misread him, Critchley said, for Paul never talks about being Christian, but rather about being in Christ, part of a community that is awaiting the end times, part of a community that is the forerunner of that which is to come.
Paul's power is found in his powerlessness. He has become, literally, the shit of the world. But that slavery is the source of his strength, for it opens up radically new possibilities: only those who have lost everything have everything to gain, only those who have died to the old can be alive to the new. For Critchley - who is currently working on a book about 'faith for the faithless' - Paul's faith is declarative, an act that itself brings something into being. Faith is, therefore, not about belief but is rather a struggle to live according to the infinite demand of the future. Faith is like a pledge. The truth to which it bears witness is better thought of as troth. And it is love that drives that commitment not reason for, as Paul says, faith works through love.
Now, there is a heresy that lurks close to this delight in Pauline newness, the dualist heresy of Marcion who believed the old must be discarded in favour of the new - the Old Testament, in particular, with its old God, law and biopolitics. Only then can the vital spirit of the new be lived. The law kills but the spirit gives life. This Marcionism is implicit in many of the contemporary continental philosophers who are drawn to Paul, though Critchley resisted it because, he said, Marcion is ultimately wrong. We must live in the dialectic between law and life, old and new. That's not just the way the world is, but is also the source of the strife that defines us as human beings. It's our conscience - that open wound, Freud said, which will not heal but which makes us human.
John Millbank was present to respond to Critchley, and as he spoke, I understood one reason why theologians welcome the philosophers' interest: the theologians know Paul better than the philosophers do! Millbank welcomed much of what Critchley had to say, not least his rejection of Marcionism - though Millbank pointed out that if for Critchley the tragic mess of the world is the first and last word in what makes us human, for Christians the tragic mess is not the last word, for they have the hope of grace to lift them out of sin. Critchley seemed genuinely moved by the weight of sin that bore down upon him.
Millbank also drew back from the concept of faith as pure performance, observing that this made Paul out to be some extraordinarily hip artist, when in truth, he was a believer. What Millbank suspects the philosophers have failed to appreciate is that doctrine is not the Christian equivalent of deadening law, but rather that doctrine operates in an essentially negative mode: it refuses positions not advocates positions of its own, and so keeps the mystery open - the dialectic of the human and divine.
Finally, Millbank claimed back the dangerous Paul for the established church for he is not just a reforming spirit but also a spirit who builds community: his letters contain instructions for building communities as well as resisting empires. In fact, Millbank suggested, Paul was introducing a kind of democratized mystical community - a way of life that collapses the cosmic, the political and the philosophical; an amalgam of Greek and Jewish religious life, radicalised in Christ.
The other day, a friend of mine sent me a quote from Cicero, in which Cicero spoke of the Eleusian mysteries. After the initiation, Cicero wrote, 'We have been given a reason not only to live in joy but also to die with better hope.' My friend liked the spare scansion of the translation, as it sounds like one of Cranmer's collects. Perhaps Paul liked the Cicero too.
(Image: Rembrandt's Apostle Paul)










Comments
Mark, As a supposed agnostic why do you take this "Paul" psycho-babble so seriously?
Psycho-babble because it does NOT refer to anything that is in any sense real, and that in Truth, is just an idiot mind-form that has mis-informed the Spiritual and religious consciousness of Western religion for (almost) forever.
The only thing "new" that "Paul" created was another power and control seeking institutional ecclesiastical tyranny, of the kind that Philip Blond is now promoting.
Studying "Paul" seems to be an academic and "theological" growth industry.
Perhaps you are still a closet Christian?
Not a closet Christian but undoubtedly still greatly shaped by Christianity. (I think it's otherwise called being English.) As to taking psycho-babble seriously: John, with all respect, may I ask whether you read the comments you leave here?
Yes I do.
And I repeat this entire "Paul" industry is nonsense--psycho-babble.
Why not Fred Nerk instead? Or Alred E Neuman from Mad Magazine!
None of this entire "Paul" industry nonsense consists of real questions about anything, and as such cannot lead to real answers or understanding(s) about anything whatsoever.
Understanding which could provide the necessary basis for either an individual or collective change of action.
Mark Please find two paragraphs as to why the "Paul" industry and "radical orthodoxy" is worse than useless---with the authors punctuation marks etc
" At last, and inevitably, the ancient exoteric "rulerships" have failed, and "official" exoteric Christianity (along with all the other "great world-religions" of merely exoteric "religion-power") is now reduced to all the impenetrable illusions and decadent exercises that everywhere characterize previous priveleged aristocracies in their decline from "worldly" power. Now, except a "revolution" renews the forever esoteric "Spirit of Truth", exoteric Christianity (and even all of merely exoteric "religion") is reduced to a chaos of corporate cults and Barnumesque propagandists that "rule" nothing more than chaotic herds of "self"-deluded "religion-consumers".
Therefore, the myth of the "cultural superiority" of "official" Christianity (and even all merely exoteric "religions") has now come full circle. The "religious" mythologies of "world-religions" are not only now waging global wars with one another (like so many psychotic inmates of asylums for the mad, each confronting the other with exclusive claims of personal absoluteness), but the "public" masses of "religion-bound" people---who, all over the world, for even thousands of years, have been controlled in body and mind by ancient institutions of "religiously"-propagandized "worldly"-power---are now in a globalized state of ego-bound and "world"-bound "religious" delusion and social psychosis.
Reality Itself--egoless, Indivisible, Spiritually Self-Evident, and Self-Evidently Divine---is neither seen nor "known" nor even worshiped in the common anywhere on "public" Earth. "
I am as flummoxed by John's point of view as he seems to be by the perspective of Critchley, Milbank, et al. While I appreciate that this sort of study can and often is indication of, as he puts it, an academic "growth industry" I hardly see that as any reason to dismiss it. Similarly, the fact that the ideas being discussed can lend themselves to some manner of imperialist society building also suggest nothing to me as to their legitimacy as ideas. And even if, in fact, any idea directly led to such an outcome it can only be noted as such; to broadly dismiss it all is only to acknowledge the preference for and specificty of one ideological point of view against another and evidence disinterest in the effects of any more subtle nuances or inflections to significantly color the outcome.
I'm always amused that when someone has no patience with or interest in or willingness to consider and take seriously the language of a different form of comprehension that language is disregarded as "whatever"-babble. Should this not speak just as much, once again, to the state of mind and particular philosophy of the one doing the disregarding?
'None of this entire "Paul" industry nonsense consists of real questions about anything, and as such cannot lead to real answers or understanding(s) about anything whatsoever.'
Seems to me that's another sweeping generalization leading to a broad dismissal. Who determines what constitutes "real questions"? Was that a real question? Why?
'Understanding which could provide the necessary basis for either an individual or collective change of action.'
I think you might get some argument from many who would say that they have experienced and participated in just such a "change of action" as a result of taking these same issues seriously. Of course, the issue here for you appears to be whether it has been motivated by the "necessary" basis for legitimate change. Presumably since you disdain the above theorizing you view it as arbitrary at best and therefore not "necessary" enough. But isn't that very gratuity its whole point (though I would not hesitate to complicate that by arguing that it's incumbent upon us to take advantage of what we are capable of)?
I suspect you wouldn't care so much if this was all merely fringe discussion but the fact that it still so clearly does exhibit effects on society through institutional embodiments seems to be your biggest issue with it all. Once again, though, I see that as simply an inevitable extension of what happens as any social group develops around ideas. But to dismiss the legitimacy of a set of ideas because it can be represented by or articulated through an institution which may also possess an implicit power structure (which somehow invalidates it?) and because these institutions often have unreflecting members or are less direct at handling what you see as real issues (of the most obvious, consensus approved, socially relevant kind I suppose) only inclines me to want to give your response the same brusque treatment.