Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Subversive Orthodoxy. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Subversive Orthodoxy. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Who killed God?

Robert Inchausti writes that for Berdayaev,




The bourgeois didn't worship money per se, but they were addicted to personal success, security and happiness. For these things, they willingly compromised their honor, ignored injustice, and betrayed truth, replacing these high values with trite moralisms and facile bromides that blurred important distinctions and justified selfish actions... The bourgeois did not repudiate religion but reinterpreted its value in terms of utility. The love of the poor moved to the periphery of the faith and was embraced only so far as it didn't clash with one's own economic interests. [Berdyaev wrote:] 'The perfected European and American civilizations gave rise to the industrial-capitalist system, which represents not only a mighty economic development but the spiritual phenomenon of the annihilation of spirituality. The industrial-Capitalism of civilization proved to be the destroyer of the eternal spirit and sacred

traditions. Modern capitalist civilization is essentially atheistic and hostile to the idea of God. The crime of killing God must be laid at its door rather than at that of revolutionary socialism, which merely adapted itself to the civilized 'bourgeois' spirit and accepted its negative heritage.'

(
Subversive Orthodoxy, pp 43, 44)

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Blake on ecclesiology, profane becoming sacred, and thinking against oneself

It's kind of freaky that just a few days ago--before you and I had any idea that U2's surprise releases
would be called "Songs of Innocence" and "Songs of Experience"..

..I pulled out two books:


One theory is that "The Joshua Tree" was to be a double album; one disc "Songs of Innocence" and the other  "Songs of Experience".

One reviewer headlined a review of U2's "Pop" as  More Songs of Innocence and Experience.


One can see why Bono likes Blake. From Inchausti:

If one were to seek the great archetypal  precursor for prophetic Christian thinker championing the soul's return from the spiritual exile of Enlightenment rationalism, William Blake comes very close to casting the mold.  Condemned as heretical by some and as too orthodox by others, he was one of the first to point out exactly how the new sciences were distorting the role of the imagination in human affairs and putting the soul to sleep.
          Altizer  and Hamilton..described Blake's contribution to Western thought
Blake was the first of the modern seers.  Through Blake we can sense the theological significance of a poetic reversal of our mythical traditions, and become open to the possibility that the uniquely modern metamorphosis of the sacred into the profane is the culmination of a redemptive and kenotic movement of the Godhead
          This, I think, is an essentially accurate description of Blake's intellectual influence.
           I would, however, reverse the figure and the field.  Blake does not celebrate the sacred 
           becoming profane, but the profane becoming sacred.
                   
....Blake reminds us again and again that true knowledge--that is to say, knowledge of our ontological status as creatures made in the image of God--cannot be grasped by calculation; only through a vision.  And vision--in its most concentrated and inclusive firm --is what psychoanalysts call the "imago," an internal picture that transform s facts into meanings..


..His theme is that the church lost its radical energy by giving up its apocalyptic vision for a more accommodating set of doctrines, and so the church became more hierarchical and tradition-bound at the very moment it should have become more democratic and imaginative..

Christian thought critiques mainstream culture but also sees itself under judgment; our best modern Christian intellectuals have turned thinking against themselves into a veritable art form: from Blake to Dostoyevsky, from Kierkegaard to Chesterton, all the way to Dorothy Day and Walker Percy, the exemplary mode of Christian thought has been a triadic structure of self-reflection, paradox and irony that reverses the values of this world and the logic of cause and effect  pp 19-28, 178



Tuesday, June 27, 2006

SubversiveOrthodoxy: Apostles Create Quiet;Don'tChangeTheWorld

SubversiveOrthodoxy:Apostles Create Quiet;Don'tChangeTheWorld
----------------------

From the amazing "Subversive Orthodoxy: Outlaws, Revolutionaries and Other Christians in Disguise", in which Richard Inchausti (great interview with him at this link)draws from Blake, Kierrkegaard, Berdayev, Chesterton, Dostyoesky, Dorothy Day, Walker Percy, Wendell Berry, Marshall McLuhan and Jacques Ellul, Girard et al:

"Seduction resides in the safeguarding of alien-ness..." -Jean Baudrillard

The point that many moderns fail to grasp about Christian thinkers is that they have very little interest in changing the world. They seek merely to see things clearly in the light of God's hidden logic. And if by so doing they expose the narcissism of their contemporaries, the false agendas of their leaders, the didactic pornography of their artists and entertainers-well, that is a ll to the good. But unlike their more utilitarian peers, they desire to live in the truth even more than they desire to be effective in the world.

...Evil manifests itself in absence of perception, and in the negation of Being more than it does in the presence of stupidity, violence or even hatred. It is more often than not a species of folly-a commitment to "virtues" that are not really virtues...It wears a suit or a uniform, waves a flag and has credentials. That is why the primary moral task from a Christian perspective is first to perceive vevil. And this requires that one see what isn't there and through things that are. This is possible only for someone who is suspious of virture and believes in a greater reality than his own.

What the Christian mysteries require from us is not that we construct a better world, but that we love and serve the one we are given. As one Parisian graffiti artist wrote in 1968, : "the intellectuals have hitherto only changed the world, the point is to understand it." This is a decidedly contemplative observation, one that confirms Blake's suspisions of the new aesceticism and Kierkegaards' view that even if somene were to speak the Word of God directly today, no one in the modern world would hear it, simply because there is too mucdh noise and distraction. The function of the modern apostle, therefore, is to create the silent contemplative places where individuals can e xperience truth for themselves..

pp187-189



I

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Rev. Clayton on "what you believe,what's truthful, what's relevant to your life "

In the stretching times the economy is currently junctured in..
in the fearful hope and hopeful fear we are juxtaposed in..

it would seem prime time for the liminal landscape that only the church can call the culture into.

Zoo TV/Zooropa
was certainly designed to speak to its times (1990s),
yet there is something prophetic and proleptic about how it speaks into the season we are now in.

In a rare interview montage from this era, Adam Clayton's insight (7:43ff) is helpful:

"I think Europe is much more geared up for the future, in a way, than America was before this election. I think Europe is generally looking forward to the turn of the century (and) a little bit more cynical about the grip of the media upon it. So I think..these two ideas of the turn of the century, and the media as such and what you believe and what's truthful and what's relevant to your life and how much of it's under your own control... are
issues that are going to be valid in Europe over the next ten years.


I think the unification of Europe is going to present as many problems as it solves..people are aware of that...so I think what we're going be be trying to do is touch on those issues, and not necessarily preach to anyone, but certainly in our own way, within in the context of the ZOO TV (Zooropa) Tour is perhaps have our own particular unity..the 'United Colors of Zooropa' or whatever.
I think it will be a ray of sunshine in a very bleak year"


So many things stand out! Among them, if only the church could microcosmically and counterculturally...and "without necessarily preaching"... model Kingdom community, colors and alternate reality. "Church within the church"
is nothing new..but it's time to try it!

It likely will take a touch of postmodern and postexilic simulacra and a taste of the orthodox "holy fool" (see bottom of this page) approach....in a way that is sensitive to the '00s...maybe in the more subdued irony that U2 has captured recently.
No horns.

Maybe one.

St Tim Neufeld has caught the relevance of 90s U2 for our times.
"As usual, U2 was ten years ahead of their time."
...As always when you enter the present by the back door/trap door of the future.

(one should not that Larry Burkett wrote "The Coming Economic Earthquake" in
the early 1990s, and he died with people saying he was a false prophet)


But within "our own tour" (Steve Taylor's language, as well: "tourism can serve as a redemptive framework for postmodern mission, in which people are `tourists' on spiritual journeys and the church operates as `tour guide,' stimulating forward movement and nourishing the quest." (p.83, "The Out of Bounds Church?") , and "in our own way"..
let "our own particular unity" shine.


About the "ray of sunshine in a very bleak year."

Clayton smiles, as he is well aware of the irony; the album and tour they were crafting as he spoke (Zooropa) was their bleakest ever..but what better technique/techbleak than to embody and incarnate such hopelessness ("Wake Up Dead Man").
No redemption without incarnation.


That comment also connected me to the classic and controversial "The Bright Side of Life"
from Monty Python's "Life of Brian."
If you think that was pure heresy, you haven't heard Jesus sing the song/;lament/dirge that the Biblle itself tells us was "Doe of the Morning"..

He sang it on a cross.



How else does one subvert and hijack dread, except via a ridiculous but redemptive whistling in the dark..

which is always the times we're in.

Some times even more so.
That's even better than the realer thing.
--

A few years ago, I wrote about dismantling death:

BY BECOMING A HOLY FOOL, REMIXED FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM



All this emphasis on the critical nature of prophetic weeping and lamenting . reminds that deep imside, no matter how numbed-over; no matter how deathed-down we are all crying. Or at least crying to cry. We intuitively know that tears are not only healing but prophetic. But we hide behind a mask, and only cry the tears of a clown.”

In the 9O’s Bono often wore a mask. For dismantling death and consumerism in that neo-nihilistic era, that was the proper costume. But the 00’s are a time to “pray naked.”

Bono: (Paul McGuinness) would sit me down and say, “You have what it takes. You must have more confidence in yourself and continue to dig deeper. And I don’t be upset or surprised when you pull something out of the depth that’s uncomfortable.”
Assayas: So you discovered things that, on first glance, you’d rather have kept hidden? What were those?
Bono: The gauche nature of awe, of worship, the wonderment at the world around you. Coolness might help in your negotiation with your world, maybe, but it is impossible to meet God with sunglasses on. It is impossible to meet God without abandon, without exposing yourself, being raw. That’s the connection with great music and art, and that’s the other reason you wanted to join a band: you wanted to do the cool thing. Trying to capture religious experiences on tape wasn’t what ypu had in mind when you signed up for the job.
Assayas: What about your own sunglasses, then? Do you wear them the same way a taxi driver would turn off his front light, so as to signal to God that this rock star is too full of himself and not to hire at the moment?
Bono: Yeah, my insincerity… I have learnt the importance of not being earnest at all times. You don’t know what’s going on behind those glasses, but God, I can assure you, does. (53-54)


Sans glasses, still wearing wisdom, and more irony than one might think. It’s just been properly retooled and “dreamed up again” for a new millennium. He’s still a


“Holy Fool,” which is a wonderful tradition of the Eastern Church who periodically pops up here in the West. In the Russian tradition, some of the saints would do almost anything to avoid being perceived as saints. One of them kept offering to wrestle bears so people would think him a nut and not praise him as a saint. In the West, St. Philip Neri acted goofy, partly because he enjoyed being a goof and partly to throw people off the scent of his sanctity and keep them from gushing over him. When offered a cardinal's hat, he proceeded to play football with it. Currently, we saw something of the Holy Fool in Forrest Gump a few years ago. All such fools have one thing in common: they know they are not wise. Similarly, those who are convinced of their innate wisdom are invariably great ninnies. It's far better to be a fool for Christ than to be a fool on one's own. Today, thank God for the folly that is his wisdom.

1 Corinthians 3:18: Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
-Mark Shea, Daily Cathloc Exchange Devotional, Aopril 1, 2005


He’s still a holy fool, just more stripped down and streamlined. Far more subtle, no devil mask. But how is is that, on this current tour, he can dedicate “Running to Stand Still” to the troops in Iraq with a straight poker face, let alone without a McPhisto/devil mask to make the irony obvious? Does no on get it? Has anyone booed? No, they applaud what they perceive as patriotism (and they are partly right) and miss and misunderstand the subtle point (War is an exercise in death; in futility, and in standing still). Applaud is what they should do……but for another reason altogether: the singer has just brilliantly and understatedly (!) pulled off a holy fool moment. And dismantled death even. Even if not many “get it.”
-link

---------
------------


Richard Inchausti:

The point that many moderns fail to grasp about Christian thinkers is that they have very little interest in changing the world. They seek merely to see things clearly in the light of God's hidden logic. And if by so doing they expose the narcissism of their contemporaries, the false agendas of their leaders, the didactic pornography of their artists and entertainers-well, that is all to the good. But unlike their more utilitarian peers, they desire to live in the truth even more than they desire to be effective in the world. ...Evil manifests itself in absence of perception, and in the negation of Being more than it does in the presence of stupidity, violence or even hatred. It is more often than not a species of folly-a commitment to "virtues" that are not really virtues...It wears a suit or a uniform, waves a flag and has credentials. That is why the primary moral task from a Christian perspective is first to perceive evil. And this requires that one see what isn't there and through things that are. This is possible only for someone who is suspicious of virtre and believes in a greater reality than his own. What the Christian mysteries require from us is not that we construct a better world, but that we love and serve the one we are given. As one Parisian graffiti artist wrote in 1968:: "the intellectuals have hitherto only changed the world, the point is to understand it." This is a decidedly contemplative observation, one that confirms Blake's suspicions of the new aesceticism and Kierkegaards' view that even if someone were to speak the Word of God directly today, no one in the modern world would hear it, simply because there is too much noise and distraction. The function of the modern apostle, therefore, is to create the silent contemplative places where individuals can
experience truth for themselves.
-Subversive Orthodoxy: Outlaws, Revolutionaries and Other Christians in Disguise. pp187-189

Sunday, January 12, 2014

THESES ON PHILEMON: REDUCTION OF SEDUCTION

                     "They carried the word ‘brotherhood’ always in the mouth, while they founded terror regimes."
                                                                          - Hannah Arendt, Uber die Revolution, pp. 21; 318
PHILEMON REVISITED, PART ONE
THESES ON PHILEMON: REDUCTION OF SEDUCTION
“My theme is seduction, resistance, and the cultural consequences of both.”
That provocative opening line (p.1) of Henry Abelove’s monograph on John Wesley, The Evangelist of Desire, has always elicited from me a smile, as well as a healthy respect for its accurate prediction of the flow of his paper.
In a sense, Abelove’s salvo serves just as fittingly for the thematic intent of this current article, and in turn for the topic of the article itself: the biblical book of Philemon.
My working assumption is that Paul’s quietly subversive letter to Philemon--partly because its “theme is seduction, resistance, and the cultural consequences of both” --may well be the interpretive key and even  kerygma-in-microcosm  of the entire Pauline corpus, theology and worldview.
I do not view this claim as hyperbolic  hubris; though I certainly concede that it is quite a supposition for a book that  for most Christians is barely acknowledged and rarely read; and per many scholars is not  sufficiently lengthy, meaty, or  “theological’ (!)  to merit such a distinguished and distinctive role in the canon.
 If churchgoers have heard anything about this shortest letter of the New Testament, it is likely the “radio orthodoxy” (Brian McLaren’s delightful phrase) view that it is “about” Philemon’s runaway slave, and Paul’s encouragement that Philemon forgive said slave.
That party line may be partly right…and in the end, largely wrong. 


If congregants have seriously studied the text beyond downloaded sermons and popular literature, they may have even run into Callahan’s alternative view (Callahan, 1997) that Philemon’s supposed slave Onesimus was not a slave at all, but literal brother to Philemon.
That take may be half-right; perhaps even dead wrong.
Philemon:  Key and Keynote
Though it sounds counterintuitive to proffer that this tiny epistle holds the veritable key to all of Paul (among the more “obvious” candidates are the majestic narrative of Romans or the comprehensive compendium that is Ephesians), I am at least in good company:  F.F. Bruce (1983), Marcus Bath (2000), and N.T. Wright (2013), to varying degrees and from differing angles, unashamedly assert the same.
Philemon : A Tale of Two Brothers
Though it may appear contrarian and contrary to accepted logic to offer that this letter is actually about a call for two brothers-by-blood to reconcile,   there is no more obvious way to read verse 17 with grammatical and contextual integrity.  Some (Callahan et al) are convinced that in Philemon, the slavery is metaphorical (not the brotherhood, as almost universally assumed), and the brotherhood is literal (not the slavery, as usually assumed).  A surprisingly compelling case for this interpretation can be made; but more likely is the scenario that Philemon and Onesimus are both master/slave and brother/brother. Exegetes as astute as F.F .Bruce (not convinced) and Timothy Gombis (convinced) have weighed in here.

Philemon: Call to Manumission
Though it may feel a stretch for the historical milieu for Paul to be advocating release from slavery (manumission) for Onesimus, I make the case that Paul was prescient and prophetic enough to do just that…albeit between the lines… yet in a way clear and clamant for Philemon to decode and decide upon.

“Forgiveness, Radford Reuther suggests (in Pinnock, p, 205) “is not simply a transaction between God and the individual soul that has come to recognize its sinfulness. Politically interpreted, forgiveness means concrete acts of repentance expressed through social struggle to overcome oppression and to create a more just world.” 

As for the “seduction, resistance, cultural consequences of both”?
Paul’s cruciform-shaped approach to leadership, status and power issues necessitates that any correspondence by him inevitably both incarnates (especially in a delightfully intentional choice of literary style  and rhetorical genre) and advocates (via a surprisingly subtle-sneaky  narrative arc) a radically Christocentric and stubbornly kenotic refusal to submit to the seduction of seeing a brother or sister in Christ (let alone sister or brother “in the flesh”) as “the other” or  in any way less important than self.    The cultural consequences--not just for ecclesiology, but for sociological issues such as slavery—are thus significant and sweeping.  “History,” as Walter Wink would have it, “belongs to the intercessors.” 
Bottom line, then?  What is Philemon “about”?
 Paul is writing to Philemon, about Philemon’s fugitive slave Onesimus, who is also  Philemon’s half brother;  he is arguing for unconditional restoration of Onesimus , which includes the “even more than I ask”  release from slavery.  This is all embedded with profound implications for subversion of empire and dismantling of ecclesiological hierarchy. 
In this series of articles, we shall eventually weave all these theses into a tapestry and “contexture” with we believe is faithful to an informed hermeneutic.  We begin with the initially confounding issue of Paul’s literary approach.


-----------------------------------------
THE LITERARY APPROACH OF PAUL:  Humor, Holy Fool, Prosopeion, and ‘Paradigmatic I”
“I could command you, but I appeal to you ought of love”? 
“Any decision you make will be spontaneous and not forced”? 
“Oh, by the way, you owe me your would” 
Paul’s language and literary approach have been much maligned, yet little understood.  He has been read as being (at best) disingenuous and passive-aggressive, or (at worst) sycophantic and manipulative to a degree that borders on messianic complex.   I believe a third way unpacks the dilemma and makes salient sense of the intuitive embarrassment and discomfort we feel overhearing Paul’s appeal.   In a word: humor.   In several words: a mosaic (and not at all prosaic) humor based loosely (?) on the “holy fool”  tradition and rhetorical device of prosopeion; a holy humor laced liberally with a playful but profound twist of (almost) irony and mimetic self-reference.   All of this is of course at great risk, and presupposes a deep, abiding and adamantine trust between sender and recipient.
Is Paul being authoritarian to a fault, all the while claiming the opposite?   No, St. Paul is smarter…and not smarmier… than that.  He is more humble than he has been given credit for; and decidedly not proud of his own humility.  Per McLuhan, his medium masterfully matches—even equals and incarnates—his message.
On humor in Philemon, consider Marcus Barth:
In contrast to the doctrinal style of Romans;  the irony and sarcasm found in Galatians; to the apologetic, wailing, and aggressive passages of Second Corinthians; and to other idiosyncrasies of other letters, in Philemon the use of contrasts is a sign and means of underlying good humor. Humor is, according to Wilhelm Busch, where one laughs, “in spite of it," even in the face of grave situations.
 The mighty apostle of the omnipotent Lord Christ is a prisoner in Roman hands (w. 1, 9-10) and chooses the role of a beggar before Philemon (vv. 8-9). The child Onesimus was created by a father in chains (v. 10), who was, according to some versions of verse 9, an old man! A pun is made on the name Onesimus ("Useful") in verse 11. God's purpose in permitting separation was to establish eternal union (v. 15). Paul and Philemon are business partners, and Onesimus can substitute for Paul by being the third man in the association (v.17) Philemon is much deeper in debt to Paul than the apostle eventually is to the slave  owner (vv 18-19). Paul hopes confidentially that he will benefit from Philemon — not only materially but by finding rest for his troubled heart (v 20)..... Overflowing obedience is the sum of complete voluntariness (v. 21.) A man whose chances for quick release from prison were less than certain invites himself to a private home for the near future (v. 22).  All or at least a part of these elements can be considered, or are, humorous.
It is not certain whether Paul intended this impression, and whether Philemon was capable and willing to appreciate jokes pertaining to his relationship to Onesimus and to Paul. But together with other earliest hearers and readers of PHM, modern readers are by no means prevented from responding with a smile or a chuckle. The dreadfully serious issue of the slave Onesimus's future is treated  lightly — a fact that reminds of the role of slaves in Greek and Latin comedies. Obviously bitterness is neither the only nor the best way of reacting to grave issues. Indeed, Philemon has a hard choice to make, but the decision-making process is sweetened as much as possible — by humor. (Barth and Blanke, 2000, pp. 118-19)



Paul is acting (literally) oddly, but not obsequiously.  He is flirting with a not-quite full-blown  prosopeion, a technique which is definitely in his repertoire and arsenal (see especially Romans 7); it is deployed here even more covertly than the infamous “I know a man..” of 2 Corinthians 13.
His persuasive approach seems   inspired in part by the prophetic tradition’s use of “holy fool, “which Paul directly affirms in   1 Corinthians 4:10.  Later Christian history finds Eastern Orthodoxy creatively adopting this approach, in  yurodivy , "which is caused neither by mistake nor by feeble-mindedness, but is deliberate, irritating, even provocative.” (Ivanov, 2006, p. 211)  St. Francis was clearly another practitioner, as are Malamattiya Sufis.    I make the case that in postmodern pop culture, persons (and personas) such a Stephen Colbert (“Is he a conservative playing a liberal playing a conservative?)” and U2’s Bono (as Screwtape/MacPhisto) have taken up this torch in ways that are in fact helpful in confirming Paul’s modus in Philemon.  These may be all too easily be discounted as leitmotif-lite, but the remarkable theological sentience and skill of both Colbert and Bono betray a wise and profoundly Christian (hence Pauline) mechanism of adapting “holy foolishness.” 




Brian J. Dodd, at length:
Paul uses large blocks of material containing self-portrayal to ground or add weight to his argument (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9; Gal. 1-2; Phil 3)…Occasionally, Paul’s self-portrayal verges on self-praise, creating a social need to employ accepted literary techniques to mitigate the odium and offence of his self-discussion…While Paul often portrays himself as a technique of argumentation, it is striking that he nowhere transgresses the stigma against self-praise except where he also offsets its offence…
 Against the backdrop of Philemon’s watching community, Paul develops a distinction between commanding and appealing, a feature that is not distinctive to Philemon.  He exploits his right ‘in Christ’ to command (8) only in order to contrast it with his loving appeal (9-10), while crediting Philemon with the sense to  do what is good and right  (14) .

How then do we understand the ambivalence of Paul’s request, since he repeatedly appeals to Philemon’s volition so he may freely choose the right thing (8-9, 14, 17, 20), all the while allowing the undercurrent of his authority to flow freely (21-22)?  The answer may lie in his implied paradigmatic strategy in the letter.  That is, Paul’s ambivalence itself may exemplify the attitude he wants Philemon to adopt in his reshaped relationship with his slave: as Paul refuses to assert the authority he clearly possesses, Philemon is coached in the responsibilities of his newly reformed relationship with Onesimus.  Paul wants to gain Philemon’s consent so that he will freely do what is good, not by compulsion (v.14). By this example, the seed is sown for a new phase of the master’s relationship with his slave. Paul does not compel Philemon to act, thus patterning for him a new style of interaction with his slave-become-brother Onesimus…

...In Philemon, Paul exhibits self-restraint of his authority by explicitly refusing to command as he appeals to Philemon to forgo freely his grievance with Onesimus.  This display of Paul’s self-limitation of his authority is combined with an example of love and generosity to demonstrate paradigmatically the manner in which Philemon is to treat his slave-who-has-become-a-brother.  Though Philemon has the legal right to be harsh with Onesimus, Paul asks Philemon to grant Onesimus the same loving and generous treatment that he would extend to this elder missionary….Paul’s status as an elder and as Christ’s metaphorical prisoner affirms Paul’s authority in the community in the strongest terms, and his repeated emphasis on his imprisonment creates an emotional receptivity to his appeal as a captatio benevolentiae.  Whether or not Philemon would have or should have taken the letter as a suggestion he manumit Onesimus cannot be ascertained, but it may be implies by v. 21: ‘I am confident of your obedience to the things I write, knowing that you will do more than the things I  have asked.’

Thus, by the time of Philemon Paul’s rhetorical use of self-portrayal has blossomed into a full and intricate flower, and the paradigmatic aspects are difficult to extract from their intrinsic relationship with the other aspects of his nuanced epistolary persuasion.  Philemon is the apex of a literary style that is already evident on Paul’s earliest letter.  (Dodd,
 --


Partial Bibliography
Abelove, Henry.   The Evangelist of Desire: John Wesley and the Methodists.  Palo Alto: Stanford, 1992.
Barth, Markus and Blanke, Helmut.  The Letter to Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary).  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament).  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Callahan, Allen Dwight. Embassy of Onesimus: The Letter of Paul to Philemon (Nt in Context Commentaries) .  Bloomsbury: T and T Clark, 1997

Dodd , Brian J.  Paul's Paradigmatic "I": Personal Example as Literary Strategy (Library of New Testament Studies)   Sheffield: Sheffield Acadmic Press, 1999.

Pinnock, Sarah K., ed. The Theology of Dorothee Soelle.  Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2003.











Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Dylan's subversive song selection, and prophetic sermon on Psalm 27 and Rabbi Hirsch commentary, at 1991 Grammy Awards












First, watch this:


--
For commentary on  what just happened..
see this link , this link, and see  the two posts  below.

See  also

Bob Dylan's Top Five Awards Speeches 


--------------------------

 From Greil Marcus' 
"ranters & crowd pleasers: punk in pop music, 1977-92":

1. Bob Dylan:  at the Grammy Awards, 20 February 1991.
Thirty years after arriving in New York from Minnesota, Bob Dylan stepped
forward to be honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award.  With the Gulf War in
progress, the blanket of acceptance that had been draped over the show was so
heavy the WAR SUCKS t-shirt New Kid on the Block Donnie Wahlberg wore to the
American Music Awards a few weeks earlier would have been forbidden here;
maybe that's why Dylan sang "Masters of War", from 1963, and maybe that's why
he disguised it, smearing the verses into one long word.  If you caught on to
the number, the lyric did emerge - "And I'll stand o'er your grave/'Til I'm
sure that you're dead" - but lyrics were not the point.  What was was the ride
Dylan and hid band gave them.  With hats pulled down and dressed in dark
clothes, looking and moving like Chicago hipsters from the end of the fifties,
guitarists Cesar Diaz and John Jackson, bassist Tony Garnier, and drummer Ian
Wallace went after the song as if it were theirs as much as Dylan's: a chance
at revenge, excitement, pleasure.  You couldn't tell one from the other, and
why bother?

With this career performance behind him, Dylan took his trophy from a beaming
Jack Nicholson; he squinted, as if looking for his mother, who was in the
audience.
"Well," he said, "my daddy, he didn't leave me much, you know he was a very simple man,
but what he did tell me was this, he did say, son, he said..

- there was a long pause, nervous laughter from the crowd 

[well, he said so many things, you know.
-more laughter]-
"he say, you know it's possible to become so defiled in this world
that your own mother  and father will abandon you ; and if that happens,
God will always believe in your own ability to mend your ways."

Then he walked off.  He had managed to get in and out without thanking anybody,
and this night it really did seem as if he owed nobody anything.


From: Martin Grossman (tgg@slip.net)
Newsgroups: rec.music.dylan
Subject: Re: 91 Grammy Performance
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:16:33 -0400

It seems to me Ronnie Schreiber nailed the source of Bob's Grammy speech
some time ago. Said Ronnie:


At the time of the acceptance speech, I turned to my wife and said that
Dylan's comments were an allusion to Psalms 27:10: "When my father and
mother abandon me, HaShem (G-d) will gather me up."

I went back to the sources and discovered that Dylan's remarks were
almost a verbatim account of the commentary of Rabbi Shimshon Rafael
Hirsch (the spiritual leader of traditional Jewry in Germany in the mid
19th century) on that verse:

"Even if I were so depraved that my own mother and father would
abandon me to my own devices, God would still gather me up and believe
in my ability to mend my ways."

Now, we have no way of knowing if Abram Zimmerman really taught this to
his son or if Bob simply picked it up from a commentary on the Jewish
prayer book (Ps. 27 is recited at the morning and evening prayer
services during the month before the Jewish New Year), but in any case,
the wording is too similar to Hirsch's to ignore. Note how both Hirsch
and Dylan reversed the "father and mother" of the original verse to
"mother and father" and Dylan's use of the phrase  "believe in your own
ability to mend your own ways" directly parallels Hirsch's "believe in
my ability to mend my ways". 

It's unlikely Dylan's father was familiar with the writings of Rabbi
Hirsch, the 19th Century leader of German neo-Orthodoxy. Dylan's
involvement with Judaism over the past ten or fifteen years has been
mostly through Chabad -- also an unlikely place for him to have been
introduced to the Hirsch commentary. It's more likely Dylan saw the
quote in the Metsudah Siddur, a prayerbook popular among Baalei Tshuvah
(as "returnees" to orthodox Judaism are know, although many of them are
encountering serious Judaism for the first time). The lines from Hirsch
are cited in the Metsudah commentary and represent its translation from
Hirsch's German. And we can speculate that it's their language that
Dylan echoes. 

Note from MG: By attributing the words to his father, Dylan is following
a long tradition of attribution in Judaism. He can be said to be using
"father(s) in a wider sense, meaning his heritage.

-- 
Martin Grossman
-http://www.expectinbngrain.com/dok/int/grammiesspeech.htm

---------------------------
From Mark Aldrich:


It took him less than a minute, even with his nervous hat fumbling and pauses, but Dylan had just delivered an Old Testament sermon (Psalm 27:10) about the disfigurement of a life spent enslaved to the material things to the bejeweled, genial, war-applauding, music millionaire crowd.
Here is the speech:
  There is a rich history of commentary in Jewish tradition. There is also a rich history of commentary in interpreting Bob Dylan’s every public utterance. Psalm 27 begins (in the King James Version): “The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?” In King James, verse 10 reads, “When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me up.”
Where does “defiled” come from? “Mend your ways?” A couple Dylan interpreters suggest that his language is straight out of the works of one the founders of Orthodox Judaism in the 19th Century, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Hirsch’s commentary on the psalm verse reads: “Even if I were so depraved that my own mother and father would abandon me to my own devices, God would still gather me up and believe in my ability to mend my ways” (Yaffe, Bob Dylan: Like a Complete Unknown, Yale UP). As David Yaffe, the author of the Hirsch discovery points out, Dylan in the late-’80s and early 1990s was a frequent performer on the annual Los Angeles-area Chabad telethons that usually offered entertainment from great (and far older) performers like Norm Crosby, Jan Murray, and Sid Caesar. Perhaps he was reading a lot of scriptural commentary; Rabbi Hirsch is not an obscure figure in that field.
Who better to receive a scriptural pronouncement such as this than a bejeweled, genial, war-applauding Hollywood audience? I am no Talmudic scholar, nor am I a Bob Dylan interpreter, but this is one of the many reasons I enjoy Bob Dylan’s every appearance.  link

Monday, September 03, 2012

doesn't EVERYBODY like these facebook pages?

Favorites