Comments on: Doing Theology with/as Caiaphas

By: John

John — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:49:38 +0000

Of course theologians, especially those of a right-wing persuasion. are really all clones of, and secret agents for, Agent Smith in The Matrix Trilogy.
They all conspire to keep the entire false/fake charade in place, and also actively prevent any and every one from taking the Red Pill.
But then again they would not even know where to find the Red Pill.

By: justathought

justathought — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:55:03 +0000

Sorry about this but this comment was a over zealous piece that was a poor characterization of what goes on at there blog. I actual thought it would be largely ignored and maybe chuckled at out for how outrageous and sarcastic it was.I didn’t think it would spark this kind of conversation or be taken the way it was. I have been a long time reader of their blog, and while I have my disagreements, I do think their project is worthwhile for those of us still left in the church to hear. My main point was that I wished they were expressed (sometimes) more accessibly for the layman in a way were many people wouldn’t dismiss them for some of their other projects, but that was an unrealistic proposition on my part.
So here is my apology for being a wise-ass in a way that was just unhelpful and was disrespectful to the gifts to the guys at AUFS. Sorry. I hope that my poor characterization of their work doesn’t stick.

By: Thomas J Bridges

Thomas J Bridges — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:47:42 +0000

As an avid church-goer for my whole life, I have found that theologians are most often ignored because they challenge the bourgeois ethos of conservative congregations (most of the congregations I have observed are like this, so I am not saying anything about challenges to non-conservative groups) and because they take loving God with their mind so serious as to suggest that others do it as well. I am unaware of any theologians being ignored because of their lifestyle.

Also, I find it interesting that Halden was actually ascribing (possible) validity to the work of “sinner”-theologians, even if the post has been read to be detracting from the value of their work. Any other position seems to be dangerously close to Donatism.

By: Adam Kotsko

Adam Kotsko — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:25:12 +0000

To set the record straight: The supposed “15-year-old” is actually a 30-year-old man, older than me. Someone said that he was voicing opinions worthy of a 15-year-old, and one of the other commenters got confused and thought he really was 15 — but no, he is a full-grown adult.

By: Adam Kotsko

Adam Kotsko — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:58:04 +0000

His whole post is about how what we have to say is worthless! The only hint I could find that our ideas could potentially be useful was when he suggested we publish in a mainstream magazine — and then proceeded to say that those magazines would likely find our stuff useless as well. Responding by saying that we don’t value his opinion seems perfectly fair in that context.

By: Adam Kotsko

Adam Kotsko — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:47:38 +0000

Dude, David — you seem to be jumping to conclusions in terms of us “ignoring” this comment. The original comment was posted in the evening in the US, when most people look at blogs during working hours. What’s more, due to the comment system here, it appeared in the middle of the thread, which made it less likely that we would see it (I normally look for new comments at the end of the thread — not that he was wrong to post it here, just saying it’s not what I’m used to and I bet I’m not alone). And Anthony, who is in the UK, answered basically first thing in the morning.

As for the comment itself, it is weirdly hostile. There’s a simple solution when you find a blog off-putting or alienating — don’t read it. If you find the ideas laughable, don’t read it. It’s very clear from the comment policy what the goals for our blog are, and they don’t include catering to people like JustaThought or to the “people in the pews.” Why should we be attacked for acting in accordance with our stated goals?

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:31:57 +0000

APS –
You are trying to issue a call for seriousness, but just from reading your comments you are fundamentally unserious. You are attacking a working minister who has actually read you. He actually cared enough to give you some feedback. He thinks what you have to say might be worthwhile. And your response is scatalogical and misses the point.

I know you guys are much smarter than me and have advanced pretty far beyond such simple notions as going to the source material. Something like James 3:1ff (which was read in churches a couple of weeks ago) or 1 Tim 3. [The horror at actually looking at the pseudo-pauline book that very smart guys have already deconstructed.] That type of moral behavior is a pre-requisite for the office of teacher. Recognizing our own poverty, even in the midst of being proud of acievements, is a precursor to the gospel.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God. For all your learning you guys are far from the kingdom.

By: Anthony Paul Smith

Anthony Paul Smith — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:59:25 +0000

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

By: mike d

mike d — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:40:01 +0000

I don’t really know what you mean there (to not be an idol you must be translatable into some sort of universal grammar?) but it seems to me that the way you’re using the term ideology makes everyone an ideologue (except you, of course).

By: Anthony Paul Smith

Anthony Paul Smith — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:16:04 +0000

In so far as you turn them into idols that one can’t talk about, yes. That’s exactly what they are for you to.

By: mike d

mike d — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:03:37 +0000

Are the words Jesus and Church unintelligible to you?

By: Anthony Paul Smith

Anthony Paul Smith — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:48:20 +0000

Justathought said, “For two people who care about the oppressed so much, I am surprised how little of what you do reflects anything the oppressed I work with care about, or would even be capable of reading.”

Poor people can read. They can even read difficult material. By saying that they are incapable of reading such material the suggestion is being made that there is something inherent to poverty that makes being intelligent difficult, rather than the problem being found in the material conditions, demands of the economic system, and lack of sustenance.

I have no interest in being gentlemanly with people who suggest we’re not listened to because of a positive review of a book detailing homoerotic narratives in the Bible. I just don’t.

By: David

David — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:36:04 +0000

You make some interesting points here, but your angry response is way out of proportion to the comments Justathought made. His comments suggest that he is making assumptions about you, but your assumptions (what you call ‘getting the sense’) provoke you to say his ideas of oppressed people are imperialist! How do you know that?
To be honest, I would certainly value a critical analysis of the state of contemporary churches from a theologian such as yourself – especially since you have nothing to lose with regard to loving such sin-ridden individuals. I genuinely mean that; the clarity of your criticism would not be tainted by, well, charity. Is there no way you could be a bit more gentlemanly about it though?

By: Anthony Paul Smith

Anthony Paul Smith — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:33:07 +0000

And I’m saying that that is ideology and further more it means that whatever you prescribe I will either have to assent to or deny based on nothing. How is this a good thing?

By: mike d

mike d — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:19:48 +0000

These are questions of theological methodology (and perhaps epistemology) and I just don’t see a Christian (at least not this one) and a non-Christian agreeing on a definition of theology in the way I’m using the term. I have no reason to try to offer a definition of theology or a description of the practice of theology that is extrinsic to Jesus and the Church. You absolutely require one.