In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

146 Overcoming Onto-theology Merold Westphal We go to church in order to sing, and theology is secondary. -Kathleen Norrisl Not long ago I participated in a conference on biblical hermeneutics. It asked about the relation between trust and suspicion for Christians reading the Bible. The keynote addresses by Walter Brueggemann and Phyllis Trible were brilliant. But for me the highlight of the conference was the workshop led by Ched Myers, whose radical reading of the gospel of Mark is one of the finest pieces ofbiblical interpretation I have ever read.2 To be more precise,the highlight was the moment in the middle ofthe workshop when he had us sing. He was developing the claim that biblical interpretation in the service of some relatively closed theological system (there are many) and biblical interpretation in the service of some species of historical criticism (there are many) are not as different as either side would like to think. Both are best understood in terms of the Marxian analysis of the fetishism of commodities; for they turn the text into an object to be mastered by the interpreter for the advantage of the interpreter, a source of theoretical treasure to be accumulated and owned. (Elsewhere I have described this as the King Midas theory of truth.) 146 vercoming Onto-theology Merold Westphal We go to church in order to sing, and theology is secondary. - Kathleen Norrisl Not long ago I participated in a conference 011 biblical hermeneutics. It asked about the rclation between trust and suspicion for Christians reading the Bible. The keynote addresses by Walter Brueggemann and Phyllis Trible wefe brilliant. But for me the highlight of the conference was the workshop led by Ched Myers, whose radical reading of the gospel of Mark is one of the hnest pieces ofbiblical interpretation Jhave e\'cr read.2To he morc precise,lhe highlight was the moment in the middle ofthe workshop when he had US sing. He was developing the claim that biblical intetpretation in the service of some re1ati\'ely closed theological system (there are many) and biblical interpretation in the service of some species of historical criticism (there arc many) arc not as different as either side would like to think. Both are best understood in terms of the Marxian analysis of the fetishism ofcommodities; for they turn the text into an object to be mastered by the interpreter for the advantage of the interpreter, a SOUTee of theoretical treasure to bc accumulated and owned. (Elsewhere I have described this as the King Midas theory of truth.) Overcoming Onto-theology In the middle ofthe argument, Myers stopped and said it was time to sing. But first we would have to clap, and soon all forty of us were clapping rhythmically . (Ifyou know anything about Christians in the Reformed tradition, you know that we were participating in a performative refutation of Hume on miracles !) Then he began to sing o Mary, don't you weep, don't you mourn. o Mary, don't you weep, don't you mourn. Pharaoh's army got drownded. o Mary, don't you weep. The second time through we all joined in; then he would sing the verses and each time we would join in again on the refrain. I didn't want the singing ever to end. But when it did, Myers invited us to reflect on the phenomenon ofAmerican slaves singing about the liberation of Jewish slaves three thousand years earlier, a story they had made their story, and he asked us who Mary might be. We realized right away that first and foremost it was the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross. Blissfully ignoring the realities oftime's arrow, the American slaves were seeking to comfort Mary with the song of the Exodus, reminding her, as it were, of her own song, the Magnificat. Our leader did not have to point out that by singing the old spiritual and reflecting on it we were making the story of Miriam and Moses our story too, opening ourselves to be seized once again by its message of hope (insofar as we are oppressed) and judgment (insofar as we are oppressors). Almost immediately I thought of Heidegger's critique of onto-theology. He thinks it is bad theology because we "can neither pray nor sacrifice to this god [of philosophy]. Before the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this...

Share