f this weakened, kenotic metaphysical stance and dissolution of the sacred/secular is followed to its end, then, we can understand anew Jesus’ assertion that the temple is to be “a house of prayer for all nations.” Indeed, this lines up with the intention of Solomon’s temple from the beginning.

As other “nations” are beholden to their own myths, we can recognize the importance of seeing in Christ’s incarnation and temple action an understanding and willingness to engage with these petit recits. Or as Vattimo puts it,

it is not that the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ undermines – and delegitimates – the myths of other religions; in many senses… it implicitly validates them. Since the Christian God was incarnate in Jesus, we may also understand God through the other forms of natural being appearing in many non-Christian religious mythologies. (After Christianity, 27)

Thus, instead of exclusively demanding adherence to each and every propositional statement of the Christian church, followers of Jesus ought to dig underneath the foundation for such propositions, recognizing and proclaiming God’s willingness to reveal himself in weakness to all people of all nations.

This emphasis on caritas for others signals a decisive break from Girard regarding the necessity of Jesus’ sacrifice, which can lead to legitimated violence:

[a]lthough Christ came into the world to reveal the connection between the sacred and violence, and to dismantle it, the violence of the sacred has remained active within Christianity until today.” (Christ in Postmodern Philosophy, 12; see also After Christianity, 119)

One final element of Vattimo’s thought that is applicable to our present study is revealed in his thoughts regarding hermeneutics. In some ways similar to Žižek’s conception of lack, he asserts

if there is no objective truth given to someone once and for all, a truth around which we must all (for good or bad, willingly or unwillingly) gather, then truth happens in dialogue. The truth Christ came to teach the church is not an already accomplished truth. ((After the Death of God, 44)

Much to the chagrin of some of the Radical Orthodoxy movement (especially James K.A. Smith), Vattimo here opens up the possibility for and responsibility of followers of Jesus to continue the project of interpretation by deconstructing the hierarchical structures of metaphysical modernity. This continued hermeneutical praxis highlights the need to “continue the saving act of revelation… thus reducing the violence of institutions, including ecclesiastical ones.” (After Christianity, 119)

This is done in the name of the One who revealed true caritas by pronouncing judgment upon (and the deconstruction of) the temple, in favor of the Temple.

Tags: Church, Gianni Vattimo, James K.A. Smith, Slavoj Žižek
Categories: Pages

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 11th, 2009 at 12:39 am and is filed under Pages. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.