Comments on: Advent[ures] in #Incarnation [4] | God Looks From the Distorting Human Perspective http://www.kesterbrewin.com/2009/12/04/adventures-in-incarnation-4-god-looks-from-the-distorting-human-perspective/ // __ issues. in code. __ // Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:37:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Richard Sudworth http://www.kesterbrewin.com/2009/12/04/adventures-in-incarnation-4-god-looks-from-the-distorting-human-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-2271 Richard Sudworth Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:12:35 +0000 http://www.kesterbrewin.com/?p=1055#comment-2271 Kester: Zizek's view that the vital core of the incarnation is that "it is only through becoming human that God could actually reflect on what God looked like from this distorting human perspective" is but one of many breaks/ruptures (in Zizek's terms)that herald the end of the old order. Such a position makes the point that our own responsibility to "incarnate" and empathise not just with what the other feels but what the other feels about us (sensibilities that are good and to be properly seen as part of our Christian ethic) becomes equivalent to God's act of incarnation. Thus, there is nothing unique and particular about the incarnation of Jesus and his death and resurrection. It is emblematic and instructive of the self-emptying required in his Marxist dialectic; and thus inherently repeatable by humanity. Zizek is therefore co-opting the Christian motifs of incarnation, crucifixion, kenosis and grace to present a sub-Christian neo-Marxist dialectic that seeks to herald a grand reversal of the powers that be. For whom and for what? Well that is not important to his admittedly witty, provocative and thought-provoking philosophy... But, as you do here, and Pete Rollins repeatedly does, to describe his thinking as reflective of Christian thinking is a little rich. In the same book you quote, Milbank correctly judges the "non-Christian" tenor of Zizek's ideas. In Zizek's world, we are the gods responsible for bringing the revolution the world needs. So, i'd have to disagree with what you present as the vital core of the incarnation. Surely there are more authentically coherent ways of communicating the need for empathy that pay attention to our Christian heritage without distorting and collapsing our thinking like this? Kester: Zizek’s view that the vital core of the incarnation is that “it is only through becoming human that God could actually reflect on what God looked like from this distorting human perspective” is but one of many breaks/ruptures (in Zizek’s terms)that herald the end of the old order. Such a position makes the point that our own responsibility to “incarnate” and empathise not just with what the other feels but what the other feels about us (sensibilities that are good and to be properly seen as part of our Christian ethic) becomes equivalent to God’s act of incarnation. Thus, there is nothing unique and particular about the incarnation of Jesus and his death and resurrection. It is emblematic and instructive of the self-emptying required in his Marxist dialectic; and thus inherently repeatable by humanity.

Zizek is therefore co-opting the Christian motifs of incarnation, crucifixion, kenosis and grace to present a sub-Christian neo-Marxist dialectic that seeks to herald a grand reversal of the powers that be. For whom and for what? Well that is not important to his admittedly witty, provocative and thought-provoking philosophy… But, as you do here, and Pete Rollins repeatedly does, to describe his thinking as reflective of Christian thinking is a little rich. In the same book you quote, Milbank correctly judges the “non-Christian” tenor of Zizek’s ideas. In Zizek’s world, we are the gods responsible for bringing the revolution the world needs.

So, i’d have to disagree with what you present as the vital core of the incarnation. Surely there are more authentically coherent ways of communicating the need for empathy that pay attention to our Christian heritage without distorting and collapsing our thinking like this?

]]>