The Judgment of God and the Immeasurable: Political Theology and Organizations of Power

Abstract

This article considers how political theologies understand and organize power. It begins with an axiomatic understanding of politics as concerned with the organization of power. This understanding of politics requires a theological inquiry, as it is concerned with questions of piety and belief that underlie and direct power within these conscious organizations. It then provides a survey of three dominant forms of political theology: liberal political theology, exemplified by John D. Caputo; conservative political theology, exemplified by John Milbank; and political anti-theology, exemplified by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. It ends by way of a speculative account of a political non-theology, based on the non-philosophy of François Laruelle, that makes each of these political theologies relative to the immeasurable itself and thus turns them into simple material that may be used to construct relative different organizations of power with greater situational efficacies.     

Knowledge of God According to Hosea the Ripper: The Interlacing of Theology and Social Ideology in Hosea 2*

Abstract

A semiotic reading of Hosea 2 suggests that two stories are told: The story of Hosea and Gomer, and the story of Yahweh and Israel. This semiotic entanglement, however, is also present in the passage of cosmic promises, Hos 2,18–25. “Knowing God” in the Book of Hosea is not just a question of adhering to a system of religious thoughts, it is a question of knowing how to live one's life according to specific social rules, namely that of patriarchy. The theology of the text cannot be separated from the ideology of the text. This is to be tested on the text of Hos 2,18–25 in which the emphasis is apparently firmly placed on the universal signified.     

Plurality and Globalization: The Challenge of Economics to Social Theology

Abstract

The phenomenon of the global market economy, drawing as it does on ‘liberal’ concepts of plurality and the transcending of tradition, offers a serious challenge to social theology. Neither liberal nor communitarian (confessional) approaches are able to give adequate accounts of two fundamental economic problematics: scarcity and interrelatedness. Liberal approaches have tended to subordinate theological insights to secular narratives in ways which obscure distinctive contributions from the Christian tradition. Confessional approaches have not handled finitude or translatability between communities and traditions with sufficient subtlety. This article argues that an adequate social theology on the economy will bridge liberal and communitarian approaches in ways which are cognisant of the particularity of traditions yet open to encounter between them, and, drawing on MacIntyre, Shanks and Selby, among others, sketches the outlines of such a dialogic traditionalism.     

青海湖祭海史话

青海湖古称西海,公元751年唐玄宗加封四海五岳,封西海为“广润王”,并进行遥祭,历代君王、中央政府加封、祭祀青海湖的制度由此而发轫。至清雍正时期,自罗卜藏丹津反清事件后,清廷的遥祭青海湖,变为派朝廷大员亲赴湖畔近祭,藉此加强对青海及周边地区的控制。这一惯例一直持续到1949年解放前。如今,当地民众仍保留有自发的祭海活动。     

苏联援华抗日政策评析

中国的抗日战争自1931年“九一八”事变起至1945年“八一五”结束,长达14年之久,在中国人民旷日持久的抗战中,北方的近邻苏联是中国抗战的有力盟友,苏联出于自身利益和安全的实际需要,支持中国的抗日战争,谴责日本的侵略行为,在道义、人力、物力上给予中国大力援助。纵观苏联援华抗日政策的始终,苏联的援华是以服从于苏联本国利益作为基点的,无不蒙上一层“民族利己主义”的阴影,在援华的同时,又损害了中国人民的利益,伤害了中国人民的感情,给中国革命留下了深刻的教训。     

三川土族人家的祭灶习俗

在我国民间,有在每年农历腊月二十三"祭灶"的习俗。所谓"祭灶",实际上就是历史上遗留下来的一种"送灶"、"辞灶活动",在民和三川地区,称之为"打发灶爷妮妮(奶奶)"。"祭灶"活动在我国民间来说是一项影响较大、历史悠久、涉及范围较广的风俗习惯。从古到今几乎每家每户的灶间都供奉有"灶王爷"的神像、灶马或者写有"东厨司命灶君之神位"的牌位,两边配有"上天言好事,下界保平安"的对联。至于这个"灶王爷"和腊月二十三的"祭灶"活动的来历众说纷纭。     

Anglican Evangelical Theology,c. 1820–1850: The Case of Edward Bickersteth

The period between the 1780s and the 1830s is widely acknowledged to be a formative one for Anglican Evangelical identity. It was the age of Simeon, Wilberforce, and the Clapham Sect, a time when polite culture became imbued with moral seriousness, and when pious causes came to the centre of the political stage. Yet while it is equally well known that the late 1820s witnessed a significant change in mood and direction, prompted by the passing of an earlier generation of leaders, missionary failure and theological fragmentation, the Anglican Evangelical movement in the second quarter of the nineteenth century has received comparatively little attention. Evangelicals appear frequently in work on the Oxford Movement and Broad Church, but often only as two‐dimensional reactionaries ripe for the protagonists to trample. Edward Bickersteth (1786–1850) is therefore a particularly interesting figure, having risen to prominence in the 1810s and 1820s but in the 1830s and 1840s becoming one of the movement's acknowledged leaders. By showing how the coming man of the earlier period negotiated rockier territory later on, this article seeks to explore not just the changes but also the striking continuities in Evangelical thought. For even if, as Grayson Carter has argued in an excellent recent study, the ecclesiastical changes of the 1820s and 1830s forced Anglican Evangelicals, like others, to reconsider their place in the Church of England, Bickersteth was among the most prominent of the majority who, while unhappy with developments in politics and theology, remained loyal to their Church.     

"You turn if you want to": The Questions a Pragmatic Political Theology Might Ask of Speculative Realism

Abstract

The question pursued in this article is what might a pragmatic (in the Rortyan sense) political theology ask speculative realists to contribute to its analyses and discussions. The article begins by discussing the potential reservations political theologians might have in employing Richard Rorty as a dialogue partner. It then considers the insights from Rorty that political theologians might value, namely a respect for Western democracy and pluralism, the desire to reform capitalism, and a deeper understanding of the relationship between Christianity and liberalism. These insights are discussed in dialogue with the radical orthodoxy of John Milbank. It is argued that Milbank and Rorty share post-foundational philosophical assumptions but arrive at different political conclusions with regard to democracy and capitalism. The paper makes the case for a pragmatic valuing of democracy and capitalism and a recognition of their Christian heritage.