Advertisement

Acknowledging Authority

  • Jonathan Tran
Part of the New Approaches to Religion and Power book series (NARP)

Abstract

Stanley Cavell says that the crucified body is the ultimate picture of the unacknowledged person.1 I was recently reminded of Cavell’s comment when my Sunday school class studied the crucifixion in Mark 15. After Jesus cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” those watching the crucifixion guess that Jesus is calling on Elijah. At this point members of the class remarked, “They just don’t get it.” And then I wondered, what would it mean to get it? Did those guessing that Jesus was calling on Elijah misunderstand something about him, some bit of information (perhaps something special and maybe even secret about Jesus and the Father, about the Trinity, and therefore about the pit of Jesus’s suffering) that, if ascertained, might render the crucifixion intelligible? Did their knowing about Jesus (about who and what he was) allow them insight on Jesus’s cry unavailable to others (those confused about whom Jesus was calling)? Did they get his pain, see it by seeing something about and maybe in him, see past his words, his body, to the pain itself, while others did not? I wanted to say, “There is nothing to get. It’s madness.” But perhaps then I was blind to an aspect of their words, maybe an aspect of wanting to share in his sufferings, to have fellowship as Paul encourages, and so their comment marks an unbearable separateness that they find difficult to abide.

Keywords

Ordinary Language Extreme Hesitation Barth State Christian Theology Mutual Violence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Stanley Cavell, The Claim ofReason (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 430.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karl Barth, The Church Dogmatics The Doctrine ofthe Word of God ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), 94.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    John Betz, “Beyond the Sublime: The Aesthetics of the Analogy of Being” (Parts One and Two) in Modern Theology 21, 3 (2005): 367–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 16.
    Stanley Cavell, Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981), 75–76.Google Scholar
  5. 26.
    Stanley Cavell, Must We Mean What We Say? A Book of Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 163–179.Google Scholar
  6. 27.
    Peter Dula, Cavell, Companionship, and Christian Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 40–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rowan Williams, a critique that reads Barth almost completely opposite from the one I’ve suggested here. On Christian Theology (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000).Google Scholar
  8. 32.
    Sandra Laugier, “Rethinking the Ordinary: Austin after Cavell”, Contending with Stanley Cavell, ed. Russell B. Goodman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 82–99Google Scholar
  9. Sandra Laugier, “Introduction to the French Edition of Must We Mean What We Say?” trans. Daniela Ginsburg, Critical Inquiry 37, 4 (2011): 627–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 36.
    Veena Das, Lifeand Words: ViolenceandtheDescent into the Ordinary (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 90Google Scholar
  11. 39.
    Stanley Cavell, “Réponses” Modern Theology 27, 3 (2011): 517–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Simon Critchley’s comments on Cavell and perfectionism in his Very Little... almost Nothing (New York: Routledge, 2004), 138–161.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Joshua Daniel and Rick Elgendy 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Tran

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations