Explorations in Theology and Apocalyptic—Session II

M20-308

“Jacob Taubes and Christian Theology”

 Sunday, November 20^th, 2011

6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Room: MM-Sierra C

Each of these four papers will engage in constructive theological reflection on the themes and arguments of Taubes’ Occidental Eschatology (Stanford University Press, 2009) and the essays collected in From Cult to Culture: Fragments toward a Critique of Historical Reason (Stanford University Press, 2009).

Paper Presenters:

• Sam V. Adams (St. Andrews University, Scotland)

‘The Apocalyptic Cosmic Imaginary:  Time and Space in Taubes, Moltmann, and Barth’

•  Ben Myers (Charles Sturt University, Australia)

‘Jacob Taubes: Apocalyptic Time and the Retreat from History’

•  David Congdon (Princeton Theological Seminary)

‘Eschatologizing Apocalyptic: A Reconsideration of the Messianic Event’

•  Virgil Bower (Chicago Theological Seminary/Northwestern University)

‘Embodied Eschatology: Jacob Taubes on Paul, Marx & Kierkegaard’

Chair:   Christopher Morse (Union Theological Seminary)

Explorations in Theology and Apocalyptic—Session I

M19-303

“Apocalyptic Themes and Motifs in the Gospel of Mark”

Saturday, November 19^th, 2011

6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Room: PW-Sutro

Our panellists will examine various aspects of the nature and role of apocalyptic motifs in the Gospel of Mark, and consider their theological significance.

Panellists:

Joel Marcus (Duke University):   Dualism and Expectation: Some Difficulties in Mark’s Eschatology

I will focus on two problematic elements of Mark’s apocalyptic eschatology: imminent expectation and cosmic dualism. Despite recent attempts to minimize the imminent element in Mark’s apocalypticism, it is definitely there; and Tom Wright’s attempt to make the apocalyptic hope merely one for a change in regime rather than a transformation of the universe similarly fails. Mark’s imminent expectation is a problem both because two thousand years is so long and because, in the cosmic scale we now live in, it is so short; in what sense can it still be affirmed that “we live in the last days”? Mark’s cosmic dualism is a problem because of the dangers of demonizing one’s opponents. While largely focussed on exploring these matters, the paper concludes with some reflections concerning how contemporary theology might deal with them.

Ched Myers(Bartemaeus Co-operative Ministries):  ‘Apocalyptic Discernment in the Fog of War: Deploying Mark 13 in a Contemporary Imperial Context’

In 1988 I published a “political” commentary on Mark which, among other things, read the Little Apocalypse as a Christian “counter-recruiting” call during a critical moment in the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70 C.E.  Three years later, the U.S. was at war (again!), intervening in Iraq.  In January, 1991 we witnessed a carefully choreographed propaganda effort to “sell” this war at home and abroad, which was, due to a variety of political factors, largely successful.  In March 2003 many of the same techniques were deployed again to prepare the public for and to legitimate the Shock and Awe campaign, as well as the subsequent (and continuing) occupation of Iraq, with similar results.  In both cases, the early days just before and after the commencement of hostilities saw the “fog of war” at its thickest, and Christian moral discernment at its weakest.  As an anti-war activist and educator, in both cases I counter-deployed Mark 13 as a text that offered an alternative interpretation of war fever, using apocalyptic clarity to unmask many of the very propaganda techniques used by the U.S. government.  This paper reflects on that experience of how Mark’s Little Apocalypse “read us.”

 
Craig Keen (Azusa Pacific University)

This paper will situate the call of Jesus in Mark 8 to “take up your cross” in the orality and sociality of the hearing of the Gospel (e.g., by the illiterate).  It will consider the way Mark’s account of Jesus’ relentless move from far northern Caesarea Philippi to Jerusalem would evoke a response in a body of hearers who have gathered in a little village assembly or house-church.  It will consider martyrdom (of a certain kind) as such a response and it will consider what martyrdom might be if it is not individualized, but is social all the way through.  That is, it considers how Jesus’ journey to meet the Reign of God that rends the heavens and the curtain of the Temple is unobstructed by his crucifixion and how the understanding of the freedom of his way would evoke a similarly reckless abandon of the body that together hears his tale performed.  Thus the paper asks how the tightly social hearing of the performance of the Gospel of Mark would call forth an apocalyptic response quite other than what sociologists teach us to expect from an institution.

Laura C. Sweat (Seattle Pacific University):    Scripting Contradictions: Gethsemane’s Apocalyptically Shaped Hermeneutic

I am exploring how Mark’s use of scripture reflects his apocalyptic perspective. Considering the role of scripture in the Gospel is not new, but understanding how Mark employs scripture as part of his larger apocalyptic framework can move scholarship beyond its current accurate, but limited, conclusion. Scholars essentially agree that for Mark, Jesus is the authoritative interpreter of scripture. This present interpretive position is demonstrated in controversy stories where Jesus places one scripture passage against another (e.g., 10:1-9). In the process, Jesus shows that scripture is not univocal. However, despite its conflicting voices, scripture reveals the divine will, particularly as Mark proceeds to narrate Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection (esp. 14:21, 49). Mark associates scripture with God’s will, and also God’s power (12:24), but that is not the only story Mark tells. Intriguingly, Mark shows Jesus himself seeking to counter and fulfill scripture, particularly in Gethsemane (14:32-42). Mark’s elusive and sometimes contradictory use of scripture—both concerning what scripture says and how it functions—is grounded in his broader apocalyptic perspective, especially his understanding of God’s unassailable sovereignty in light of the dawning eschatological horizon.

Chair:   Doug Harink (The King’s University College)