paradox in tertullian

[sophiaserpentia]

The class on Tertullian last night was illuminating. I thought i had detected while reading Apologeticum an anti-intellectual tone. Professor Koester elaborated on this by describing a tension in antiquity between Rhetoric and Philosophy, and bringing up Tertullian's use of paradox in his formulation.

Some background: Rhetoric is language and intellect aimed at persuation, focused on concrete concerns. The best rhetoricians make use of all tools at one's disposal -- appeals to reason, emotion, and antithesis (anticipating counter-arguments). Philosophical speculation and contemplation are eschewed.

For Tertullian the rhetorician, philosophy was not merely eschewed, it was despised. His concern was that contemplation of concepts and doctrine would get in the way of action and would distract from the all-important (to him) goal of following moral law.

So instead of doctrine he promotes expression of God's action in the lives of believers as unfathomable mystery. His position is that speculation on these mysteries focuses on God's being rather than God's acting, and so detracts from what they really represent. His intent was to steer Christians away from establishing doctrine. So he formulated his experience of God's actions towards Christ in terms of paradox, in a way frequently ridiculed today by atheists and rationalists:

The Son of God was crucified -- that is not shameful because it is a shame;
The Son of God died -- that i believe because it is absurd;
The Son of God was buried and rose -- that is certain because it is impossible.

Tertullian's approach is easy to ridicule from a modern mindset that values reason, science, investigation, and clarity. But something struck me while thinking about this. I would never advocate anti-intellectualism, but on the other hand, rationality does not have all the answers either, and so there is some value in promoting apprehension of mystery as an antidote for the phallogocentrism of modern discourse. I am not interested in strictly following moral code the way Tertullian was, but in that i am strongly interested in ethics and action over belief i am not as entirely unlike him in outlook as i previously supposed.

All too often i see logic and rational tone-of-expression used to justify racism, sexism, and all kinds of prejudice, injustice, and "legitimized" violence. Just today, for example, lady_babalon pointed me to this post about civility as a screen for misogynistic sentiment. I've seen this kind of tactic used as a trap many times -- focusing on the minutiae of one's statements so that one can overlook the real significance of the points being made.

Also, there is great danger in adherence to ideology, which is more likely to divide people than to unite them. It draws attention away from who is doing what towards who thinks what, and in this way confounds efforts to find commonality in compassion and lovingkindness.

Comments

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

One reason I quickly tired of "convert me" and communities like that was not just because of the horrible Christians there, but also because the atheists were often just as dogmatic and intolerant in the other direction - mocking all spirituality as stupid, ignorant, etc.
I did not leave the Christian church because I doubted Jesus rose from the dead - it may come as a big surprise to many that I do not view that as a complete impossibility. I am agnostic on that issue. The reason I left was because of the mean-spiritedness of Christians, and their insistence that I had to absolutely believe everything mentioned in the Bible was immutably and literally true, including that I was some sort of lesser being who had to submit and be silent just because I happened to be born female. Nowadays I come across many Christians who also do not believe this, and perhaps if I had been raised in that vein of Christianity I would have stayed, but it has little to attract me back now.
I do not see my agnosticism as to the possibility of a resurrection as anti-scientific. Rather, what I see as truly unscientific is the notion that we currently understand everything there is to understand, and that anyone who reports an experience of something which contradicts what we currently understand of the world and its mechanics must be insane or lying or mistaken. If a rational person I know comes to me and is behaving in a shocked manner and declares they saw a dead man come back to life, I would be skeptical at first, but if there were no other ready explanation I might become convinced. Certainly *I* have seen som eunexplainable things which I don't talk about, but you know what I am referring to. Now, there is simply not enough evidence in the Bible to support an absolute surety of Jesus' resurrection, but it does raise some interesting questions. What exactly happened? We will never know, of course.
And in the end, it really *shouldn't* matter, should it? I think the emphasis on having to believe the Bible literally or not detracts from the actual message of Christ, which boils down to behaving in a loving manner towards all. I see almost none of this message being taught from the so-called Christian church.
Nor do I see the practice of ecstatic trance as being inherently inimical to science. In fact, I am very interested in the neurobiology of what happens to our minds during such trance, and what it gains us.

[lil-boy-lost.livejournal.com]

i might be making a fool of myself here, but i read your post and it made me think about something..

in my case, i am given a *lot* of bullshit for being Catholic (for a lot of pretty obvious reasons, when you take into account who i am and the kind of life i live), but most of the flak is people arguing *at* me (not "with" because i don't bother to fight back) about how can i consider myself a logical/rational person and still believe in a "God" (to begin with) and *also* have the Catholic rituals/traditions be sacred to me..

if i were to answer it for myself its because when i think about my religion, its not something using logical-rationale in my decision making.. i love the mythology, it "speaks" to me, and i don't think i am a stupid person to admit that i have beliefs...

i am an intelligent person and logic, debate and the like are not totally lost on me, i just don't see where i have to prove an argument in order to gain some right to pray to the God of my choice, in the manner that suits me best...

does that make sense?

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

Sounds like John and Yoko Lennon...

[greensery.livejournal.com]

Hi, I added you because I find your thoughts very interesting. I hope it's not impolite that I added you without asking first.. so I'm letting you know now. :)

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I don't mind at all. Welcome to my journal!