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

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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