Craig Keen

After Crucifixion


Скачать книгу

word, roots that draw nutrients from deep inside pagan soil, where perhaps the ordinary usage of God is more happily at home. Provocative phrases about sacrifice and invocation appear in the midst of its history, their subjects and objects mingle, and in it all there is no outbreak into anything particularly transcendent (though transcendence as a universal within this system appears). Everything swims in the warm, immanent amniotic fluid of human consciousness. God as such is contained, subjected to occupational therapy at the merest suggestion of aphasia, and assigned the task to speak well in accordance with reasonable expectations. Thus God says something that is generally true, able to be heard everywhere and by all; a grand linguistic phenomenon, an absolute truth, the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles, no doubt.

      And yet the OED is not the only big book. At the “Job” tab, one finds a meandering account of a particularly poor and troubled man, who—sitting on the ash heap, alone but for the company of dogs, aching, burning, and with every new upset tempted to curse God and die—turns his two wide eyes to the open sky and with a passion that rips apart the fabric of space-time and its God cries, “Violence!” (Job 19:7) and as if encountering something new on the far side of the sun, prophesies, “I know my redeemer lives” (Job 19:25; cf. Eccl 1:9). And I read that with him on the ash heap—in a maelstrom so fierce that even Job’s immeasurable suffering seems a shadow cast from what is for him yet to come—another poor and lonely man, hanging, dying, gasping for air, opens his throat and cries, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34); and when “the curtain of the temple [is] torn in two . . . [as if encountering something new on the far side of death and damnation], Jesus, crying with a load voice, [prophesies], ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit’” (Luke 23:45–46). It strikes me that there is uttered in these narratives a word that no sequence of letters, however small or large, can contain. And I strain to say this new word when I stand before a classroom full of the children of good people, I strain to say it in such a way that no good person could ever say or hear it. And likely, were I just able to find a really good therapist, I’d put this obsession behind me and get on with my life.

      The question for me then is “why, why do I see and hear this way?” Most of my colleagues these past decades have seen and heard differently. They seem much calmer about it all, speaking as they do of the good, the true, and the beautiful and of how God fits so well into a system of values, goals, and ideals, i.e., a worldview; of how the story of Job and of Jesus and of God is a story that resolves questions, not complicates and ruptures them. They have told me that it is all about absolutes and universals and all I seem ever to see and hear are contextualized particulars, the life-stories of people with particular faces and voices, of a God with particularly elusive faces and voices. Of course, it may just be that I have been beguiled by Protestant nominalism, that I have fallen prey to that most modern of all perversions, postmodernism, that I am a child of my age. Indeed, I suppose this is all true. How could I honestly say anything else, even as I strain to say something else than the banal or high-born talk of my age?

      Not all mysteries are fascinating, of course, especially if like this one, they are irresolvable. The exact numeric value of pi is a mystery to which is attached neither tremendum nor fascinans. Those mysteries that most commonly fascinate us are those that we expect with some effort to resolve. They are intellectual challenges—mountains that we set out to conquer, even if only because they are there. They remain fascinating only so long as they simultaneously resist and yield to us. Once they are conquered, we move on to something else. We might wax proudly nostalgic, as we recount the thrills of our victories, but to remember a former mystery is not to face a mystery.