Skip to content

Why I Hate Theology…

December 13, 2012

Karl Marx  once opined, “Philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex.”

To paraphrase and riff off of Mr. Marx

Theology is to the real world as not ever having sex. Ever. Not even once.

For example, Tony Baker, for some poor thought-through reason, decided to go public with his delusional musings on gender:

Let me attempt to bring my gender constructions out of the subflooring of the argument and into the proper living space. The fall narratives, from Eden to Babel to the origin of the Nephilim, are about the disorder than (sic) comes of too much taking. In the latter case, the Sons of God find the daughters of men desirable, and “take” them as wives (Gen 6). The “Sons” are pure activity here, and the “daughters” are so passive that the text implies a Sabine-like rape.

There is here, as in my Prometheus reading, an association of boundary transgression and gender. Masculinity is associated with active violating of “kinds,” and the feminine is a pure receiving. The important thing to notice, though, is that this is precisely what invokes God’s displeasure, and becomes the set-up for the flood cycle. Archetypal gender bifurcation (though not gender itself) belongs only to the fallen form, for Christianity, not to our proto- and eschatological versions. If both woman and creation are “feminized” in the narrative while the earthly and heavenly “sons” are masculinized (Cain, Nimrod, David’s “taking” of Bathsheba), this is a split archetype that belongs to our broken form.

Everything I dislike about some theologies and literary-critical methods in two paragraphs: I have an ideological/theological agenda, so what I’m going to do is divorce this passage from any socio-historical setting and contemporary literature, and make it say what I want it to say.

“Archetypal gender bifurcation…” “Sabine-like rape…” Do you realize how douchey those phrases are?*

I’m going to totally misunderstand and misrepresent an ancient myth, and then use that to propagate my misogynistic theories about ‘gender’. But I used big words so it’s totally OK.

Adam Kotsko also takes Mr. Baker to task because Tony regards the Nephilim passage in Genesis as a rape, and that ‘rape’ scene is the paradigm for masculinity and femininity.

First, if you know anything about the bene haelohim it’s not a ‘rape’ scene: humankind is complicit in the act which is why they are punished (and why your wife needs to cover her head, ’cause those angels be some sexy bastards!). Second, exactly how enormously F’ed up to you have to be to regard a rape scene as instructive to “Archetypal gender bifurcation…”

Just stop and think about that for a second: this dude, a ‘theologian’, thinks a rape scene is normative for gender discussion.

I weep for his children.

But it happens all the time because the Bible is ‘normative’… let me give you a tip: the sons of God narrative is normative on “Archetypal gender bifurcation” like the Lot and his daughters narrative is normative on father/daughter relationships.

In a surprising form of self-awareness in such a poorly thought through argument, Tony adds at the end of his insane article:

If my theory of gender above has any merit [it doesn’t], then I think it suggests that theology can be a masculine form, but when it is it follows the “false Promethean” myth [so stupid I don’t even know where to begin], the fallen trajectories of Nimrod and the Babelians, rather than the redeemed form of Mary.

If history and biblical studies are characterized by a certain textus receptus, a listening to and close readings of texts and events, theology is mostly creative construction in the realms of logic and metaphysics.  And theologians can be famously bad at the “receptive mode,” playing fast and loose with Bible and history in order to get on with our argument.

Wow.

This dude knows–he knows!–that he is engaging is gross speculation: and then engages in some of the most horrible speculation ever! And that speculation is built on a tendentious, uniformed, ignorant, and biased form of misreading the biblical text. But he goes on anyways.

“Creative construction”… I weep for his children.

* and some people are probably more offended that I used the word “douchey” to describe a guy that is seeing rape as normative for gender roles opposed to some douche writing about rape being normative for gender roles! If you are one of those people: you’re doing it* wrong.
* It = life
3 Comments leave one →
  1. December 13, 2012 1:16 pm

    I like this.

  2. December 13, 2012 4:36 pm

    Dayummmmmmmm homey, youze like a few weeks late, but I’ll take it and love it, and btw, don’t try to malign all theologians, only these cray cray radOx/”postliberal” narrative theology folks. What a load of crud. Anyhow, brilliant and funny as usual.

  3. lily permalink
    December 15, 2012 11:34 am

    That same gross speculation and extreme douche-baggery that causes our senators to promulgate phrases like “legitimate rape” where the body will shut that whole thing down? Much less eloquently put, say, than Sabine-like rape.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: