You discuss a God that both invites us to love our enemies, already incredibly challenging, and a God that also seems to allow, endorse, or sometimes invite violence against the oppressor in certain scriptural texts. Both are hard theological pills to swallow.
Just because leaders appear tough and strong, formidable and forceful, does not mean they have the qualities needed to govern well. Hubris should not trump humility.
This intervention invites readers to consider Largier’s interdisciplinary approach on figuration and theistic immanence, particularly in the light of Foucault’s reflection on Subject and Power and his large influence on Anthropological and Social Sciences studies of power and the willful subject. Napolitano examines mystics and negative theology’s thread of “the ground” in Largier’s work, likening its affective intensity and dynamic of figuration to an otherwise imagination of the political, and its forms of violence.
We consider our friends those who can keep a secret and help us stop feeding our inner monsters.
Any effort to secure special status in the eyes of God is a rejection of manna. God’s grace and provision cannot be manipulated by humans for their own ends. It might appear successful. It might even help win an election. But hoarded manna will always become “wormy and rotten” (Exodus 16:20).
Resisting the temptation to romanticize the prelapsarian state of affective and sensory innocence before the fall into conceptualization, Largier attends to contemplative practices that open the discursive mind to be interrupted by figuration.
How does one read, providentially, such a murderous and malleable phenomenon as the nation-state in Africa?
The journal Political Theology releases its newest issue which considers interesting topics, such as Eric Peterson on the modern nation state, Edith Stein and Jan Patočka in relation to the war in Ukraine, the “sacred” in leftist spaces, and the development of a “dark fantastic theological imaginary.”
In any age, nostalgic campaign slogans must lead to clear articulation about which aspects of the past are worth retrieving. We must interrogate our own visions of the past to ensure that we’re not hiding the truth from ourselves.
Jesus doesn’t ban sitting or reclining in public. He encourages it, supports it, and even participates in it.
There is no single, correct mode of embodiment. For those who regard themselves as part of the body of Jesus, part of the family that grows from Jesus’s body, that one body is really many bodies, complicated bodies, with hands, blood, some foreskins, and a whole lot of multi-colored flesh.
In terms of Dorothy’s theology, I think that there is an inclination now where they want to write about piety. They don’t want to write about “Don’t pay your war taxes.”