The ‘ontology of the incarnate Son’ is presently ‘hidden’, and awaiting full manifestation at the time of Jesus’ ‘appearing’ (parousia). This is perhaps illustrated in the fact that, as you’ve said (elsewhere), ‘phenomenologically speaking, nothing happens at the eucharist’… The presence of Jesus through Spirit, Word, and Sacrament is nevertheless a ‘partial’ (1 Cor 13), pre-parousia presence.

And so Paul really does want the Corinthians to be oriented toward the future – not toward a soulish heaven, but toward the resurrection of this creation: The time when Jesus will be ‘manifest’ and finally we will ‘know him even as we are fully known’.

If the church were supposed to be oriented toward a future soulish heaven, then, as you’ve said, there would be nothing to do in the present but sit around and wait… but because, according to 1 Corinthians, the church should be oriented toward future resurrection, the present should especially involve cruciformity – a cruciformity that is passionately engaged with this world. After all, crucifixion is the pre-requisite for resurrection. In practice, this ‘cruciformity’ will involve self-restraint and active love.

Of course, you’re right to say that this call is not just to individuals, but I’m more hesitant about the idea of co-opting Caesar into this vision, in this pre-parousia age… I’m open to change my mind about this – but at the moment my thinking is that it is the CHURCH that is called to cruciformity… which includes me: I am called, with the church, to give up my plenty, my control, my right to retaliate, and give myself in love for others. This, too, is where acts of subversion would fit in.

This is the direction I’m looking in at the moment, but like I say, I’ve got a long way to go with these issues – and I’m glad you’re looking into this stuff… we need more people thinking creatively about this

The problem with all this is of course that the Church doesn’t always function as such. I think this is why Milbank goes to such trouble in the final chapter of Theology and Social Theory to argue the Church arises historically as the truly peaceful society, and probably also why Cavanaugh wants to parse that and say that the Church arises as the peaceful society insofar as the Eucharist makes the Church. Thus when we’re not acting “Eucharistically” we’re not functioning as the Church anyway (though I’ve never been totally convinced by either argument, but I’d like to be). I’d certainly want to go with Cavanaugh over Bell in affirming the Eucharist as the locus of Christian political vision as opposed to forgiveness in and of itself. Outside of the Eucharist/Church forgiveness makes no sense and neither does a refusal to cease suffering.
Regarding your comment that you “don’t see how a Thomistic metaphysic is going to help Christians (and people) in the third world survive under political and economic impression,” I’m attracted to the RO argument that there are only two basic metaphysical options: the Christian metaphysic and a nihilism that leads to destruction, given these options I’m going to side with the Thomists.
Also, I don’t have an office in America (but I do get a thesis carol soon) and my profs keep hinting that if I keep reading and writing on Milbank and RO I may never have an office (or job) in America, but its far more interesting than the rest of the theology I run into and that’s why we Americans are keeping you away from your studies with our questions.
I’d appreciate the entire paper if its all as thoughtful as what’s above.

Matthew:
RE: The New Testament, obviously my in depth knowledge of the biblical theology at work here is weak at best; but, isn’t there a problem when we apply the teachings of Christ (specifically things like the sermon on the mount) to individuals but then exempt nation states and governments? I once heard Stanley Hauerwas (also not a NT scholar…) say that the problem with the way most people read the ethical calls of the NT is that they fail to apply its teachings not only to individuals, but to ‘Caesar’ himself. Also, it seems like while the biblical text don’t necessarily present an account of the early church’s ‘resistance’ against the nation state of their day, it does seem like there is a place for political subversion within the Church…but once again…this is your area and I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on this issue.

Dan:
I appreciate your thoughts on this as well. I too was enjoying Bell’s book at the outset, but it just got worse and worse to me. Also, and this is an unrelated point, his reading of Deleuze seems to be bad, and useless. It’s almost as if he brings up Deleuze for the sake of having some sort of contemporary philosophical credibility, but its just bad…
As for Hauerwas and his call for Christians to be willing to die rather than kill, I totally agree with him here! The problem is that Bell’s ‘refusal to cease suffering’ makes it sound like we should give the state license to do whatever it likes while we sit by and hope for heaven. The problem to me seems to be that Christians shouldn’t be willing to get murdered while ‘waiting’; they should instead be willing to give their lives in acts of subversion. I think it’s important to note the difference between subversion and resistance here; Bell fails to provide an account for the Church’s potential for political subversion. I’m still not sure where this critique ‘leads’ per se; but if you would like to read the 7,000 word essay this is pulled from let me know and I’ll send it to you.
Also, I get your concern with the ‘need to be effective’; and I know there is a definite risk there; but when large scale populations are dying in horrible conditions largely due to the oppressive policy of nation states, I feel as if the Church must be effective, at least at providing a chance at life for its members.

Tyler:
As for the Milbank critique, it’s in Theology and Social Theory; I don’t have the book near me now to quote the exact page, but the title of the section makes it pretty obvious.

Also, I (mostly) agree with Cavanaugh’s critique, and in the paper this is pulled from I don’t consider him part of what I see as the ‘RO’ critique of liberation theology. I do agree that the liberationist for the most part fail to offer an alternative ontology from that of the state, and that this is the primary reason that for the most part liberation theology seems to have ‘failed’. This lack of an ontology distinct from that of capitalism is also the reason that no clear account of subjectivity has emerged within much liberation thought; and this lack has led to a risk of individualism that completely ruins much of liberation theologies political potential.

I’m not sure I get what you mean when you say that “Bell’s naivete concerning the singularity of the Church is the same “naivete” in holding to a creedal view of Christ”…I don’t doubt that there is a ‘naivete’ in concerning the singuarlity of the church (and the creedal view of Christ); I just think there is also a (negative) naivete in offering ‘the refusal to cease suffering’ to people dying of poverty while you sit in your office at an American university. Maybe it’s my background as a social science undergraduate coming through here, but I just don’t see how a Thomistic metaphysic is going to help Christians (and people) in the third world survive under political and economic impression. Most liberation theology tends to be either pure sociology or pure metaphysics; I think what we need is a good bit of both. If you want let me know and I’m glad to send you the paper.

Also, where is Milbank’s critique of Liberation Theology that you referenced early on?

Zizek reminds me of the Menonites response to the Iraq war. Many flew over to Iraq to act as human shields in the hope that Bush wouldn’t start bombing since American’s were there. When this didn’t work they started smuggling Iraqi’s into Jordan. Maybe Bell’s problem is that he asked the wrong people to refuse to cease suffering. Maybe he should have asked us in the West to start suffering. Maybe he did–I only read the first two chapters. If we believe in the resurrection than maybe we can follow Jesus and embrace faithfulness over effectiveness when we can’t have both. This may look like sheer foolishness to those with normative secular assumptions ( ie those who think that life is all there is and thus all that matters) and surely it is with in a secular discourse, but as Christians with a robust eschatology maybe we should be so foolish. Maybe Bell’s call to such a refusal short circuits our ability to continue imagining news ways to be effective and faithful by defaulting to early to faithfulness. Either way I would like to see where you land on this. Damn I am too long winded.