[The Meaning and End of ‘Religion’ is postmodern.
Postmodernism is founded on Ferdinand de Saussure’s scientific discovery that language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences (or symbolic orders).]
[Schoonenberg’s off-hand remark also places Schoonenberg as author into a historical context. His translated book, Man and Sin: A Theological View, was published by University of Notre Dame Press in 1965.
Writing in the 1960’s, Schoonenberg stood on the brink of postmodernism.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s book, The Meaning and End of ‘Religion’, was published by Macmillan Press in 1962. Smith’s book detailed how the word ‘religion’ changed meaning over the past several centuries. Smith’s book described the historic alteration of one element of a symbolic order (a system of differences). His work implies that the entire system of differences changes.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[With the concept of the historic twisting of the language in mind, I can appreciate Paul’s list of spiritual sins as ‘sins of the flesh and bones’.
In other words, Paul’s list is not as some quaint mis-designation, where ‘sins of the bones’ are misidentified as ‘sins of the flesh’. It is a flash of intuitive brilliance.
Paul compressed the Old Testament image of ‘flesh versus bones’, as corrupted by the (infra)sovereign religions of the ruling elites of Israel, into a contrast between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’.
St. Paul struggled for expression in a language completely corrupted by the power-serving propaganda of (infra)sovereign religions.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
Schoonenberg then made an interesting comment: The works of the flesh that Paul enumerated were, in a more psychological analysis, better characterized as spiritual sins.
[Schoonenberg could not explain why.
He presented this as an observation.
Evidently, Paul did not know about the psychological sciences.
Does that count against him?]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[To me, Paul’s term ‘flesh’ encompasses both ‘flesh’ and ‘bones’. The latter terms had already been twisted by the wordsmiths of power, in order to justify social constructions that organized society according to ‘the objects that bring every subject into organization’.
What were these objects?
Ironically, they included the ritual demands of the Mosaic Law.
The ‘bones of the elite’ supported ‘the ritual demands of the Second Temple Period’s interpretation of the Mosaic Law’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
Schoonenberg quoted St. Paul (Galatians 5:17) in discussing the opposition between flesh and spirit.
[My suggestion is this: Paul struggles against a metaphor that has been repurposed by an (infra)sovereign religion.]
The desires of the flesh [and, now, the bones] are against the spirit.
The desires of the spirit are against the flesh [and the elite ‘bones that support society’].
These statements differ, even though they sound the same.
[Does Paul’s term ‘flesh’ veil a change of meaning of the Old Testament opposition between ‘flesh and bones’ that occurred when the metaphor was usurped by an (infra)sovereign religion?
What a wonderful question.]
[Oh, speaking of terminology, I want to suggest the following:
‘An infrasovereign religion’ is one that has not grasped sovereign power and may or may not be in pursuit of sovereign power.
‘An (infra)sovereign religion’ has gained power and has instituted itself as an allied member of a Public Cult.
Most Public Cults (religionsovs) are alliances of (infra)sovereign religions.]
[Beware of Progressive declarations using the term ‘social’.
The term has been redefined.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[A similar change in the American language occurs today. The (infra)sovereign religions of Progressivism usurp and tailor the specialized language of Christianity to suit their pursuit of sovereign power.
In particular, the word ‘social’, like the ancient word ‘bones’, has been drained of personal meaning and repurposed for organizational manipulation and control.]
Summary of text [comment] page 81
[Allow me to summarize:
The Old Testament metaphor of ‘flesh and bones’ (designating the essential person) was usurped (from the suprasovereign perspective) and tailored to fit an (infra)sovereign point of view.
The terms went from popular usage to propaganda.
This precisely follows Schoonenberg’s scenario of refusal and usurpation.
A change of the language, the symbolic order of society, became inevitable.
Schoonenberg did not have the analytical tools to explain why Paul opposed the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’ (and not ‘flesh and bones’ against the ‘spirit’). He only noted that the Old Testament opposition applies to one situation and the New Testament opposition applies to another.
In addition, he limited his discussion to warning that the term ‘spirit’ does not simply replace the term ‘bones’.]
