Insurrection Review – Magnesium Theology

I wanted Insurrection to be what it suggests it is.  I really did.  I wanted ‘pyro-theology’ to be genuine kindling to ignite, burn and purify, leaving something of value in something that has been so valuable to me personally.  I found, instead, Magnesium.

The first principle of Insurrection, ‘to believe is human; to doubt, divine’ is based on the ‘cry of dereliction’ of Jesus on the cross:

“My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?”

 (Jesus words on the cross according to Matthew 27)

Peter argues that this moment of ‘felt’ atheism is a basis for a new movement of those who ‘give up everything including God’ (p. 156) and make the ‘Centrality of Absence’ a core of their community experience.  This is what Insurrection, pyro-theology and the ‘crux’ of the book depends on.

Let’s take a look at some texts briefly:

The person in question in these quotations feels abandoned by God, he feels the chants of onlookers mocking his hopes for deliverance and goading him to trust that God will rescue him.  His clothing has been removed and the crowd gamble for portions of it.

Before I go on, ask yourself where you think those quotations are taken from?  The crucifixion story?  Yes?

No.  You’d be forgiven for thinking what you were reading above are quotes from the crucifixion story in Matthew 27.  The thing is, they are from Psalm 22, the passage that Peter argues has nothing to do with Matthew 27. Here’s how he dismisses the connection which is the main thing standing in the way of his first principle:

“In a desire to silence the true horror of Christ’s cry of dereliction, many have claimed that he was really just quoting Psalm 22 and was therefore affirming the entire content of that psalm – a psalm which, in its totality, expresses deep belief.” (p. 24)

So Peter himself knows that Psalm 22 is a psalm that is about faith, deliverance, confidence in God ‘in the midst of great despair’.  This doesn’t suit the main argument that Peter wants to make (that this is a moment of intense, felt ‘unbelief’) so ‘in a desire to silence’ the connection Peter argues the following:

“this perspective, however, fails to take into account the significance of the fact that the cry recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark is put in Jesus’ native tongue (Aramaic) rather than in the psalm’s original Hebrew.  In the Jewish faith, the Hebrew Scriptures are read, memorized, and recalled in the original language, not one’s native tongue, so while this cry might be inspired by the psalm, the words reflect a person’s heartfelt cry of agony and loss rather than some mere quote” (p. 25)

Except, this is wrong.  Google or Wikipedia search for ‘Aramaic Targum’ (Aramaic Translations of the Hebrew Scriptures) and you’ll see that plenty of scriptures were in Aramaic and Aramaic speaking Jews would have heard translations alongside the original Hebrew to help their understanding.  This, therefore is not an argument.  In fact it is incredible how carelessly something so obvious was overlooked.

In addition to this Peter absolutely and utterly has failed to read the full Matthew 27 passage and Psalm 22 together.  Read them for yourself side by side just once. No one can ignore the fact that Matthew 27 is shaped in the light of Psalm 22.  In fact, we might even say it has sections added (such as garments divided by lots) to make sure it fits.  I’ve laid out a few of the main ones to make it easy for you:

What is even more important to prove the point is not just if the words are the same but if the ‘theme’ is the same and we discover it significantly is.  I would go as far as to say that it is highly possible that Jesus is murmuring through the words of Psalm 22 in the midst of his ordeal and this provokes the reactions of the crowds and the themes of how Matthew is recorded.  There are a lot more arguments (consider the final ‘it is finished’ cry with the final words of the psalm) to back this up but these are enough to make the main point.

So what?

In summary, Insurrection is based on

- Jesus ‘felt atheism’ on the cross

– Argued by dismissing its widely held connection to Psalm 22 (a Psalm of strong belief in the midst of ordeals)

Above I have shown that this argument fails, sadly, miserably and carelessly. Insurrection’s first principle is vapour and everything based on it blows away.

So Insurrection cannot be a movement as ‘epochal’ as the great circumcision debate in the early church. This is what Peter claims in the book itself.  Any grand claim must expect to be judged with some care.  The argument has no fuel or reality in anything concrete.  It is, a great, compelling idea and of that there is no doubt.  If you are going to have ideas and try and hang them on texts that are of central importance to the church community then you should give those texts due respect. When I read Insurrection I give the words enough respect to consider them before reviewing.  You would expect at least the same of the scriptural texts.  You don’t have to believe in them being ‘more than books’ to at least treat them as not ‘less than books’.

Magnesium?

In Peter’s introduction he said that ‘pyro-theology’ was to help us ‘burn our sacred temples in order to discover what, if anything, remains.”  I was up for that, as an addict to the protest tradition in the testaments, the anti-religious movement of prophets and agitators right through to the condemnatory figure of Jesus, I am, and still could be a potential convert. Just not yet.

In chemistry class we used to ‘acquire’ small strips of magnesium for ‘homework’.  There was great pleasure in holding the magnesium above a candle in a set of tongs waiting for the show.  Magnesium once ignited burns, oh how it burns!  The brightest, white flame we had ever set eyes on.  And then out.  A flare lasting a second at least, with no fuel to sustain its fire.  That is what I fear this pyro-theology is.  A brief, interesting, hopeful chance to purify and illuminate but without enough substance to last, to purge or to be anything more than an exciting adolescent flash that we recount from time to time.

Addendum: Endorsements and Audience

This is no doubt a product of the current post evangelical socioreligious zeitgeist. The fact that Rob Bell and Brian McLaren endorse it so uncritically says as much about their need for affirmation. My book has the affirmation on the cover by Rob Bell, “Great, really, really great.”. Ouch. The publishers are putting it out there as something in keeping with a rock song to get ‘likes’ rather than  a polemic on one side of a ‘circumcision question’.  They believe the market is people who would like to like the things Rob Bell would like.  I’ve no doubt Rob Bell had no say on the choice of quote (the back cover is much more Rob!) but it does show you where the publishers position this book.

Advertisement