Jesus and the Desert of the Real

I forgot I wrote this a while back (2007), in response to an essay test, and uncovered it today:

Book reference: Slavoj Zizek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real

What does Zizek mean by “the desert of the Real?”

What if the world that we were living in was actually a carefully constructed fake, and only a few of us began to realize this, the rest of the world completely unawares? Whether described by the Truman Show, the Matrix, or perhaps even the ‘brain in a vat’ theory, the idea of a virtual, reality-that-is-not-Real is deeply troubling.

Much of this can be seen in today’s mainstream media. What kind of ‘reality’ would be constructed for and assumed by a person who only got their news from FOX or Clearchannel or the New York Times? (What about the reality for a person who only got their news from Democracy Now or NPR? Just curious). We live in an age where we may believe that we have freer, better access to ‘the real world’ than our ancestors may have—and yet, given passive receptivity patterns on behalf of the media consumer, and the multibillion-dollar ‘news industry’s’ practices, we may be just as ignorant as ever before.

This is particularly true in the grand theme Zizek is responding to in this text: September 11th. He argues that rather than taking stock of its behaviors and relationships in the world, we entered a Reality ™ (a constructed product) that painted us as the innocent victims in all things and those whom we had oppressed as the wanton Enemy ™ [I use this designation for enemy here, given that our so-called enemies are always being invented and marketed to us, made ‘new and improved’ every few seasons].

In the next few paragraphs, I would like to practice Zizek’s ‘relational cure’ by speaking to that which I experience directly and relationally in my daily life. I would argue that even mainstream liberal theological education suffers in the desert of the Real. Any time we (particularly those of us coming from white, privileged backgrounds) pontificate and theorize about what’s going on half a world away and why, without having any direct relationships to that place or other authentic praxological engagement; or even when we theorize about what’s going on a neighborhood away from our classrooms without similar authentic interpersonal relationship and experiential knowledge of some kind, or whenever we shift an academic conversation to the theoretical level, not for the reasons of analyzing and critiquing that theory, but rather to avoid engagement with uncomfortable emotions and experiences that may exist within our immediate learning community, we tragically construct a liberal ‘virtual reality’ of that place and the people involved. This is likely unhelpful to them and to us, perhaps just as much so as if these same behaviors took place in a conservative theological education classroom. Theological education that refuses to ‘get its hands dirty’ may be real ™ but it’s not Real.

I believe there was a Jesus of the real ™ and a Jesus of the Real. This is often expressed as a Theology of Glory vs. the Theology of the Cross. The Real Jesus was Really born into poverty. In a wooden, stinky manger. Being incarnate, He pooped, just like the rest of us. And He died a gruesome, torturous death at the hands of the State and the will of religious leadership.

In the portrayal of the real ™ Jesus, Mary and Joseph wear new clothes. The Holy Family is White, and probably blond. The manger doesn’t smell bad when we buy the commercial crèche in the discount store. The infant never cries, let alone poops or spits up, in our Christmas lore,[1] two basic Realities we know from any experience with infants. There is also no blood on the Precious Moments ™ cross that comes in a keepsake box, or usually any other commercial model crucifix we might purchase to decorate ourselves or our homes[2].

What helps a person to break through the walls of ‘real’ ™ to Real? The Real is that which we come to know deeply—not absorbing third and fourth-hand as through a gossip chain, but face to face. This breakthrough could happen in a classroom where I am challenged to hear and deal with the authentic encounter of my classmate in his or her life, rather than just assuming what he or she would likely say, given my years of liberal (or conservative) social academic training. This could happen in any place on the planet where people are brought together to listen and speak to one another in a truly authentic manner. Let us then be authentic and present in our classrooms and hallways, in our congregations and homes and sidewalks and places of gathering. Let us not isolate ourselves any further to the numbing comforts of constructed reality ™.

Let’s get Real.

[1] ‘The little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes’ from the popular hymn ‘Away in the Manger.’
[2] Although I did once receive a handmade cross made of two large nails dipped in red nail polish for Confirmation class, an interesting take on the symbolism of then and now.

Atonement as Seen from My Cell

(originally written April 18, 2008)

Atonement, as seen from a prison cell at 5am.

If Jesus "had to die", then we just had to kill him.
Yet if we had to kill him, we credit ourselves for having saved ourselves from sin.
If we saved ourselves, we have no use for God.
No. It is not like this.
Crucifixion is not atonement; it is murder. Let it not be otherwise.

The great fault in our use of the Gospels is that we have been deluded into believing that an innocent must die so that we might be saved.

And we have continued in that delusion 2,000 years.

And in every war in our world we play out that delusion over and over:
That the innocent must die so we are "saved."

So we should not rejoice that Jesus "died for us."
No, let us admit: Jesus died because of us.

Let us not pat ourselves on the back.

The sin of the world was not so great that we had no option but to kill him, that Jesus had to be sent to die.

No. Innocent blood serves nothing. It is only loss.

Rather, the sin of the world was so great that Jesus had to be sent--to live among us, and teach us again how to love; our ideas of love, God, and reconciliation had become so tortured and wrong.

And our sin was so great that we killed love's teacher, we killed Love.

No. Crucifixion is only an affront to God. Not a peace offering.
We must never forget this.

Resurrection on the other hand, now, that's Atonement.
That is picking up the pieces of the broken Christ, healing in order to heal the world and not destroy it, to forgive;

Only God could choose this.
We did not force God's hand in this;
We did not help God save us.
We were not secretly counting on resurrection,
Only execution.

Resurrection and its healing is not what we deserved for our deed, but what God chose to do, for us.

Crucifixion is what Jesus did not deserve.

Resurrection welcomes us back as forgiven children, though we were once convicted murderers. It is not Death Row, but New Life. Our past is not to be forgotten but we still must take joy in the Great Forgiveness.

No, we must never forget the Crucifixion.
We must never pat ourselves on the back for it.
Must never declare it necessary
or any other rationalization of our deed.
We must not blame God for our fault.
We must instead recognize that God chose to love us, Despite.

Resurrection is the great surprise and cause for celebration.

And we must never forget, there are plenty of people in the world today
who do not deserve to die
but we believe we have to kill them
for some greater glory, for collateral damage.
They are right to see themselves in the
crucified Christ and to see Christ in themselves.
They are witness to the whole human depravity.
God speaks to them hope of Resurrection
But we should not find ourselves comforted.

But we go on destroying the innocent
Crediting ourselves for saving ourselves
Blaming God and the victims for their deaths
Why is love so hard to learn?