miércoles, 2 de julio de 2014

The Theological Politics of Irving Kristol

Ahora que los neocons están de vuelta, nada más apropiado que volver a leer a su padrino, Irving Kristol, cuya hornacina mantengo siempre reluciente en este humilde café.

Por ejemplo:
Kristol began with an anecdote. He said that a recent conversation with a friend, a prominent rabbi, had reminded him of the distinction between the "prophetic" tradition in Judaism and the "rabbinic" one. The former are the rebels against the law, the critics of society's failure to live to the highest and strictest ethical standards; the latter are the followers of the law. The two tendencies, Kristol went on, are present in all of the world's major religions. "I assume the tension between the prophetic and the rabbinic — or the orthodox and the gnostic — to be eternal." 
To a gnostic, the world is a very bad place. Horrible things happen to innocent creatures. There is no satisfactory explanation for the problem of evil. Society is unequal. It does not live up to our high expectations. Laws are unjust or ignored; institutions are archaic and corrupt. Human beings fail to realize their potential. These unsatisfactory conditions of life provoke a revolt. "The gnostic...tends to say that the proper and truly authentic human response to a world of multiplicity, division, conflict, suffering, and death is some kind of indignant metaphysical rebellion, a rebellion that will liberate us from the prison of this world." 
Such a rebellion is directed at both the religious and civil law. "These gnostic movements tend to be antinomian — that is, they tend to be hostile to all existing laws, and to all existing institutions," Kristol said. "They tend to engender a millenarian temper — that is, to insist that this hell in which we live, this 'unfair' world, can be radically corrected."
The orthodox view is different. Whereas the gnostic sees the world as unholy and corrupt, the orthodox sees it as benign, as blessed by God, as something to be sanctified through the law or through the imitation of Jesus and the saints. Whereas the gnostic sees human beings as innately good and society or the world as evil, the orthodox sees human beings as innately sinful and society and the world as natural and morally neutral. The orthodox obey the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, to marry, have children, and keep a home. In gnostic sexuality, by contrast, a woman might participate in an orgy, but it would be "obscene" if she became pregnant as a result. 
Christianity, Kristol said, emerged out of a gnostic rebellion against Judaism. Christians rejected the Mosaic law and embraced Jesus as the messiah. But for Christianity to become successful, for it to last, for it to spread beyond the Eastern Mediterranean, the Church fathers had to manage the transition from gnostic movement to orthodox faith. "They had to convert it into a doctrine for the daily living of people, into something by which an institution could spiritually govern the people." This they were able to do, in part, Kristol noted, by appropriating the Hebrew Bible as the "Old Testament."

Es un artículo largo, pero muy interesante, porque ofrece algunas claves para comprender por qué el presente sigue siendo el tiempo del neoconservadurismo.

Me voy a Jaén