will.(je)sus.servive.THE CHURCH.

“The eternal extension of God serves, first of all, the objective of enabling each person who loses himself to refind himself in him. But what is then missing is the satisfaction of those who aspire only to be lost, without remission. When Teresa of Avila screamed that she was dying of not dying, her passion, moving beyond any possible barrier, broke an opening that leads into a universe where perhaps there is no composition either of form or of being, where it seems that death rolls from world to world.”
Georges Bataille, The College of Sociology, July 4th, 1939.

okay, let’s synthesize some current modes of what some define as either missions or evangelism: it is either defined as some sort of ‘relational’ mode whereby friendships are built or pursued (organically or otherwise) but the tendency is that there is some sort of intention or necessary outcome to that relationship (i.e., to change their behaviour, to make some spiritual commitment, or to get to church and etc.) – but here is where it all errs, it erupts out of the person ‘building’ the relationship, therefore it is an ego-driven move.

then it tends to also be something we all have been taught by someone else, therefore its virtual/mediated, which means we don’t do it because we want to or even believe it. then it becomes a numbers thing (aka, capitalstic spirituality based on the notion of the marxist bourgeouis/proletariet, whereby the proletariat are the ‘one’s who NEED jesus’, and the bourgeois are the one’s ‘above’ giving over-spiritualized hand-outs (i purposefully did not capitalize jesus, because all of the above seems to be against the very radical nature of Jesus).

there’s this sort of transcendent ideology within the Church that assumes truth claims to be true of every person: (1) all are sinners, (2) all need jesus, (3) if they don’t accept/believe/claim jesus as their lord then they are hellbound, (4) if they do, then they are heaven bound. but re-read all of those, all of those claims were historically made by someone at one time or another (as in, someone or a group of people agreed upon these criteria). once you have criteria, you have ‘slaves’. now, don’t get me wrong, i think the Church should have criteria, but for too many centuries, it has focused on the others and the attempt to assume the mind of others (i.e., all are sinners – presupposes there is a truth claim about everyone but does not allow for any other truth, therefore by its own confession marginalizes any other possibilities – essentially it is a false dichotomy which attempts to ‘think’ for the rest of humanity). and so the 4 claims above endorse a sort of hegemonic ideology that professes its own solispsism. (Definition: As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.).

so, the question then is: will jesus survive the Church?

several times jesus seems to attack any structural approach to experiencing the divine. as if to relay the message that structural definition is a violent attack against god. that to create a system of thought is to create another god in its place. the structure becomes the mediator for the disciple who follows it. and then over time, that structure becomes the Big Other that defines that person’s identity, ethics, and even how to have relationships. in a very violent sense, it replaces the original entity, to the point that the original is no longer present because the copy has taken its place.

although, i may not have clear-cut responses to the question above, truth be told, the way for jesus to survive the Church is for him to leave it…