-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Seay
> If we just need to learn about organization- irregardless of the politics
associated with it- then we might
better learn from Saint Paul. In fact, I think Badiou has written a piece
on that very subject.
Heh. Just a historical intervention. The early Christian communities didn't organise because of St. Paul, they organised despite him. Most everyone thought Paul was an idiot. Paul had never met Jesus and didn't know anything about him. This is clearing demonstrated in his letters which show a lack of even the most generic and popular of Jesus' sayings; that's why everyone thought he was kind of weird, and why he had to appoint himself to be a 'thirteenth' apostle - because no one else was going to do that for him. No doubt he travelled a lot because people couldn't wait to get rid of him. He also claimed to have had this tremendous vision of Christ which really departed from what nearly everyone had learned from the village scribes about Jesus (the scribal stories having mainly to do with things like food, healing, and inclusion). The apocalyptic message that Paul was obsessed with was added on in later developments of the "Jesus-story" and eventually written into the Gospel record - possibly because of Paul and that Lukean community I mentioned in another post, but also because the scribes were becoming increasingly infuriated with Roman exploitation. The two urban centres that had been re-vitalised were capitals of consumption, not productive in their own right. The scribes wanted their sage status back instead of the demotion to functionary. This tertiary apocalyptic message appealed more to the militants than to the peasants. The militants wanted to put the heal to the rulers... the peasants simply wanted to put an end to heals and continue their farming. Anyway - the early Christians weren't apocalyptic or militant - they were probably labourers who enjoyed a good drink and a good story. Later, however, Christianity did acquire a following with a more evangelical zeal... but it was an underground movement, meeting in the catacombs of various cities sharing bread, wine, and fish with one another (that's why the altar is shared like a coffin.... it is a coffin). At times becoming a persecuted minority, accused or orgies and cannibalism, they hardened their faith and took refuge in the apocalyptic. Martyrdom became fashionable and led to a great deal of hagiography. Then came along Constantine and HE organised the Christians and created a massive bureaucracy, the Christian civil service of sorts. That's the logical of universality at work. Zizek and Badiou should probably have stocked up on their biblical criticism and figured out that it was Constantine and not Paul with the muscular universalism... but, to be forthcoming, their point is political not historical... and there is a "return to Jesus" as a multicultural liberal afoot in the new spiritualism... a return that is contradicted by the intervention of Paul who is not a tolerant multiculturalist... Situated this way Paul appears to be the man with the plan, so... fair enough.
ken