"I
highly recommend this work to all who take seriously Paul's metaphor
of 'the body of Christ.' Kim interprets the metaphor as an alternative
vision of vital reconciling community, over against conceptions
that emphasize boundary markers to establish social groups. What
is at stake in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians, he argues,
is not just the ways first-century Christians constructed and
lived out social unity but the consequences of our choices for
the way we live out our own responsibilities today." --David
Odell-Scott, Professor of
Philosophy, Kent State University (from the
back cover of the book).
Although much has been written on the Pauline
notion of the "body of Christ," this contribution by
Presbyterian scholar Kim offers a thoughtful and provocative insight
worth considering. Kim observes that the Pauline metaphor can
be interpreted as setting boundaries or differentiations between
the Christian community and those outside. However, if we consider
the "body of Christ" as the crucified body of Christ
it can be seen as a means of dissolving boundaries and being more
inclusive, particularly of those who are pushed to the margins
or who suffer. Kim draws out from this key Pauline symbol the
implications for the church and society today, particularly in
the Gospel call for solidarity with those who are marginalized.
--Donald Senior, The Bible Today,
47(2) p.141. (Mar-Apr 2009).
"Thanks also
for calling attention to your book on the body of Christ in 1
Corinthians. I read the attachment that you sent, and it sounds
like your interpretation and ours are very supportive of each
other. I do think the body image is about inclusive egalitarianism
in the new life in Christ, and not about sharp social boundaries."
-- A message from Marcus Borg (May 21, 2009).
"I’ll
add my own encouragement to it–I was at a clergy meeting
last week where the question of “the nature of the church”
came up, and someone said “well, we’ve all got to
strive for unity because we’re the body of Christ,”
and I described your book and said that metaphor meant a lot more
than just unity. People had never heard the idea before. I hope
it revolutionizes our thinking!"
-- a Message from Neil Elliott,
editor of Fortress Press (May 21, 2009).
"A must-read for every thoughtful Christian
familiar with St. Paul’s metaphor of the church as the Body
of Christ. Providing an alternate interpretation of this beloved
image, Kim reclaims Paul’s vision of the church as an open,
reconciling community rather than a closed group. This is as transformative
a truth in the 21st century as it was in the first." The
United Church of Canada Readings
for the Intercultural Church
"Kim, Assistant Professor of New Testament
and Early Christianity, Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology
of Virginia Union University (Richmond, VA), balances his interest
in Jewish and Christian theology with a deep passion for cultural
applications of such interests, especially pertaining to groups
often marginalized. ... Kim's book might be best served within
an academic setting as well as for those desiring to engage with
critical issues in Pauline scholarship. While some may disagree
with various lines of argument in the book, Kim's overall pleas
for the loving embrace of all people in the name of Christ cannot
be ignored. Thus, the motivation behind Kim's book will certainly
have a bearing on discussions related to Christian mission - both
locally and globally." -- Carl S. Sweatman,
Stone-Campbell Journal 12 (Fall, 2009) 311-312.
According to Kim it depends upon how you read Paul's first letter
to the Corinthians. If you see the world from the perspective
of the church, as hegemonic hierarchy, then you will understand
ecumenism to be about unity. The Body of Christ is defined by
belief, and boundaries are drawn between believers and non-believers.
For Paul though, according to Kim, the problem is not disunity
but conflict between factions. His solution to power conflicts
is reconciliation between diverse groups. This is achieved by
living the life of Christ crucified rather than through belonging
to a church.
Kim says on page 74:
Being united in the same mind and the same purpose is not a
matter of belonging to an ecclesiological body, but rather is
a matter of having a mind and purpose framed by the same gospel
that does not empty the cross of Christ of its power.
For several decades in Britain, perhaps since the 1910 Edinburgh
Mission Conference, ecumenism has focused on unity between Christian
traditions. A great deal has been achieved in Britain and elsewhere.
Besides the various Uniting and United churches there has been
a general movement towards reconciliation between traditions.
There is more to be done; there remain many people who are not
convinced of the value of the ecumenical project. Others point
to frequent failures and setbacks. But overall, a great deal of
progress has been made. A return to the antagonism between traditions
in the past is unthinkable.
But for many younger Christians, this success is closer to absolute.
Many Christians no longer think of themselves as members of a
single tradition. They work alongside other Christians, without
awareness of doctrinal differences. It seems they no longer matter.
Neither the mainstream churches nor the informal congregations
of younger Christians can be simply equated to Kim's contrasted
understandings of the Body of Christ. What it does suggest though
is that future ecumenism may need to focus upon diversity rather
than unity. Some ecumenists speak of 'unity in diversity'; perhaps
Kim's contrast between unity and reconciliation offers us a clue
as to what is at stake. --from the
blog of Chris Sissons.
Response
to a book review
Recently, I saw Daniel Christiansen's review
of my book (Christ's Body in Corinth) at The Bible
and Critical Theory 5.3 (2009) and I appreciate it. I admit
his critique of the book's length (slender volume) and less-connectedness
of the pictures in the book. However, to be honest, his review
is not fair-minded as he labels my interpretation as ideological.
The biggest weakness of his review is not to state a main thesis
of the book at all; in his review is there no summary or main
argument of the book. A typical way of being fair to any book
review is to write main points and development of the book, and
then to evaluate it critically. But he skipped this part of being
fair to the book; instead, he himself becomes ideologically driven,
hastily and vehemently rejecting the idea of diversity even without
looking at the main argument of the body metaphor that this book
argues.
By the way, according to a theory (Althusser
Louis in particular), all interpretations are ideological. So
is mine and are all others'. What is at stake for anyone's interpretation
is not whether his or her reading is ideological or not, but what
kind of ideology is operative in interpretation and/or whether
that kind of ideology helps us to read the text clearer or healthier
than other kind of ideolgy. So it is nothing wrong with reading
texts through an ideological lens. But here the problem of his
review is not to discuss the book's main points and hastily judge
it on the basis of what he believes true while ignoring what the
book says entirely. For instance, in his review, he rebuts the
idea of "Christic body" by asserting that every community
is run by "doctrine or practice." But he is not aware
of the book chapters on Community and Body in which various conceptions
of the community and different understandings about the body are
discussed. So in the book nowhere I am saying there is a community
possible without boundaries. Rather, I talk about the role of
boundary and the function of Christ's body as a metaphor in the
Corinthian context. The question is not whether the community
is bounded or not but how the given community functions. In so
doing, my book focuses on the roles of the boundary, the conceptions
of the community and the different understandings about the body.
The real question is which interpretation of the body might be
closer to the reality of early Christian life experience in Corinth.
I would welcome any challenge to or critical
evaluation of my book if there were a fair balance between what
the book really says and what it lacks. I would expect that any
reviewer recognizes various approaches to the "body of Christ"
discussed in the book, and engages the main argument of the book
that lies in the figurative, discursive analysis of 1 Corinthians:
an alternative reading of the "body of Christ" understood
as a metaphor for a way of life
or living (Christic body), on the
basis of re-imagination of the "body of Christ" as the
crucified body of Christ.
By contrast, Donald Senior's review of my book
at The Bible Today clearly states the gist of the book
as follows: "Although much has been written on the Pauline
notion of the "body of Christ," this contribution by
Presbyterian scholar Kim offers a thoughtful and provocative insight
worth considering. Kim observes that the Pauline metaphor can
be interpreted as setting boundaries or differentiations between
the Christian community and those outside. However, if we consider
the "body of Christ" as the crucified body of Christ
it can be seen as a means of dissolving boundaries and being more
inclusive, particularly of those who are pushed to the margins
or who suffer. Kim draws out from this key Pauline symbol the
implications for the church and society today, particularly in
the Gospel call for solidarity with those who are marginalized"
(excerpt from Donald Senior's review, The Bible Today
47(2) p.141. Mar-Apr 2009). --Yung Suk Kim
|
