Subversives

I mentioned in the previous post that one of the reasons I appreciate wordplay is that it can be subversive. To be "subversive" is to overthrow, undermine, or contribute to the downfall of something already established.  When Chapter 1 of the Gospel of John uses the ancient Greek philosophical term "logos" to identify Jesus, the author is taking something that already had an established network of intellectual and cultural associations, and redefining it in such a way as to replace those with something new and, in many ways, incompatible. In doing so, those who hear the subversive word are offered the opportunity to change their minds about what they had previously believed and enter into a new reality transformed by the redefinition of once familiar ideas in unfamiliar ways.  This is the essence of what the Bible calls "metanoia" -- repentance.

So, the way I see it, subversive wordplay is one of the best things a Biblical text can do for us. But, when I've expressed this view to others, I've repeatedly encountered substantial resistance. It seems that some of us are pretty uncomfortable with the idea that Jesus of all people would be a subversive.  This makes sense, since the "subversive" label is sometimes used as a cynical political weapon to silence or slander one's opponents.  With such negative connotations, it is understandable why we might not want to paint Jesus with that same brush.

This in itself is one reason why I think reclaiming the positive label of "subversive" for the Gospel of Jesus Christ is an important task. In order to get a better understanding of the Word, we need to "overthrow, undermine, or contribute to the downfall" of our possibly mistaken preconceptions.  To quote "Sound Theology" by Jonathan Rundman -- "you can't build up nothin' 'til you knock down somethin' first"...

'Friendly Fire' is an intentionally subversive title for this blog. Tom's initial comment on the previous post goes in the right direction.  More to come...