Fr Peter Serracino Inglott mentioned French philosopher Alain Badiou in his column entitled 'Return to Paul' (The Sunday Times, July 6).
Alain Badiou holds the chair of philosophy at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris. In his book Saint Paul, Badiou is not interested in the Christian Pauline tradition. As an atheist, he cares nothing for the good news Paul declares; however, he considers Paul to be still relevant today from a purely secular point of view: that of refusing to surrender to the order of society as we know it.
In Paul's invention of Christianity, which shatters both the restricted view of the Judaic Law and the conventions of Greek philosophy, Badiou discovers 'the foundation of universalism' (his subtitle of the book), for Paul gives Jewish salvation a universal meaning: 'Man is not justified by the law but by faith in the resurrection of the crucified.' In this regard Paul reduces the whole Christian doctrine to this one 'fabulous' (according to Badiou) point as real which provides philosopher Badiou with restoring the universal to its pure secularity.
Who is Paul for Badiou? On his way to Damascus as a zealous Pharisee in order to persecute Christians, Paul hears a mysterious voice revealing to him both the truth and his vocation. That voice constituted him as a new subject: 'By the Grace of God I am what I am (eimi ho eimi)' (Cor.I.15.10). Paul was not won over by the historical apostles. It just happened, purely and simply. The declaration of Christ's resurrection by the mysterious voice was also Paul's 'resurrection' as an independent subject.
He does not seek 'confirmation' for his Damascus event from the authorities at Jerusalem. In his own eyes, he is an apostle appointed by Christ himself for a universal mission of salvation. This unshakable conviction later on causes him to come into conflict with these historical apostles. Paul's persistent declaration that 'Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah' is a truth which comprises no degrees; either one participates in it or one remains foreign to it. It is a universal declaration without mediation and is entirely subjective; without the intermediary of the Jewish Law and rites, for these can only fix the Good News, blocking its universal deployment. 'Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing' (Cor.I. 7.19).
The Jerusalem conference ended in a compromise: Peter is apostle of the Jews, Paul of the gentiles, the ethne (nations), all people other than the Jews. However, the situation remained tense at Antioch where Paul rebukes Peter for his betrayal of the Jerusalem compromise. This incident confirms Paul that the law is no longer tenable even for those who claim to follow it. The law has become for him a figure of death. What is required is a new principle, that of faith in the resurrected Christ, which establishes salvation for all.
Having settled these major confrontations within his own church, Paul tries to overcome an equally serious one before the Athenian philosophers (Stoics and Epicureans) in the midst of the Areopagus. Hearing Paul speak of the resurrection of the dead, the Greek philosophers burst out laughing and leave. Paul's preaching met with little success in Athens. Why? Because the Greeks raised the question of wisdom. They expected a philosophical explanation of the resurrection from the dead, whereas Paul purposely avoided such a debate by opposing the 'evidence of the Spirit and Power to the superiority of eloquence or of wisdom'.
It is here, in Paul's insistence to keep the 'Good News' clear of the Judaic Law and human wisdom, the two referents of his time, where Badiou discovers Paul's foundation of universalism. As an atheist philosopher, Badiou is interested only in Paul's revolutionary potential, something which he considers to be relevant for us today if we want to change the order of the world as we know it.