Christ, Imperial and Tailorite

Cosmic Christ 1999-2000, Alex Grey (all rights reserved to the painter)

Some notes on religious ritual and Tailorite Christianity.

Jewish practice, like Islamic practice, places much emphasis on hygiene, particularly with respect to consumption of food. With the threat of superbugs and the recent outbreak of E Coli in Europe, there’s probably some real practical merit in adopting a spiritually motivated sensitivity toward food and food preparation.

But Christianity — specifically, Tailorite Christianity (we can’t really speak for other Christians, only for ourselves here), appears to diverge from that practice, to metaphoricise the law, to the eventual point of departure and abrogation.

For example, the law says hands must be washed before consumption of bread. But see what the Injeel says of that:

1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men — the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Qurban”—’ , 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Mark 7:1-16)

Now, imagine how a 1st Century Palestinian Mahmoodian, adopting a Foucault and Bourdeu styled anthropological critique of Christ might immediately object to the passage from Mark: “Christ is unwittingly supporting an Imperialist (Roman) secularism by subordinating the Jewish practice to an essentially Hellenic, rationalist, secularist morality. Christ is at best a stooge, at worst a self-hating Uncle Tom, a secular puppet. By saying — `Being a good person is the point of religion’ — he is overdetermining the Phariseeicate law as something primitive, backward, uncivilized and barbaric. When in fact it is legitimate, a discourse unto itself: an embodied practice-as-devotion: the Pharisees wash their hands not because they see purification as a metaphor, but because, simply, God demands it and their practice is a pure embodiment of submission to that demand. And by inflicting a Hellenic morality on his own people, Christ is the ultimate aggressor, a kind of Imperialist Obama utilizing a fundamentally secularist/humanist reading of Torah to violently oppress his own people. What a colonial b^$t@%d!”

Such a Mahmoodean would be employing a perfectly valid Foucaultian gambit to defend the uneliable rights of the Pharisees to the regency of their habitus!


To be a Pharisee is to engage in a practice that independent of Hellenism and sovereign unto its own embodiment and practiced, cultivated, piety. The discourse of metaphor itself (surely a Greek concept anyhow?) is just as lethal, just as violent a means of repression as any Roman legion.

If that prospect disturbs you, and yet you love God’s only Son as much as I do — don’t worry: Tailorite Christianity provides all the answers.

Briefly, we might well adopt a (Hellenic) reading in which Christ is saying: “Oh, cleanliness in the law is just a metaphor for keeping your heart and deeds clean”. Certainly that’s an Imperialist Christ if ever I saw one and — yes — forms an origin for much of the intolerant, Imperial pretensions of mainstream Christianity. Of course there’s nothing wrong with eating a nice bit of prosciutto on ciabatta whilst sipping a dry Chianti (without immediately washing hands if we know them to be clean for the purposes of hygene) — but that’s neither here nor there.

For Jesus is a freedom fighter, working to subvert Imperial designs – but an Empire that extends beyond Roman occupation – an Empire of materialism – an Empire of matter itself. An empire of soil that resists fertility.

The Christ is actually describing a fundamental disconnect between his materialist ummah and the Face of God. This disconnect is what he calls “hypocrisy”: because Christ is Love, his meaning is not cruel here. His observation is ontology: we are all Pharasees, thrown into a misprison of law. Thrown into an ummahdom of culture, of matter, of words, structure, context … and so journey. But of course for that context to lead to journey, there must be hypocrisy, there must be a disconnect.

There must be those who wash hands for God because they can’t feel Love. In order for the possibility that Love might then finally be reached.

Now, in accord with the Tailorite Prime Dogma, the Face of God is Ineffibible Love in such Overflow, that it breaks into (primordially conceived/fantasized) harmonic resonance of bestowal (the Father concept/Ar-Rahman) and withdrawal (Motherhood/the womb/Ar-Rahm). This primordial waveform then (by a process of family resemblance) generates the Child, humanity. First the Child is formed in its Adamic/Christlike form, in perfect resemblance to the Mother-Father waveform — but then (through a process called fitnah) that structure fragments down into its fallen, multiplicitous, current state (ironically, one that results in the conception/crystallization/fantasy of the cosmology we have just recited).

And so here you see the play (preempting my fictional Mahmoodean objection, by playing with Hellenism in reverse):

9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Qurban”—’ , 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Qurban is sacrifice, from the Hebrew root word for “ascension”: and ascension is precisely “honour”/human resonance to/with the Mother-Father waveform. The hypocrite here is abiding within the misprison of God’s own Word/Law (laws generated and spoken from family resemblance) but existing in a state of denial of this resonating/scattering/productive bestowal.

He receives the Word, but does not recite it back. He consumes the bread of the mother/father production into his mouth, but he does not recite in return that honour. But it is only in recitation that he will resonate harmoniously, literally (not chaotically, illiterately) with the Mother/Father waveform. The mother (receptive to the hidden father) has bestowed upon him through her absence. And the child has been receptive in turn. But to resonate, he must become generative, exhibit the characteristics of the Father in bestowal. (This resonance itself is recitation, necessarily a feminine function, though it resembles her Father.)

It is only in reciting outward, bestowing good, perfectly mirroring the bestowal that he was receptive to, that the child will truly embody the Christian practice, which is nothing more than the completion of the Judaic/Islamic Law, not the embodiment of a particular cultural practice but of the return of Christ Himself — nothing less than the Kingdom itself.

14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”

And what, then, is this entering of the man and this potential to recite, undefiled? What is this resonance of true Qurban that brings about the Return of Christ? It is what we herald as the Muhammedean Becoming. You’ll realise it’s happening, sooner or later.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s