‚....Let Everyone Be Convinced in His/Her Own Mind’

Jacques Derrida and the Deconstruction of Paulinism

With his critique of Western philosophical logocentrism Derrida challenges traditional rationalism and with it an entire tradition of thinking and interpretation. Biblical interpretation and Pauline studies in particular, are part of that tradition. Traditional Pauline scholarship, especially in liberal Protestantism depicted an image of Paul as the paradigmatic pure theological thinker. In Romans he elevated his theological thinking from the contingencies of everyday life and its struggles to the heights of pure universal theology. The Paul of Paulinism has liberated the universal spirit of Christianity to its full potential.(Baur, Bornkamm). Nevertheless there is an ongoing debate about the problem of contradictions and incoherence in Romans, especially when it comes to the issue of the relation of Jews and Gentiles. One aspect of this debate revolves around the question of the Hellenization of Paul’s thinking and argumentation (Engberg-Pedersen ) and with it the question of Christian identity. The Paul of Paulinism is committed to trying to overcome difference and diversity in order to make all ‘One in Christ’. Thus Romans is depicted as demonstrating how the universal religion of Christianity developed out of the particularistic roots of Judaism (with an excursus on the residual problem of Jewish failure to recognize the Christ).

The Paul of Paulinism and this interpretation of Romans have been challenged by a number of scholars over the last thirty years or more. These did not succeed in changing significantly mainstream scholarship since their challenge implied a reformulating of the image of Paul and of Christian identity similar to the challenge of Derrida’s approach to traditional philosophies. Scholars such as W.D.Davies, E.P.Sanders, J.Munck, K.Stendahl, W.S. Campbell, J.C. Beker, the SBL Pauline Theology group, P.Tomson, L Schottroff and the series on ‘Romans through History and Cultures’ edited by C. Grenholm and D.Patte, from a variety of perspectives have been developing a fresh understanding of Paul. This Paul is consistent within his own way of thinking and argues contextually in relation to the issues of the Christ-believing communities in the Roman empire, but differs radically from the conceptualised logic of Western rationality. Scholars such as Peter Ochs and Stanley Hauerwas have called for new paradigms of reason, a thinking and rationality that are more responsive than originative, indeed for a scriptural reasoning.

Derrida’s challenge of logocentrism and his ‘deconstructing’ approach of ‘fragmented thinking’ might provide a supporting tool to further develop such new understandings of Paul and his letter to the Romans. Derrida’s philosophical approach opposes any kind of closed system of thought however universal it may claim to be. Derrida regards diversity, even contradiction to be constituents of human discourse. Paul, however, has frequently been depicted in a manner that seems to make him an agent of Hellenism in its desire for universal oneness. Paul, therefore, regarded from this perspective, is necessarily depicted as the enemy of diversity. This has serious consequences for his theology in relation to minorities, such as Jews or women. But the application of Derrida’s insights means that we need no longer view contingency and diversity as a problem in Romans but as an intrinsic element in Paul’s theologising e.g. Romans 11 ends with a note of prophetic openness, leaving the future open to God and thus offering hope for oppressed and marginalized minorities.

Kathy Ehrensperger, University of Wales, Lampeter