[Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed how the word ‘religion’ veils its history.

Smith wanted get rid of the word ‘religion’ in order to bury its history.

Why?

The diverse flows of the Progressive movement had secured sovereign power. They had become (infra)sovereign religions. Since each party within the movement defined itself as ‘not religious’, despite its cult status, the term ‘religion’ became a liability.

Smith’s book is a testimony. The Progressives established their sovereign religion in the 1960s. This marks the time when the Federal Government of America became a sovereign religion.]

[The Meaning and End of ‘Religion’ is postmodern.

Postmodernism is founded on Ferdinand de Saussure’s scientific discovery that language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences (or symbolic orders).]

[Schoonenberg’s off-hand remark also places Schoonenberg as author into a historical context. His translated book, Man and Sin: A Theological View, was published by University of Notre Dame Press in 1965.

Writing in the 1960’s, Schoonenberg stood on the brink of postmodernism.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s book, The Meaning and End of ‘Religion’, was published by Macmillan Press in 1962. Smith’s book detailed how the word ‘religion’ changed meaning over the past several centuries. Smith’s book described the historic alteration of one element of a symbolic order (a system of differences). His work implies that the entire system of differences changes.]

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[With the concept of the historic twisting of the language in mind, I can appreciate Paul’s list of spiritual sins as ‘sins of the flesh and bones’.

In other words, Paul’s list is not as some quaint mis-designation, where ‘sins of the bones’ are misidentified as ‘sins of the flesh’. It is a flash of intuitive brilliance.

Paul compressed the Old Testament image of ‘flesh versus bones’, as corrupted by the (infra)sovereign religions of the ruling elites of Israel, into a contrast between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’.

St. Paul struggled for expression in a language completely corrupted by the power-serving propaganda of (infra)sovereign religions.]

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[Allow me to summarize:

The Old Testament metaphor of ‘flesh and bones’ (designating the essential person) was usurped (from the suprasovereign perspective) and tailored to fit an (infra)sovereign point of view.

The terms went from popular usage to propaganda.

This precisely follows Schoonenberg’s scenario of refusal and usurpation.

A change of the language, the symbolic order of society, became inevitable.

Schoonenberg did not have the analytical tools to explain why Paul opposed the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’ (and not ‘flesh and bones’ against the ‘spirit’). He only noted that the Old Testament opposition applies to one situation and the New Testament opposition applies to another.

In addition, he limited his discussion to warning that the term ‘spirit’ does not simply replace the term ‘bones’.]