THIERRY DE DUVEslim volume devoted to St. Paul—slim in size but big in terms of complex challenges—
Alain Badiou minimizes faith in incarnation and maximizes faith in resurrection. ‘‘Paul’s
thought dissolves incarnation in resurrection,’’ he says.^9 Badiou does not believe in the fable
of the resurrection any more than I do, so he does not dwell on the fabulous character of
this particular event. Any event can take its place provided it grounds the uniqueness of
the subject declaring it: ‘‘To declare an event is to become the son of that event.’’^10 For
Badiou, the political meaning of the resurrection of Christ proceeds by way of human-
kind’s becoming the son—humankind transfixed by an event, like Paul on the road to
Damascus. Revolutions, including the French one, may be such events. This becoming-
the-son proceeds in turn by way of the deposition of the Father. Because, for Badiou, the
event and its declaration alone ‘‘filialize,’’ he is prompted to deny that Christian human-
kind has been ‘‘filialized’’ by the mediation of Christ’s sacrifice. He thus acts as if Christ’s
death did not count in his resurrection, and as if the ignominy of his death did not call
the Father into question. For Badiou when he reads St. Paul, the deposition of the Father
results from the spiriting away of mediation. This is a forceful reading, but it is not the
only one possible, even if ‘‘With Paul, we notice a complete absence of the theme of
mediation.’’^11
Badiou clearly breaks with the doctrine of incarnation. His theme is not the exit from
the religious—he reckons he is already free of that. Because my theme, which is more
cautious, is to display the postreligious virtualities of the doctrine of incarnation, I am
trying to make the break from within this doctrine. Like Badiou, however, I deem it
necessary to disregard the concept of mediation—it is here, fairly and squarely, that the
break will be made—but what interests me is whether incarnation itself can be conceived
in nonmediatory terms. The emphasis put on Joseph’s act of faith is a first step in this
direction. As a nonreligious launchpad for the doctrine of incarnation, it shifts the ques-
tion of the advent of the Son of God in the carnal, mortal world from maternity to
paternity. We move from the mediation accomplished by the maternal womb, when it is
touched by the received Word and responds by engendering, to the public declaration of
the name of the Son / name of the Father, whereby the symbolic order records an ad-
dressed act of faith. But Christ’s death issues from his birth, and I have the same reserva-
tions as Badiou when faced with the obligation to proceed by way of the mediation of
Christ’s Passion, sacrifice, and humiliation to justify the resurrection. My reasons are the
same as his: the event does not have to be mediatory. It is clear that by refusing to
minimize incarnation, I am forcing myself to conceive of not only Christ’s birth but also
his death in terms other than those of mediation. The fact is that sacrifice is a rather
cumbersome and pathetic mediation in the dynamics of redemption. What purpose does
it serve?
The real scandal is that God consented to the sacrifice of his Son. This was a pro-
foundly ambiguous gesture. Granted that Christ’s ignominious death on the cross is a
structural consequence of the New Testament repetition of Isaac’s sacrifice, this merely
PAGE 664664.................16224$ CH33 10-13-06 12:37:35 PS