For the moment it is worth noting that it is precisely in the context of this juxtaposition of Paul and Althusser that Breton’s central reflections on the kenotic, emptying, or hollowing “call” that is a Pauline proclamation of a crucified messiah become significant as a mode of subverting the otherwise always already effective link between power and facticity. In Breton’s philosophical appropriation of Paul is the scandalously unsettling, even “stupid” (cf. mōria in 1 Corinthians 1) identification with the crucified messiah that names a potential detachment, unhinging, or bracketing of the “special kind of obviousness” by which our world, or any world, solicits our participation, incites affirmation, thereby becoming what it is. 26 FOUNDING RUPTURE: PAULINISM AND VOID-TALK 27 When I spoke above about Breton’s distance from the (academic) authorities on Paulinism and the Pauline legacies, I was not merely making evaluative claims. On the contrary, such an authorial stance was Breton’s effort not to play the docile philosophical transmitter of the