I have been reading an incredibly interesting book by Mark-Robin Hoogland titled God, Passion and Power: Thomas Aquinas on Christ Crucified and the Almightiness of God. As the title implies, he explores the idea of divine power from the perspective of the cross (or through the event of the cross). In any case, he makes a helpful point about atonement theory that I wanted to take note of.
It is Anslem who suggests the satisfaction theory of atonement, and Aquinas who follows him to some extent (though he places less emphasis on satisfaction). Prior to Anselm, the dominant theological paradigm was one of casus diaboli. Hoogland describes it as thus: "Due to the sin of the first human beings the devil was entitled to keep the human race ensnared. Deliverance could only come to pass, if the devil would unjustly entrap someone, namely a person without sin. By laying violent hands on Christ - the devil was deceived, since Christ looked like any other, sinful, human being, but was not - the devil lost his previous right." (30) Origen, Augustine, and Gregory the Great all subscribed to this view. Anselm moves to the satisfaction theory perhaps because of his context, and "over the years there has been much critique on Anselm's satisfaction theory (or on the commentators' understanding of it), for instance that God looks here more like an 11th century prince concerned about his honour than like the God of Israel." (31)
I found this interesting in relation to an essay I just read by Paul Helm who tried to put Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and Calvin in the same major tradition (in an attempt to exclude others with whom he disagrees). He referred to this group as the "A team". Granted, the essay was on predestination, but atonement is closely related (especially if one is going to use Romans and Ephesians as the main texts of support). Here is an example of a major difference in what atonement means, thus leading to a difference in what it means to be predestined for salvation. Hoogland is writing as a Catholic, so he does not follow the topic through the reformation, but it seems clear that Calvin especially picked up on Anselm's theory of atonement.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Tomorrow's Child
Rubem Alves' Tomorrow's Child: Imagination, Creativity, and the Rebirth of Culture just arrived today (in excellent condition too). Some remarks that I wanted to make to myself concerning first impressions:
At first I found Alves' comparison of modern culture with dinosaurs unimaginative. The comparison is that contemporary culture and economy is concerned with nothing but growth while ignoring questions about whether the growth was in a positive, reasonable direction (e.g., weapons of mass destruction, harmful chemicals, and power for its own sake). Like the dinosaurs, the unreasonable centralization of power does not guarantee survival. I will say that this comparison began to grow on me, as the language of the dinosaurs automatically brings to mind extinction, obsolescence, and failure. Alves is able to build on the connection of a culture's desire to amass power and the fate of the dinosaur. The metaphor eventually functions as a convincing critique of the vision of progression and power at any cost (including the cost of self-sustainability). It is also worth noting that he critiques Marx and Engles for buying into this vision as much as capitalist thinkers saying that we "all worship the same God" of scientific rationalism. (9)
I do appreciate his ability to distinguish between reason and rationalization. Reason does have the capacity to liberate, but when it becomes the driving force in a culture it finds its own driving force - rationalization. Rationalization refuses to recognize itself as a value in its appeal to 'neutrality'. At this point it has become alienated from reason in that it is unable to critically reflect upon itself. Alves puts it well when he writes: "Rationalization, therefore, does not necessarily say anything about the values that are at its basis." (11) Rationalization, in its desire to sustain itself, actually cuts itself off from its source of life - reason. He writes:
At first I found Alves' comparison of modern culture with dinosaurs unimaginative. The comparison is that contemporary culture and economy is concerned with nothing but growth while ignoring questions about whether the growth was in a positive, reasonable direction (e.g., weapons of mass destruction, harmful chemicals, and power for its own sake). Like the dinosaurs, the unreasonable centralization of power does not guarantee survival. I will say that this comparison began to grow on me, as the language of the dinosaurs automatically brings to mind extinction, obsolescence, and failure. Alves is able to build on the connection of a culture's desire to amass power and the fate of the dinosaur. The metaphor eventually functions as a convincing critique of the vision of progression and power at any cost (including the cost of self-sustainability). It is also worth noting that he critiques Marx and Engles for buying into this vision as much as capitalist thinkers saying that we "all worship the same God" of scientific rationalism. (9)
I do appreciate his ability to distinguish between reason and rationalization. Reason does have the capacity to liberate, but when it becomes the driving force in a culture it finds its own driving force - rationalization. Rationalization refuses to recognize itself as a value in its appeal to 'neutrality'. At this point it has become alienated from reason in that it is unable to critically reflect upon itself. Alves puts it well when he writes: "Rationalization, therefore, does not necessarily say anything about the values that are at its basis." (11) Rationalization, in its desire to sustain itself, actually cuts itself off from its source of life - reason. He writes:
As a final remark, while Alves and Marcuse seem to be on the same page quite often, the absurd is not a good thing for Alves (it is for Marcuse, who especially likes hippos for their absurdity).Rationalization is not a technique for realizing the desires of our heart. It is not an instrument for making our values come true. It is not the fulfillment of Reason. The function of rationalization is the perpetuation of the systems of power-however irrational they may be-upon which our society is built. The end of every system is its own functioning. Though the realization of Reason is the confessed intention of our civilization, the fact is that the actual function of rationalization has no relation to it whatsoever. Rationalization is a function of systems of power. It is a means to make possible their perpetuation. Thus its only value is power, sheer power. (12)
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Freedom of God
Something that has become more clear in focusing on Barth's theology of freedom is that when one thinks of the freedom of God, they must focus on the freedom revealed in Christ. Even as I began to rethink human freedom as obedience and not autonomy, when thinking of God's freedom, I still projected autonomy as the absolute and perfect form of freedom. It was God's choice to create, it was God's choice to enter into the covenant with Israel. It seems blasphemous to say otherwise, but is it? What about Christ's life suggests autonomous choice? His unrelenting ministry to those who could never repay him (see Luke 14:12-14)? Often this servitude associated with Christ's humanity and not his divinity - we are to serve unquestioningly as Jesus did. But if Jesus reveals the "friendliness of God" to us, what is revealed to us about the freedom of God?
Jesus reveals that God's freedom is not that of pure autonomy, and it is only a human desire to attain the same that suggests such. God's freedom exists in community, and not only the community of the Trinity (the unfortunate suggestion of many otherwise helpful trinitarian theologies). God's freedom is tied to humanity through the covenantal relationship with us. God finds freedom in obedience to the covenant just as we find freedom in obedience to God. It is hard to wrap a western, liberal mind around freedom as something other than unrestricted choice, but once one sees beyond their own acculturation, the freedom of God demonstrated in Christ begins to make sense. True freedom is not the choice to reject the obligations that relationships entail. Rather, true freedom is found in nurturing relationships-saying 'yes' to the other (albeit in a multiplicity of ways). Christ reveals to us that God's freedom is found in maintaining and repairing the broken relationship with humanity. Our freedom is found in responding 'yes' to God's call. 'No' does not offer the freedom of choice. Instead, rejecting the call of the other results in slavery and bondage (i.e. the parable of the prodigal son).
There are more complexities to this conception of freedom that I will not articulate yet, but it is important to remember that the freedom of God is not pure autonomy - Christ shows us the opposite.
Jesus reveals that God's freedom is not that of pure autonomy, and it is only a human desire to attain the same that suggests such. God's freedom exists in community, and not only the community of the Trinity (the unfortunate suggestion of many otherwise helpful trinitarian theologies). God's freedom is tied to humanity through the covenantal relationship with us. God finds freedom in obedience to the covenant just as we find freedom in obedience to God. It is hard to wrap a western, liberal mind around freedom as something other than unrestricted choice, but once one sees beyond their own acculturation, the freedom of God demonstrated in Christ begins to make sense. True freedom is not the choice to reject the obligations that relationships entail. Rather, true freedom is found in nurturing relationships-saying 'yes' to the other (albeit in a multiplicity of ways). Christ reveals to us that God's freedom is found in maintaining and repairing the broken relationship with humanity. Our freedom is found in responding 'yes' to God's call. 'No' does not offer the freedom of choice. Instead, rejecting the call of the other results in slavery and bondage (i.e. the parable of the prodigal son).
There are more complexities to this conception of freedom that I will not articulate yet, but it is important to remember that the freedom of God is not pure autonomy - Christ shows us the opposite.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Leonardo Boff
It has been a long time since I have posted anything here, for most of my writing efforts are directed toward papers, but today I ran across a wonderful article by Leonardo Boff (one of my favorite theologians) and thought I would post it. It is an article that recognizes the dire consequences of ecological degradation, but does not leave us hopeless. Boff's articles can be found at his website www.leonardoboff.com in the "articles" link. The following is his article:
Elasticity and Ecological Drama
We are, without a doubt, already confronting global warming, which presents a grave danger for the future of the planet and of humanity. Not only are the ecological groups highly mobilized, but also great entrepreneurs, and the central and the peripheral States.
We live in urgent times, because it is not impossible that the Earth could suddenly enter a state of chaos. Unimaginable catastrophes could occur, that could affect the biosphere and decimate millions of human beings. But we do not consider this situation as a tragedy that could end in disaster, but as a crisis that reveals and sets aside that which is aggregate or accidental, and liberates a nucleus of values, visions and alternative practices that must serve as bases for a new essay in civilization. It depends on us to ensure that climatic disturbances are not transformed into tragedies but into crises of growth, towards a better level in the relationship of human beings and nature.
In this context it is worth considering the concept of elasticity [ resiliência in Portuguese], not much used among us, but one that appears more and more in thoughtful circles.
The term comes from metallurgy and medicine. In metallurgy, it is the quality that metals have to regain their original state without deformity, after enduring heavy pressure. In medicine, in osteology, it is the capacity of the bones to regrow correctly after suffering a serious fracture. From these fields, the concept spread to other areas such as education, psychology, pedagogy, ecology, business management ... in short, to all living phenomena that imply fluctuations, adaptations, crises, and the overcoming of failures or stress.
Elasticity implies two components: resistance to adversity - the capacity to stay whole when subjected to great demands and pressures, and the capacity to face difficulties, learn from defeat and creatively rebuild, transforming the negative aspects into new opportunities and advantages. In a word, all complex adaptive systems, at any level, are elastic systems. This is the same for every human being, and the whole system of the earth.
The risks that accompany global warming, with the scarcity of drinking water, the extinction of the biodiversity and the crucifixion of this Earth that has a Third World face and hangs from the cross of suffering, must be seen not so much as failures, but as challenges that invite substantial changes that will enrich our life in our unique Common Home. The worst approach is to resign and do nothing, because that implies renouncing elasticity, and creative solutions.
Students of elasticity tell us that to be positively elastic we need above all to cultivate the affective link, in our case, with the Earth: to care for her with understanding, compassion and love; to ease her pain through rational and moderate use of her resources, renouncing all violence against her ecosystems. The North must stage a sustainable retreat of her consumerist thirst, so that the South may have sustainable development, in harmony with the community of life. It is important to stimulate optimism, because life has passed through countless forms of devastation and it has always been elastic and has grown in biodiversity. It is determinative that we project a utopic horizon that gives meaning to our alternatives, that will configure the new that will save us all. In this unhealthy environment it is important to maintain health; such that Gaia will also be healthy and benevolent with us all.
Elasticity and Ecological Drama
We are, without a doubt, already confronting global warming, which presents a grave danger for the future of the planet and of humanity. Not only are the ecological groups highly mobilized, but also great entrepreneurs, and the central and the peripheral States.
We live in urgent times, because it is not impossible that the Earth could suddenly enter a state of chaos. Unimaginable catastrophes could occur, that could affect the biosphere and decimate millions of human beings. But we do not consider this situation as a tragedy that could end in disaster, but as a crisis that reveals and sets aside that which is aggregate or accidental, and liberates a nucleus of values, visions and alternative practices that must serve as bases for a new essay in civilization. It depends on us to ensure that climatic disturbances are not transformed into tragedies but into crises of growth, towards a better level in the relationship of human beings and nature.
In this context it is worth considering the concept of elasticity [ resiliência in Portuguese], not much used among us, but one that appears more and more in thoughtful circles.
The term comes from metallurgy and medicine. In metallurgy, it is the quality that metals have to regain their original state without deformity, after enduring heavy pressure. In medicine, in osteology, it is the capacity of the bones to regrow correctly after suffering a serious fracture. From these fields, the concept spread to other areas such as education, psychology, pedagogy, ecology, business management ... in short, to all living phenomena that imply fluctuations, adaptations, crises, and the overcoming of failures or stress.
Elasticity implies two components: resistance to adversity - the capacity to stay whole when subjected to great demands and pressures, and the capacity to face difficulties, learn from defeat and creatively rebuild, transforming the negative aspects into new opportunities and advantages. In a word, all complex adaptive systems, at any level, are elastic systems. This is the same for every human being, and the whole system of the earth.
The risks that accompany global warming, with the scarcity of drinking water, the extinction of the biodiversity and the crucifixion of this Earth that has a Third World face and hangs from the cross of suffering, must be seen not so much as failures, but as challenges that invite substantial changes that will enrich our life in our unique Common Home. The worst approach is to resign and do nothing, because that implies renouncing elasticity, and creative solutions.
Students of elasticity tell us that to be positively elastic we need above all to cultivate the affective link, in our case, with the Earth: to care for her with understanding, compassion and love; to ease her pain through rational and moderate use of her resources, renouncing all violence against her ecosystems. The North must stage a sustainable retreat of her consumerist thirst, so that the South may have sustainable development, in harmony with the community of life. It is important to stimulate optimism, because life has passed through countless forms of devastation and it has always been elastic and has grown in biodiversity. It is determinative that we project a utopic horizon that gives meaning to our alternatives, that will configure the new that will save us all. In this unhealthy environment it is important to maintain health; such that Gaia will also be healthy and benevolent with us all.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Critical Theory CAN be Exciting!
While critical theory may not have initially excited my intellect, after a semester and research on a particular critical theorist (who is aware that he has moved forward in a way that other critical theorists may not), I have really appreciated the class I took and become a bit more excited about their project.
While this may not be an example of critical theory par excellence, I will include a small snippet of Herbert Marcuse's An Essay on Liberation:
"This society is obscene in producing and indecently exposing a stifling abundance of wares while depriving its victims abroad of the necessities of life; obscene in stuffing itself and its garbage cans while poisoning and burning the scarce foodstuffs in the fields of its aggression; obscene in the words and smiles of its politicians and entertainers; in its prayers, in its ignorance, and in the wisdom of its kept intellectuals.
"Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the Establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. Obscene is not the picture of a naked woman who exposes her pubic hair but that of a fully clad general who exposes his medals rewarded in a war of aggression; obscene is not the ritual of the Hippies but the declaration of a high dignitary of the Church that war is necessary for peace."
While I do not fully agree with Marcuse's ideas of revolt, I find his scathing critique of consumeristic culture intellectually enlivening, and it reminds me why I wanted to study philosophy.
While this may not be an example of critical theory par excellence, I will include a small snippet of Herbert Marcuse's An Essay on Liberation:
"This society is obscene in producing and indecently exposing a stifling abundance of wares while depriving its victims abroad of the necessities of life; obscene in stuffing itself and its garbage cans while poisoning and burning the scarce foodstuffs in the fields of its aggression; obscene in the words and smiles of its politicians and entertainers; in its prayers, in its ignorance, and in the wisdom of its kept intellectuals.
"Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the Establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. Obscene is not the picture of a naked woman who exposes her pubic hair but that of a fully clad general who exposes his medals rewarded in a war of aggression; obscene is not the ritual of the Hippies but the declaration of a high dignitary of the Church that war is necessary for peace."
While I do not fully agree with Marcuse's ideas of revolt, I find his scathing critique of consumeristic culture intellectually enlivening, and it reminds me why I wanted to study philosophy.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Being/Named
I write this in response to Catherine Keller’s 12th chapter in Face of the Deep:
While I certainly understand the problems with ontotheology, I am left wondering what we do with the name of God. There is certainly something to the unpronounceable name of YHWH, but this did not prevent the Hebrew people from giving the "nameless" God a superfluity of names. Some of these names were less helpful than others, and it is important that the naming of YHWH was dynamic, but in the context of a certain time and situation the naming of the un-nameable was essential and unavoidable.
Keller pushes my boundaries by naming God in ways that I am less than comfortable with, but claims to do so in the apophatic tradition. I want to agree with her, but are there times where finding a firm name for God (for the time-being) is important? Are there also ways in which God ought not be named (for instance, naming God as a warrior-king certainly contributed to genocide)?
I am particularly responding to a small excerpt that Keller includes from Nicholas of Cusa:
Pagan: What are you worshiping?
Christian: God.
Pagan: Who is the God you worship?
Christian: I do not know.
Pagan: How can you so earnestly worship that which you do not know?
Christian: It is because I do not know that I worship.
While certainly an excellent example of apophatic theology, I wonder how it is possible to worship earnestly that who is not known? Do we not always know God at a certain time in a certain way? Does not God at times break in and refuse to allow us to pronounce a particular name? At the same time, does not God at times reveal a name (for example: Jesu) that meets us at our needs?
Particularly in response to Keller’s theology, is it ever helpful to name God as chaos? I have yet to see how it is, yet I am willing to listen with an open mind. I agree that God can not always be named, and that God cannot always be named in a certain way, but does relationship not require a naming of the other, even if it is temporary? Is it possible to name without exerting dominance over that which is being named?
While I certainly understand the problems with ontotheology, I am left wondering what we do with the name of God. There is certainly something to the unpronounceable name of YHWH, but this did not prevent the Hebrew people from giving the "nameless" God a superfluity of names. Some of these names were less helpful than others, and it is important that the naming of YHWH was dynamic, but in the context of a certain time and situation the naming of the un-nameable was essential and unavoidable.
Keller pushes my boundaries by naming God in ways that I am less than comfortable with, but claims to do so in the apophatic tradition. I want to agree with her, but are there times where finding a firm name for God (for the time-being) is important? Are there also ways in which God ought not be named (for instance, naming God as a warrior-king certainly contributed to genocide)?
I am particularly responding to a small excerpt that Keller includes from Nicholas of Cusa:
Pagan: What are you worshiping?
Christian: God.
Pagan: Who is the God you worship?
Christian: I do not know.
Pagan: How can you so earnestly worship that which you do not know?
Christian: It is because I do not know that I worship.
While certainly an excellent example of apophatic theology, I wonder how it is possible to worship earnestly that who is not known? Do we not always know God at a certain time in a certain way? Does not God at times break in and refuse to allow us to pronounce a particular name? At the same time, does not God at times reveal a name (for example: Jesu) that meets us at our needs?
Particularly in response to Keller’s theology, is it ever helpful to name God as chaos? I have yet to see how it is, yet I am willing to listen with an open mind. I agree that God can not always be named, and that God cannot always be named in a certain way, but does relationship not require a naming of the other, even if it is temporary? Is it possible to name without exerting dominance over that which is being named?
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Embodying Christ
Exactly a week from today I went to see a person speak who has had an important impact on my life. James Loney spoke at the University of Toronto's peace week, and I had the privilege of going to hear him. I was surprised at how much he talked about his time in captivity, he was very open and honest, even when it appeared to be painfully so.
I thought I had made a post about Loney's situation previously, but I guess I never actually published it. So here's the background: Loney was one of four Christian Peacemakers who was taken hostage in Iraq. The events that occurred with Loney and the others caused me to deeply question what it meant to be a Christian and whether I could lay down my own life and comfort in the name of Christ.
In "traditional" evangelicalism, I had been forced to think through such a scenario before. Many books (such as the Left Behind series) forced me to ask if I could give up my life for my beliefs. What always bothered me was that my answer was always no. How could I give up my life for a belief when that is all it was? My beliefs did not direct me to take positive action. If anything, they only gave me negative directives (abstain from all "worldly" things - except capitalism). The only real positive direction my belief gave me was to go out and try to rationally convince people that what I believed was right. I never felt comfortable doing that either.
As I developed, and particularly as I began reading liberation theology, I began to experience a fundamental shift in my beliefs. My faith in Christ no longer had to do with negative moral imperatives. Rather, I found that I was commanded to care for the poor and the oppressed (about 2,000 times - though quantitative arguments in and of themselves are not of much value). Around the same time, four men were kidnapped while trying to answer this call themselves. The Christian Peacemakers work out of the assumption that if men and women are willing to give their lives for their beliefs (both for nation and religion) in war that they would also be willing to give their lives for peace.
Their actions again caused me to ask myself if I was willing to give my life for my beliefs, but this time for beliefs that made a difference to my neighbor. (Not just particularly my neighbor, but my neighbor who is suffering). Unfortunately, I am still unsure that I can answer that question as they did. I hope that I would be able, but I find myself giving the excuse that I am in grad school. Of course, I constantly question whether or not I ought to be in grad school, taking advantage of my privileged status in the world, but I do truly believe that in teaching I will be able to make a significant difference. While I tell myself this, it still feels empty when so many are starving as a result of my desire for cheap sugar, clothes, etc.
This post was supposed to report on what Loney said, but apparently the impact of his actions were more severe than his words the other night. I will say that I was able to shake his hand at the end of the lecture (or confession) and attempt to express what his work has meant to me. I get incredibly nervous around people (particularly people I respect), so it was all I could do to go to the front and talk to him (suddenly I am reminded of the alter calls of my youth). However, I did make it and waited for what felt like forever behind a woman who had just given him a gift (I believe it was a pin. It was strange, many people seemed to have gifts for him in the form of t-shirts and the like). I told him that the events he was involved in had a great impact on my life, thanked him for sharing them, and finished by telling him that I believed he was embodying Christ. I wish I could have said more, but there was a line, I was nervous, and I did not want to monopolize his time. However, I am glad that I could say what was most important. I do believe that he is embodying Christ, perhaps more than anything else I believe right now.
I thought I had made a post about Loney's situation previously, but I guess I never actually published it. So here's the background: Loney was one of four Christian Peacemakers who was taken hostage in Iraq. The events that occurred with Loney and the others caused me to deeply question what it meant to be a Christian and whether I could lay down my own life and comfort in the name of Christ.
In "traditional" evangelicalism, I had been forced to think through such a scenario before. Many books (such as the Left Behind series) forced me to ask if I could give up my life for my beliefs. What always bothered me was that my answer was always no. How could I give up my life for a belief when that is all it was? My beliefs did not direct me to take positive action. If anything, they only gave me negative directives (abstain from all "worldly" things - except capitalism). The only real positive direction my belief gave me was to go out and try to rationally convince people that what I believed was right. I never felt comfortable doing that either.
As I developed, and particularly as I began reading liberation theology, I began to experience a fundamental shift in my beliefs. My faith in Christ no longer had to do with negative moral imperatives. Rather, I found that I was commanded to care for the poor and the oppressed (about 2,000 times - though quantitative arguments in and of themselves are not of much value). Around the same time, four men were kidnapped while trying to answer this call themselves. The Christian Peacemakers work out of the assumption that if men and women are willing to give their lives for their beliefs (both for nation and religion) in war that they would also be willing to give their lives for peace.
Their actions again caused me to ask myself if I was willing to give my life for my beliefs, but this time for beliefs that made a difference to my neighbor. (Not just particularly my neighbor, but my neighbor who is suffering). Unfortunately, I am still unsure that I can answer that question as they did. I hope that I would be able, but I find myself giving the excuse that I am in grad school. Of course, I constantly question whether or not I ought to be in grad school, taking advantage of my privileged status in the world, but I do truly believe that in teaching I will be able to make a significant difference. While I tell myself this, it still feels empty when so many are starving as a result of my desire for cheap sugar, clothes, etc.
This post was supposed to report on what Loney said, but apparently the impact of his actions were more severe than his words the other night. I will say that I was able to shake his hand at the end of the lecture (or confession) and attempt to express what his work has meant to me. I get incredibly nervous around people (particularly people I respect), so it was all I could do to go to the front and talk to him (suddenly I am reminded of the alter calls of my youth). However, I did make it and waited for what felt like forever behind a woman who had just given him a gift (I believe it was a pin. It was strange, many people seemed to have gifts for him in the form of t-shirts and the like). I told him that the events he was involved in had a great impact on my life, thanked him for sharing them, and finished by telling him that I believed he was embodying Christ. I wish I could have said more, but there was a line, I was nervous, and I did not want to monopolize his time. However, I am glad that I could say what was most important. I do believe that he is embodying Christ, perhaps more than anything else I believe right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)