REVIEW OF “THEOLOGY & ETHICS”
Theology begins with an encounter with the Risen Christ, by
which we find that this encounter is foundational for our understanding of God
and an indispensable guide for how we are to live in the world. This is Christology, which is the effort to talk
about this encounter and try to make sense of it. Hence, theology is an attempt
to speak truthfully and faithfully about a subject that eludes all attempts to
make sense of it.
The first task of theology after Christology is the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity grows out
of the experience of God as Father,
Word, and Spirit in the life of the early church. The doctrine of the Trinity
seeks to preserve the one-ness of God while doing justice to the profound
impact of Jesus. The Nicene Creed seeks to preserve this “balance” against the
various tendencies (labelled as
“heresies”) emphasizing one at the expense of the other. Arianism was a [“subordinationist” heresy] that made Christ a kind
of semi-divine being, of “similar” (homoi)
being with the Father, as opposed to Athanasius, whose definition of “one
being” (homo ousious) with the Father
became the enduring standard for Christian belief. “Modalism” was an older
heresy that suggested a fourth “divine substance” somehow inhering in the three
persons of an “economic Trinity”, each with their own specialized divine
activity.
Christian ethics are not just another set of divinely
ordained rules. If human beings are created “in the image of God” then right
behavior is a matter of discerning the image of Christ in the world and seeking
to “align oneself with it.” If God is understood in a “Trinitarian” way, then what would it mean for us to think of this world as
bearing the imprint of a God who wishes for our lives and relationships, indeed
for the whole nexus of creation to
mirror that eternal reciprocating giving and receiving?
“Classical” ethics, derived from Plato and Aristotle and “Christianized”
by Augustine and Aquinas, saw moral formation as involving 3 steps:
1)
Human beings as they find themselves.
2)
Formation in character and community
3)
The [telos]
or ultimate goal of fulfilled human happiness
The middle ages corrupted this process by replacing it with
the idea of accumulating merit as
administered by the institutional church. Luther rejected this but in doing so
abandoned formation and replaced it
with his idea of “faith”. In contemporary post-modernist ethics, there is no telos but only the attempt to achieve power, resulting in an ethical chaos
wherein every moral issue is considered a “matter of personal opinion”. Hence there is “a need to reclaim the
classical scheme” with an approach to morality that “makes sense and becomes
persuasive because it is linked to fullness… and flourishing.”
Creation “mirrors
God’s own internal relationality.” Creation is already a “word” spoken by God,
hence there is a divine “wisdom” embedded in the world, which gives rise to the
concept of [Natural Law], not a
“stagnant ordering of things” but “the background structure of creation,” a
kind of “deep logic” derived from the incarnate logos.
Theological
Anthropology regards the human body as a blessing rather than a curse.
Creation might be said to be the “slowing down” of divine conversation within
the Trinity so as to permit our participation in it. By the same token, the
Incarnation might be said to constitute “The Trinity in Slo-Mo.”
Sin is a [rejection
of our vocation to be “human in a God-like way],” and to become “gods” ourselves. The human
vocation is to undergo [theosis], (one-ness
with God) as in 2 Peter 1:3-7, and to achieve the “full stature of Christ,”
i.e. spiritual maturity.
Election refers to
God’s “strategy” of forming a partnership with Israel. Israelite ethics sought
to imitate God by placing limits on
power and wealth; observing a Sabbath rest for both people and the earth;
welcoming strangers whose experience of alienation Israel had shared; and
channeling God’s blessing to all the peoples of the earth. “Election” is not a
privileged status from which to exclude others, but is [a vocation to extend
the blessing of God to all].
Sin is either a
fight against limits or against our divine calling. Adam and Eve represent all
human efforts to “deny limits and seize control.”
In classical theology, [evil] is a parasitical nothingness
that derives its shadow-existence from good. Original Sin derives from creation, not from God, and renders all
humans complicit with evil and incapable of extricating themselves by their own
efforts. There are degrees of moral complicity…the greater one’s [knowledge and proximity] to evil, the
greater the complicity. Deliberate
ignorance is not an excuse, and debilitating guilt leads to ineffectual
despair.
By the prevailing definition, “freedom” consists of the
“maximization of personal choices.” In contrast divine freedom is the “[freedom
to become who you truly are.]” Liberation
from the bondage of sin occurs on two levels: [personal and systemic.]
Personal liberation involves discipline and asceticism, “cooperation with grace
as it perfects and thus frees our nature.” Systemic Liberation involves
“challenging and transforming social and political structures,” exercising a
“preferential option for the poor.”
The gospel is a subversive parable that destabilizes the
dominating powers of this world. It renounces the competitive “city of Cain”
and calls us to “become pilgrims, making our way together through a world that
isn’t home, but can be ordered justly while we’re here.”
“God’s virtuous gift” is the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon the
church by Christ after the resurrection. The Spirit’s work causes the church to
become Christ in the world. [Grace] works to perfect nature, not destroy it. Virtue
is the equivalent of what St. Paul means by [character]. Virtue [precedes activity and is related to excellence]. [Virtues] are infused by grace but also acquired by habit. There is no necessary dichotomy between [“faith” and “works”].
The Greek term in Romans 5:1 is pistis which
implies “faithfulness” in act as well as belief. Classically, the “Cardinal
Virtues” are wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage, but [love] is the form
and basis for all other virtues.
[Atonement] refers to the ministry of reconciliation exercised by Christ and continued
through us. “Not something that happens to
us, but in us and through us.” We can’t make it happen, but it requires our
participation. The reconciliation of the world has already occurred…it is our calling
to “activate” it in our circumstances. There is no one “orthodox” theory of
“atonement”. All the theories have their weaknesses, but the [ “Satisfaction”
theory,] by which Christ’s death satisfies God’s need for justice re the sins
of mankind, draws the most criticism from Feminist and other contemporary
theologians. The death of Christ demonstrates God’s solidarity with the human
condition, and invites us to share in Christ’s “sin-breaking work.”
Jesus’ teaching re love of neighbor is not pious idealism,
and (contrary to Reinhold Niebuhr) we do not have to choose between [love and
justice]. Papal encyclicals, Martin Luther King, and others have put forth a
more activist vision of justice motivated by love, affirming the basic goodness
of creation and a quest for “[the common good]” in the secular realm. Love is not an “additive”, but permeates all
other virtues. Christian love is Trinitarian- mutually gifting and empowering.
The classical idea of “Justice” is “giving to each their due” gets distorted by
[differences of power and status, i.e. men/women, rich/poor, owners/labor,]
etc. Christian versions of economic and criminal justice are to be guided by
the common good and restorative
justice.
[Ecclesiology] has
to do with the church as an “ark”, a container
for the community to live out its vocation. Like Christ, it is “one”, yet
both a divine gift and a messy human reality. It is “holy”, having all the
attributes of a human institution yet radically and distinctly [different]. It is “[catholic]”, exhibiting
whole-ness and universality, while existing locally in diverse forms . It
is apostolic, maintaining a tangible
connection to the apostolic church, making divine salvation accessible to all.
Divine and human elements co-inhere with one another in the life of the church,
just as they do in Christ.
God’s “strategy” for reconciling creation is to “create a
new community, a new politics.” These might be considered “[metapolitics]”
because they transcend any particular political order. Politics= “the practices
of ordering the life of a people so that certain goods can be pursued and
shared in common.” St. [Augustine described two kinds of politics]: the Earthly
City (based on the love of power) and the City of God (based on love of God and
neighbor). The church is “the City of God on pilgrimage.” Historically the church has approached
politics as 1) theocracy, “using the
coercive power of government to further ecclesial ends.”; 2) civil religion , where the church
collaborates with the state in a semi-official way, and 3) political theology which “[analyzes and critiques politics and
power]” from a gospel perspective, and “imagines and incarnates the church as
an embodiment of divine politics.
” Modern “liberalism” places [freedom to pursue self-interest
above any notion of the common good and relies, to varying degrees, on market
forces to regulate economic life]. The church is called to function as a
“counter-culture” where peace, reconciliation, healing, and love of neighbor are
employed as correctives to market driven
forces. The church may “partner with secular politics for the common good.”
The idea of “race” is a product of modern sciences’ need for
classification, and its use by those in power for profit and control. “The
church can be an intentional community of difference, because [differences] ”are
meant to be conduits of blessing” and grace is frustrated by same-ness.
Sacraments are a
way to “[perform the incarnation]”, “calling a reality into existence” as
opposed to “constative” language that describes facts. Sacraments provide access to God’s grace in a manner
accessible to human beings. In a manner of speaking, God “risks” inviting us to
“perform the truth of the gospel”, just as God “risks” involvement with Israel,
with Mary of Nazareth, and in the incarnation.
The sacraments reveal how God works through material things.
Sex can signify God’s actions and function in a sacramental way. [Traditional
sexual morality] has focused almost entirely on keeping the rules, i.e. “no sex
before marriage”, which has served to divert attention from “an enormous number
of ‘sanctioned unions’ [that] are a framework of violence and human
destructiveness.” To counter this, the “liberal view” discounts the importance
of imbalances of power and other factors and emphasizes “[mutual consent.]” A
third approach would be to regard sexuality as
a means of grace (sacramentally). “The grace of the body requires [time,
fidelity, promise, and marriage.]” Casual sex invites abuse, self-deception,
and meaninglessness. “Even outside of lifelong promises, the sacramental view
of sex opens the possibility of partial fulfillments of the body’s grace.” When
there is “[asymmetrical” power] in a relationship it may be said to be
“perverse”, even within the bonds of heterosexual marriage. “[Traditional
Goods” of marriage] are: unitive (companionship/mutual
joy), sacramental (reflect God’s covenantal relationship with Israel and
the church), and procreative (children,
other creative activity for the enhancement of creation). Welcoming children
“mirrors the generative love of the Trinity that births creation.” [Same-sex
unions] can meet all the “traditional goods” of marriage, and the church often
modifies traditional teachings in the light of new knowledge (i.e. homosexuality
is “natural” for some people, just like eye color). Does the new teaching
adhere to the “deep logic” of creation (ie Natural law)?
“Medicine is technology that helps us overcome limits.” The [“normative
center”] for the church is to “welcome new life as a gift.” Abortion, which
occurs naturally when conditions are not right for a birth, can be an
acceptable moral choice for a woman, but becomes a problem when there is a loss
of the “normative center” and human life regarded casually. Similarly, euthanasia
may be an appropriate moral choice, but not when employed as a way for the
strong to conveniently dispose of the weak.
Attention to “the common good” would require that some
individuals sacrifice expensive “exotic” health care so that others have basic
coverage.
A “sacramental view” of the body can be seen as an
alternative to inflexible moral laws that do not leave room for advances in
medical technology and provide a cover for the domination of elites over the
less powerful.
Eschatolgy has to
do with the end and goal of all things, “our fragmentary human talk (i.e. ‘last
judgment’ etc) about last or fulfillment-making things…showing forth into the
world of these things already in Christ.
The world, and our own individual lives, are already in eternity with God, just
as the humanity of Christ occupies a place in this changing world while at the
same time sharing in the eternal life of the Trinity. “Eternal life” for human
beings derives from our connection to Christ, and is a gift of God by which our
humanity is sustained but with any pretense at having an existence apart from
total dependence upon God removed.
There are not “two Christs”, one non-violent and living and
dying under Pontius Pilate and the other descending from heaven with an army of
angels to finally end creation and compel obedience to God. All that Christ
does in Judgment is confirm God’s original judgment concerning creation: “It is
good.” “Hell” is the rejection of the good, and “returning to non-existence.”
The Book of Revelation is not about “redemptive violence,” but about the
victory of the non-violent “lamb that was slain.”
“Just War Theory” developed after Christianity became
dominant in the Roman Empire to provide criteria by which Christians could justly
engage in warfare as a last resort. In
today’s world, where war of total annihilation seems quite possible, and small,
“preventive” wars meet few of the criteria for “justice”, the non-violence
advocated by Jesus seems less idealistic and more like a necessity for the
survival of human life.
