Bene, C.S.
Adriaanse and the problem of modern theology – An answer
The working thesis of this study is that theology fundamentally is talk about God and more specifically talk about the identity of God. We have submitted our thesis to the test in light of the religious scientific critique of theology. It was meant to compare theology to the scientific demands for an academic discipline. H.J. Adriaanse‘s work was the guideline for discussing the matters related to the test. He argues that, considering the scientific developments of the last two centuries, theology defined as talk about God, is impossible. The reason is that God, as such, is a metaphysical matter and thus not open for public inquiry. One can only talk about God‘ as a concept, which is intrinsically related to human religious consciousness and the human ability to project a higher being. His conclusion is: theology considered from a scientific perspective, is a non-academic discipline. Therefore Adriaanse calls for the abandonment of theology and proposes religious studies‘ as a more scientific‘ alternative. We formulated Adriaanse‘s challenge in the following question: does theology deserve the adjective „academic‟? Is there a kind of God talk that is justified or at least plausible for such an academic discourse?
The overall argument of the thesis is that considering the main narrative texts of our theological tradition (the basic texts in the Bible) and the long and rich history of God talk, there is no reason why theology ought not to be an academic discipline. To answer Adriaanse‘s challenge, we can say that we understand that there might be difficulties considering the scientific developments of the last century. Exactly those developments are problematic when it comes to theology and specifically to God talk. Modern scientific theory works with a definition of God as a metaphysical transcendent being. Then it considers this God inaccessible and impossible to talk about Him. Adriaanse in his criticism of classic theology focuses on the wrong God. Adriaanse has a concept of God, which is other than the paradigm of God talk in Israel and the Church. Our main argument against Adriaanse is that we do not talk about God as the one who is above the line unrelated to His presence, but we talk about God who is present in His acting in the history of His people.
Even though the God Adriaanse rejects, i.e. the one who is above the line, he makes provision for God talk, but in an unexpected way. God's presence is experienced in the suffering of human beings, as he talked about the deportation of the Jews during the Shoah. It is there where the word 'God' may 'fall in'. So there remains a place where God talk is possible, namely in the midst of human suffering and pain. We referred to this, in chapter three, where we talked about the absence of God in the experiences of Israel in Egypt. God‘s absence or hiddenness was the reason Israel cried out in prayer to God. In turn, God gave Himself through His Name. In chapter four we talked about Israel in Exile and their struggle to understand God in His absence. We made the point that YHWH by participating in the history of His people made Himself vulnerable, because He connected His identity to the identity of His people. The history of Israel in a certain sense is the history of YHWH. In the Christologcial hymn of the fifth chapter the suffering God takes upon Himself the suffering of this world, by taking upon Himself the lowest of human conditions. It is there that God is given to us.
When we look to God's presence in this perspective everything changes and God talk is really possible. Indeed not as a constructed metaphysical Being which is above the line, but as God who is experienced at the cross roads of the world and its history. Not necessarily in the successes and the victories of history, but precisely at those moments, which contest the existence of God. YHWH comes and gives Himself to be known in the cross of Jesus, which we remember and participate in by sharing the broken body of the Eucharist.
Therefore biblical theologically we see no reason why theologians should abandon theology as God talk. The nature of the texts and their content puts us into a position where we can affirm that theology is indeed talk about God in a specific way about His identity. The texts give voice to those human experiences, which tell of God and who He is. To follow Adriaanse and denounce theology, as not being God talk, would be to ignore these texts and what they say about God, humanity and the world. Miskotte paved the way for our biblical theological arguments. He made the point that there is indeed place where God talks to humanity, namely in the proclaimed Word of God. We have argued further that biblical theology shows the way of talking about God and His identity and also that to whom God speaks become the carriers of His presence in this world. So there is a concrete place where not only God speaks, but we who have heard also talk about God. In this dissertation we have made it plausible that in biblical theology there is no indication why theology should be seen anything less than talk about God as He identified Himself in the history of His people.
At this point there remains another critical question that may be asked at the end. It also connects and complements our answer to Adriaanse‘s challenge. Is biblical theological talk of God not just as much a projection of God‘ as the one that we criticize based on biblical theological arguments? Are the texts not just as much projections (a certain interpretation of historical events) rather than descriptions (adequate telling of historical events)? Can biblical texts truly be about God or merely about God‘? And if they are about God than are they enough to answer and ultimately undermine the modern problems related to God talk?
If we only would have the texts on them-selves then we would find the above critical questions more than valid, but there is more than texts.
Are the Biblical texts adequate sources for a theological discourse on the identity of God? The text and the narratives do not come to us value free. It is postmodern optimism that there is nothing between the text and the reader and that the reader has the sole authority over the text. There is much more in the texts than meets the eye. There is whole history of transmission (narratives that have been passed on), canonization (narratives that have been considered authoritative) of the biblical narratives. These do not make biblical theological arguments weaker rather stronger because its shows on the side of Israel that these texts were constitutive for their identity and their own speaking about God.
Biblical narratives also deal with problems of interpretation. In the third chapter Moses is concerned how his theology, God talk, will be received, interpreted and understood by the Israelites. It seems that Moses does not want to theologize unless he is told how he is to talk about God, namely by His Name. God gives him sings to confirm that He has spoken indeed. The prophets had to go through the same kind of scrutiny, their speaking about God or speaking in the name of God. Their words were also measured and interpreted. There were criteria by which they were able to rightly interpret the texts. The truth is also that Israel sometimes lacked the wisdom to interpret what has been said and made a mess of it; these were according to the prophets the reasons Israel was taken into Exile. So biblical theologically we can argue that there is a right way to talk about God. Biblical theologically we can outline a normative way to talk about God and that is what we have done in the last three chapters.
Within the texts there is a strong differentiation between God, YHWH and the gods of the nations and idol worship. This indicates that in the biblical narratives there is a qualitative difference between God‘ and Gods. This is also a major point of difference with Adriaanse. He argues that all that there is God‘ as humans project a higher being. This precisely what Ezekiel is criticizing in Israel‘s secularized Temple worship. The priests project their own hidden ways on YHWH and then they call Him absent. This kind of theologizing in strongly condemned. In the condemnation we see criteria by which God is differentiated from ‘God‘. We would go as far as to say that the Old and the New Testament are in essence anti religious. They are like this in their criticism of the human‘s willingness to create their own gods rather than following the God who has spoken in their lives and is present in their history.
This is the reason why see Miskotte as paving the way for us in arguing that in theology when we talk about God we talk specifically about the Name, YHWH. God who revealed Himself through His acts in the history of His people Israel and the Church.
The identification of Jesus with YHWH, brings the speaking about God from above‘ and from down‘ together. Speaking about Jesus Christ and Him crucified is speaking about the God from above. This is the essence of the Hymn from the Letter to the Philippians. The biblical texts do not seem to divide reality into transcendence and immanence. The immanent Jesus Christ hanging on the cross is God. Speaking about Christ is speaking about God as such. This is the reason why we rejected Mettinger‘s false dichotomy. He sees that certain names of God refer to His transcendence and others to his immanence. Our argument is that the Name of God does refer to God Himself. The immanent God is the transcendental God. The Philippians letter puts this in these terms: Jesus Christ is LORD, i.e. Jesus Christ is identical with YHWH.
The modern assumption is that what is immanent cannot be transcendent and the opposite (see Kant). Biblical theology is a criticism of this because it talks about God, who is transcendent, in terms of history, human experiences that are transmitted and canonized narratives. The reception history of these biblical narratives, in Christian theology, shows that the task of God talk, for theologians has not been an obvious task. In every generation theologians had to translate biblical theology in light of the demands of their day. This commitment to translation is ultimately what defines our own theological quest for understanding the ways in which we can talk about God in our own day and age. For the fathers of the Church it was a matter of keeping to the Apostolic understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures and the ensuing Credos. It was an apologetic kind of God talk. The reformers saw themselves, theologically in the same line as the fathers, even though they had a different historical context, namely their struggle with the Mother Church. At the heart of their struggle was the recuperation of a biblical theological understanding of God and His salvation in Jesus Christ. God talk for the reformers was not merely an abstract concern but a reality which brought about major changes in the Church and the lives of those who made the message their own. The Enlightenment, as a critical ideology, had the most influence on our contemporary understanding of theology. The achievements of the European Enlightenment, most poignantly summarized by the Kantian Critique, presented theology with the challenge of the seeming impossibility of God talk. Theologians have been working with this criticism, some to recover theology as a legitimate God talk and some by appropriating the challenge as a modus operandi for doing theology. Our work is intended as a contribution to a more constructive theology, which takes the challenges of our day seriously and at the same time seeks a theological outworking of them.
Now, at the end of our study and inquiry about these issues, it is our assertion: Theology is God talk, especially in this specific way of talking about the identity of God. Theology is a multifaceted discipline encompassing exegesis, church history, practical theology and systematic theology. They all have developed their own methods of enquiry and discourse. They all have their respective merits and standing in the broad field of theology. Often these various specializations function on their own, rarely interacting with each other. Perhaps a move toward a clearer understanding of the task of theology as God talk could bring more unity within the field. If all the different disciplines are dots in the theological constellation, the systematic theologian‘s role is to connect the dots‘ and bringing unity in the segmented field of theology.
At its heart, theology is a matter of talking about God. However, as we say this, we also realize that the task of God talk is not obvious, and it is often very difficult. There remain not only experiences, which confirm our knowledge of God, but there are also those that challenge it. Often the challenge to the knowledge of God is more apparent and real than the presence of God. Our study on the identity of God has sought to show that there is room precisely for these negative experiences, too. Exactly these anomalies tell us of God, who cannot be captured by systems of thoughts and put in service of ideals. As theologians, our task is talk about God, specifically, about YHWH who identified Himself in history as Jesus Christ.
The Identity of God - systematic theological perspectives
Sources of Christian theology and the identity of God
At the beginning of our study, we set out to engage with the religious-scientific critique of theology, which dominates today‘s discussions on the content, method and the aims of the discipline. Our approach to the discussion was to combine systematic theology and biblical theology as a means of addressing some of the critical issues. One of the main aspects of the religious schools‘ critique concerns the theology of God and the ambiguities related to the talk about God. We posited the following thesis as an answer to this criticism: theology is talk about God, specifically, talk about the identity of God. The study on the identity of God emerged from the thought that there is much more to be said about God than what came forth from the critical discourse on God‘ of the religious-studies school.
Essentially, what we were dealing with is the understanding of the word God‘. The identity of God substantiates what we understand by the word God‘. By using the term identity‘, we point toward a dynamic understanding of the word God‘, which is fundamentally defined by the Name of God, i.e. YHWH. The Name, theologically speaking, qualifies the meaning of the word God‘. It is not a constructed understanding of the word, where God is defined as a high being which exists outside the reality we experience as human beings. Adriaanse‘s criticism of theology pertains exactly to this God‘. He understands classic theology as being about a constructed God.‘ That is the reason why he opts for understanding the word God‘ as a human projection. The word God‘, for Adriaanse, ultimately emanates from the religious imagination of humans.
The way we understand the word God‘ is the way biblical narratives identify God. Through those narratives God exists as a separate entity who talks, acts and moves. He appears to people, talks to them, and relates to them so much that there is talk of a marriage between God and His people. The biblical narratives identify God as a person who gives His Name and where His Name is called upon, there He is as well. He does not simply exist: He acts. He does things like saving people, judging people and restoring them. He does so not outside the perceived reality but in the reality of their lives, in their history. His people‘s history is His history as well. We understand that theology pertains to this God. When we talk about God we talk about YHWH. Theologians through the ages have struggled with this very issue, namely to show that the identity of God is decisive for their respective theologies, i.e. God talk.
Athanasius in his work shows how the Name is decisive for the understanding of the word God.‘ It is not a mere label, but the essence of who God is in His being. Because of the Name, God is identified in the history of His people Israel, and in the person of Jesus Christ. When theologians talk about God they must have Jesus Christ in mind. For Thomas the revelation of the Name is at the heart of his philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Often his five ways‘ are considered only as philosophical arguments, but the centrality of the quote from Exodus 3:14 qualifies his method as theological. The existence of God is not rooted in philosophical constructs but in the revelation of the Name of God, which allows for further conceptualizations on the way the theologian may talk about God. This is the essence of Thomas‘s argument in the proofs of God‘. Calvin follows the same line of argumentation, God revealed Himself in His Name and in the covenant relationship with His people. The Name of God is not a grammatical construct but the revelation of His being.
Only in modernity does this kind of theologizing become problematic. Even though Barth acknowledges the fact that God is known in His revelation, he pays tribute to modernity by declaring God a mysterious God, whose act of revelation is at the same time an act of concealment. The revelation of the Name is then the refusal to give a name. Barth induces mystery‘ and hiddenness in order to protect God from modern humanity. We see this as the logical conclusion of Barth‘s epistemology, rather than an ontological experience and struggle with the hiddenness of God. We mean the kind of experiences that were at the basis of Israel‘s distress and bewilderment in the Egyptian captivity. Or the Psalms that deal with the experiences related to the confronting reality of the absence of God. The identity of God becomes apparent in the conditions that Adriaanse refers to as circumstances in which the word God might fall in. The word God falls in the direst of life circumstances, because it is precisely where God is and meets humanity.
The above approach to theology and God talk is criticized in modern scientific approaches to religion and theology. Adriaanse argues for the impossibility of the revelation of God and the knowledge of God from the perspective of the divided reality. There is an all-dividing line between the physical and the metaphysical. According to his theory the divine is locked up‘ above the line in timelessness and spacelessness. What is above the line is out of reach for those who are under the line, because they are conditioned by time and space. This implies that the actual source of the human talk about God is the human ability to project an ideal divine being. This is what we call the loss of talk of God in theology. The theologian cannot talk about God as such, but he must talk about God‘ as a projected entity. God in this case is not the self-revealing God anymore but the God‘ who fits the philosophical conjectures of the scientist.
Miskotte is right to point out that God is not to be sought after in the human consciousness but in the revelation of His Name, YHWH. God in His Name stands over against humanity and calls them out of their self created bondage of Nihilism. Theology does not start with humanity‘s ability to project God, because they cannot. Miskotte states: they have lost any sense of the sacred and the divine. All that remains for humanity is the deafening silence of the gods. According to Miskotte it is YHWH who breaks through this silence by His Word. He is the one, who comes and addresses humanity and leads them out of their despair. The implication of Miskottes theology is that while the gods are silent, YHWH speaks. The silence of the gods is the silence of the idols erected by human projection. Miskotte, against these silent gods, posits the God of the Old Testament, the God of Israel, who revealed Himself in His Name. His theological approach to theology and anthropology is tempting to follow, but in the final analysis it turns out not to have solid ground in human history. Miskotte‘s God talk on a fundamental level is determined by the demands of his context, a rapidly secularizing society.
The way we talk about God is neither the theoretical God‘ of philosophy nor a God who is only proclaimed in the Word, but the God who is identified in the history of people. God has an identity and is not merely a definition; therefore He does not fit any philosophical system or rationality that tries to domesticate Him according to its own rules. This is precisely the problem, the biblical narratives about YHWH, address. Time and time again we hear the motto: YHWH is God and not the idols. The Shema, one of the most basic and important confession of Israel, is a reminder of this very truth. YHWH does not conform to the ideals of His people. They have to live with the knowledge that their God is God, which means that He is free to be and act according to His own will. He is not to be manipulated nor used for their purposes. It is by grace that He enters into the vulnerable covenantal bond with them. YWHW, by participating in the lives of His people, attaches His identity to them. Just like a married couple, the participants become one and share the same history. Even though they are two different people, by being in relationship they are one. The history of Israel, is YHWH‘s history in their interrelated identities. This is the reason why knowing God is not a matter of epistemology but of history, as the cumulative experiences of those whose lives have been addressed, touched and defined by this God.
The hiddenness of God and contesting experiences
So far we argued that there is knowledge of God and that there is a valid talk of God, but at the same time we realize that the knowledge of God is not self-evident. This realization lies also at the heart of Adriaanse‘s critique of classic theology. Adriaanse is categorical about the fact that scientifically there is nothing to be said about God. This clear-cut rejection has nothing to do with the method of modern scientific theory or the divided reality we have described before, nor does it have to do with what Barth rejected as natural knowledge of God. It has to do with something that is inherent in the knowledge of God. There is a certain experience of the hiddenness of God. He is absent and it seems that He does not participate in history. There are times when God is not detectable in everyday life. This leads some to conclude that God is so far beyond this world that He either does not exist or is incapable to intervene. God talk under these circumstances becomes impossible.
Barth understands the hiddenness or the mystery of God as something positive. For Barth the revelation of God is at the same time an act of concealment. We argued that Barth does this in order to protect‘ God from absolute immanence. The hiddenness of God in this case accounts for those difficult experiences that are unexplainable. It has a positive function in filling the gaps of the intellectual struggles one might have with evil and suffering. Theologians are often challenged in light of extreme events in history about the whereabouts of God. The mystery of God is a favoured answer to flee to. We do not understand what is happening only God knows‘ or God‘s ways are not our ways‘ are the sort of answers given. The positive appreciation of the mystery of God is much more telling about human rationality than about God Himself. Theologically there is a tendency to protect God‘, but for other reasons than Barth. In this case it means to save Him from the challenging experiences of life and suffering. God, in face of human suffering, does not fit the ideal world. In an ideal world God would act and not allow suffering to happen. Since He does not act it must be because He is mysterious and we do not understand Him.
Imitating the real presence of God for created, projected and controlled experiences is called idolatry. The priests gathered in the inner room of the Temple (Ezekiel 8) are guilty of this very sin. They project their own hidden ways on God and thus define YHWH as silent and hidden. The experience of the hiddenness of God in the book of Ezekiel does not lead to a cry of desperation as it did in the Exodus narratives, but it leads to secularization. Since God is absent the Israelites say we will follow our own ways,‘ we will make idols and gods in our image.‘ Those gods are not an entity as such; they are an intrinsic part of the human intellect. This means that the word God‘ has its origin, not in experience, but in reflection and projection of the human mind.
Secularization, is the loss of the otherness of God. To be fair to Barth this is also the reason he positively appreciates the hiddenness of God. In the Book of Ezekiel the prophet notes a certain secularization that was taking place in Israel. It is a secularization, which is marked by the projection of the elders of Israel. They are the ones that hide in the temple. They are the ones that project their hidden ways on God and call Him as absent God. The hiddenness of God is projected onto God. Bewilderment about the otherness of God does not lead to prayer but leads to secularization. They inquire about God through the prophet, as if the word of YHWH and His guidance is something automatic. This is what we noted as the ultimate sign of secularization. The cult, as a whole, lost its sacramental identity and became a self-serving institution.
People in the secularized culture of today have their own version of this. It is most apparent in their understanding of identity as something makeable. In other words identity is a construct. And not only is identity considered being a construct, but also the reality they inhabit. Humans in general are in charge of the outcome of their lives; in the end life is what they make of it. They project a perfect self-image and work all of their lives to realize that ideal. Paired with a projected self image, comes also a projected God. This God is made perfect in every way possible and is made into the guarantor of happiness and self-fulfillment. God is seen as the one who guaranties the good life one aspires to live. This kind of religiosity is true secularism. When one talks about a religious upheaval in society this kind of religiosity is what is meant. The human and God relationship in this perspective has nothing to do with an encounter between humanity and the living God, but with wishful thinking. Miskotte rightly criticizes this.
Human identity and the people of God
The truth of the human condition is that identity is given. We do not bring forth our own lives but we are given birth to. The one who gave birth to us conditioned us. To a certain degree we realize that we are not born with clean slates but with tainted lives full of the pains, sufferings and brokenness of those who came before us. As human beings we carry our histories and the histories of those that raised us and to whom we are related either by blood or by the history of our lives. We have interrelated identities and it means that we are dependent on each other in understanding who we are. The crux of our identities does not lie ahead of us in the future. We are not what we are becoming. Our identities are defined and are in a sense given. The critical question considering the biblical texts is: can we live with the givenness of our lives? Or do we need the ideal perfect self to give meaning and purpose to our lives because the realities of our human condition are ultimately unbearable?
The actual presence of God with His people comes also to expression in a variety of human experiences, such as awe, confusion, wonder, worship, etc. It is, however, not an esoteric experience, but rather an encounter with God. Moses did not create or project a God, but he encountered His presence. The encounter was not self-evident, but it interrupted his life and the lives of those he had to lead. The presence of God is an interruption, because God does not emanate out of the best human thoughts, but comes from the outside in.‘ Moses hesitated to accept the call of God. That is a sign of the interruption and bewilderment one experiences in an encounter with God. YHWH‘s call is not a call to self-fulfillment but a call to lose one‘s identity and to live with the interruption as an all-defining experience. This God, YHWH, is not so much in history that He becomes submerged in the consciousness of humanity (absolute immanence), nor is God so much above history that any correlation is lost (absolute transcendence). This is the reason why when we talk about the identity of God we also have to talk about revelation, specifically revelation as an encounter with the presence of God.
The biblical narratives are theology, talk about God, par excellence. In biblical-theological terms, to talk about God is to talk about His Name, which intrinsically is related to His being and acting. He is present where His Name is. The Name YHWH encompasses both the actuality and the historicity of God‘s presence. God is actually present in the events which are foundational for the history and identity of His people. The markers of His presence are directive in nature, pointing towards Him. These markers have become the symbols by which God is identified amidst His people. The Tent of Meeting and later the temple have been some of the major symbols of His presence in Israel. The Glory theology is precisely about YHWH‘s cultic presence. The cult with all its instruments was essential in mediating the presence of God to the people. The cultic place gives a concrete presence in time and space and thus brings to expression the historicity of God‘s identity.
The identity of God and specifically the historicity of His Name show that there is a certain givenness when it comes to God as well, but in a different way. God in His identity has also history and that is the reason why He does not conform to our ideals. God is given in a certain sense in the history of His people, marked by events of liberation, redemption, exile and restoration. But the central aspect of God‘s Name is His identity in Jesus Christ, who has been identified by the Name above all names. The historicity of the identity of God safeguards the theologian from constructing a metaphysically adequate God. The theologian in his talk about God must start with what is given, namely Jesus Christ. God‘s participation in the history of His people is evident in the Name, specifically when it suffers damage. It is the vulnerable historical presence of God that is the true testimony to His Name. It is precisely God on the cross who is the ultimate criticism of the ideal‘ God of metaphysics, which probably would not be moved in its detachment.
The identity of God‘s people and YHWH are interrelated identities. YHWH attached His Name, i.e. His presence to His people throughout the wilderness wanderings and later when they lived in the land. YHWH was with them through the mediation of the temple and cult. The people were to be a reflection of His presence towards the nations. They were to be the mediators of God‘s presence throughout creation. This is what it means to be related to God and to have a sacramental identity. True human identity is a sacramental identity. Humanity must point beyond itself to the reality of YHWH. They do so not in perfection but in the brokenness of the human existence. It is this brokenness that YHWH shares with us on the cross of Christ. The essence of our human identity is not what we make of it, or what others made of it, but knowing that our condition and existence are hidden in Christ.
Christology and the identity of God
To talk about God is to talk about Jesus Christ. When we talk about Jesus Christ we talk about the presence of God with His people, those who are gathered around Him in worship. He is not the God of the superlatives or the God of the omnias. God in Jesus is not the God who fits the categories of metaphysics as a mute, locked up in heaven, perfect, unmoved God. He has shown Himself to be God in becoming a human being of the lowest rank, a slave. Given this it is hard to imagine that Jesus deserves worship. He in His acts does not fit the ideals we have for a God. He comes in ways that are much like ours, broken and full of suffering. The highest He got was the height of the cross, the crown of the King is the crown is made of thorns, but He is the one who is identified as YHWH. It is hard to worship a God who hangs on the cross, it’s much easier to worship a powerful God who does what is expected of a God.
God is given to us in Christ Jesus. This means that the understanding of the God is congruent with the Name of Jesus. It was this that the theologians through the ages were trying to make clear in their theologies, from the earliest Christian writers, through the reformation and up to modernity. It is the conviction that when we as theologians talk about God we are not talking about an unknown God, but we talk about God who revealed Himself most clearly in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not that we cannot talk about God. We as theologians should not to hesitate to talk about God, since to talk about God means to talk about the identity of God, i.e. Jesus Christ.
He is the God who is present in history as a man who lived and died on a roman cross. His historical presence determines the way we understand who God is. He is the one who took upon Himself the human condition and carried its brokenness. By doing so it is most evident that He is indeed God. This is precisely the message of Paul in the Philippian Hymn. God did not consider Himself so much of a God that He could not empathize with the human condition. He took upon Himself this condition to show even more what it means to be God and at the same time to show what it means to be a human being. Thus Christology has both theological and anthropological implications. Who is this God called Jesus? He is the God who relinquished the right to self-gratification and took the road of offering Himself to those He wanted to save. From this it is clear that to be human means to give up the human ideal to self-fulfillment in order to find a life hidden in God. God as revealed in Jesus is challenging for the modern humans searching for themselves and for their identity. Identifying with Jesus is an answer to His identification with us. When we know that our lives are carried and hidden in Him, we display in our broken humanity the God we know.
Ecclesiology and the identity of God
The modern tendency in ecclesiology is characterized by aversion from a cultic understanding of the presence of God. More often God is sought after in the human consciousness rather than in the concrete realities of the Church. This tendency comes also from a certain suspicion towards institutions. The criticism is partly justified as long it addresses the loss of the sacramental understanding of the Church and of the sacraments. If the Church and its tools are self-servant, meaning that only exist for their own purposes and not as the mediator of God presence, the criticism is right. When the Church only serves the purposes of its own institution we may talk about secularization. The loss of identity for the Church means the loss of sacramental identity.
Considering the identity of God and the historicity of His presence, the Church with its instruments bids a concrete place for the presence of God. The Church is then the mediator of the presence of God. It is not meant in the negative sense that the Church is the only place where God is present as a self-evident truth. In a more constructive sense, the Church in its worship of God is a sign of the presence of God in this world, not any God but God who identified Himself in Jesus Christ. Thus answering the question: where is God?‟ is to say: in the Church where people, in His presence, partake in the sacraments and participate in worship. Does this undermine the achievements of the protestant reformation? The answer is: certainly not. It presents today‘s theologian with the possibility of talking about God as a concrete presence rather than a conceptual God. The identity of God and its implications for the Church has a critical input toward the modern tendency of seeing God on the one hand only as a personal and private matter and on the other hand God as being all in all and thus nowhere.
This God cannot be projected. He does not confirm to the highest ideals of humanity nor to the gods they create. Humanity needs authorization, someone to permit them to be who they want to be. They need ideals, gods and ideal images of themselves to become the perfect version of humanity. This is why they create the guarantors of their well-being and the god who is slave to their self-actualization. The givenness of God in Jesus tells us humans otherwise: life is not about self-actualization but about giving up the right to be ourselves. This is what Paul is telling to the Philippians when he exhorts them to have the same mind as Jesus has. It is not merely about ethics and following divine rules. It is much more than that. It is about worship, which means participating in the presence of God, by partaking in the sacraments.
Being baptized means to relinquish that ideal picture of self and realize that Jesus carries the human existence. He carries not the best version of our humanity, but the worst of the human condition. In baptism one receives a new identity, which does not await fulfillment but is realized in Jesus. Being in Christ Jesus is where humans truly belong. True humanity does not mean to be free from God in self-actualization. To be truly human means to reckon with the fact that the human condition is a broken condition. Humans are not gods despite their pretence. This God, despite His broken appearance, saves us from ourselves. God by becoming a human being gives humanity its worth and dignity. The Holy Communion is truly communion because we participate in the presence of God as the ones who are in Christ. The broken bread and shed blood are the reminders that we belong to this God who offered Himself up on the cross. The Communion is the true expression of our identity. What we eat is who we are. We are the symbols of the broken body and the shed blood of Christ, i.e. the presence of God in this world. This is the reason why the Church is not merely an institution in itself, but a sacrament in this world testifying of the presence of God. When we talk about God we talk about this God, Jesus Christ, who is present in this way in this world.
No comments:
Post a Comment