Friday, March 30, 2018
Good Friday Musings
This address, given by then Pope Benedict XVI in 2010 on Bl. John Duns Scotus at a general audience, is worth reading:
"He says in his "Reportatio Parisiensis": "To think that God would have given up such a task had Adam not sinned would be quite unreasonable! I say, therefore, that the fall was not the cause of Christ's predestination and that if no one had fallen, neither the angel nor man in this hypothesis Christ would still have been predestined in the same way" (in III Sent., d. 7, 4). This perhaps somewhat surprising thought crystallized because, in the opinion of Duns Scotus the Incarnation of the Son of God, planned from all eternity by God the Father at the level of love is the fulfilment of creation and enables every creature, in Christ and through Christ, to be filled with grace and to praise and glorify God in eternity. Although Duns Scotus was aware that in fact, because of original sin, Christ redeemed us with his Passion, Death and Resurrection, he reaffirmed that the Incarnation is the greatest and most beautiful work of the entire history of salvation, that it is not conditioned by any contingent fact but is God's original idea of ultimately uniting with himself the whole of creation, in the Person and Flesh of the Son."
From an article by Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM:
"Scotus taught that the Enfleshment of God had to proceed from God’s perfect love and God’s perfect and absolute freedom (John 1:1-18)..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Katherine, many thanks for this. I'm going to have to wrassle with the Duns Scotus idea for a while. I agree that the well of this day never runs dry. I liked your reflection the best of all you offered here :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words, Jim.
DeleteOver the years, as my doubts about many teachings of traditional Catholic theology grew - including atonement theology - I dug around, now and then as ideas and questions would hit me, a bit scattershot, to see what else was out there, as I found traditional atonement theology to be increasingly troubling. I found Duns Scotus, and Abelard. Duns Scotus' focus on the incarnation was of great interest and I need to go back and study it some more. I found Abelard to be confusing, but learned I was not alone - serious scholars find him confusing (making me feel a bit better) and have come to differing conclusions about his atonement theology, some that are sometimes polar opposites.
ReplyDeleteBut Abelard's thought apparently contributed to the "moral influence" and "example theories" of atonement, which I have only recently discovered are "official" theories. These variations are more closely aligned to the thoughts I had reached on my own than are the traditional teachings. Apparently the eastern church combines various theories in various ways and apparently they focus more on the moral influence theory as well as on the Incarnation than does the western church.
For years I periodically returned to a search for a theology of the cross that would match my belief (maybe not belief, but simply hope) that God is Love. If God is not Love, then christianity has it all wrong. If God is Love, traditional atonement theology seems possible as suspect as the now rejected ransom theology that preceded it.
I have long believed that the mystery of the Incarnation is more central to christian belief - THE foundational teaching - than are the various theologies of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.
So my biggest theological struggles relate to the dogmas of the Trinity and Incarnation. A physical resurrection seems of less significance than does the Incarnation, at least to me. (happy Easter to all anyway!)
I cannot accept the notion that if God IS Love, and if Jesus the Christ IS God, that he joined humanity as a fully human man because a blood sacrifice was needed to mitigate God's wrath towards sinful humanity. If that is true, then God is not Love, but simply one more god in a long line of powerful, vengeful gods that human beings have both worshiped and feared throughout human history.
I wish I had Katherine's wisdom and could simply stop the mental and emotional struggles I have with traditional christian teachings. But I don't, so I continue to struggle. It IS mystery. And to me, that's part of the problem with christian dogmatism.
Why do human men, with limited human minds, try to enforce so many "must believes" about things which are mystery, and cannot be defined by the Roman Catholic church or anyone else with any degree of certainty, much less infallibility? Why so much "dogma"? Wouldn't it be better to say - It is Mystery. These teachings are the best we can do in interpreting these mysteries RIGHT NOW at this moment of history, but it just well might change. So, don't look at these teachings as dogma, but as current attempts to explain mystery Heresy is primarily associated with christianity. Acknowledging the impossibility of human (papal or magesterial) infallibility and emphasizing the mystery would show that the "sins" of heresy and apostasy are man-made attempts to control thinking about the mysteries of the Divine, relics of the past that were, at best, misguided attempts to "save" people from hellfire.
Anne,
DeleteThis is an older piece, 2014 I believe, but I just ran into it yesterday. It may help:
https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/fresh-look-last-supper
Thanks, Tom, I will find the article and read it.
DeleteTom, thanks for that link. I have often thought of that quote from Hosea 6:6, "What I want is steadfast love, not sacrifice"
DeleteAnne, I don't know that I have wisdom. I keep hoping I will get it with increasing age, but so far it hasn't happened! (:
DeleteI agree with you that God is Love. And any time we try to make him *not* Love, it is our understanding that is faulty.
Katherine, That's a lot to think about as we gird our lines for Good Friday services in three hours.
ReplyDeleteOur music minister was just promoted from the LifeTeen Mass to all of them. His musical choices were a tad Praise-songy for the yesterday. (The woman in front of me winced once.) I may need Duns Scotus if Good Friday brings something out of the Praise Book along the lines of "You died for meeeee, only meeee, and I [pronounced "ah"] love it that you died for meeeeee." I am quite sure we will not hear anything like a traditional setting of the Reproaches. Whatever. It will all be good.
The choir group I am in is doing the 7:00 pm service tonight. We always do it acapella, with 4 part harmony for Good Friday. Will probably sing Robert Southwell's "Lord Jesus,Think On Me", and "Were You There", among others.
DeleteWe were discussing some previous customs awhile back. I am remembering some wooden clappers the servers used instead of altar bells on Good Friday. And that the service was called the Mass of the Presanctified, even though it wasn't a Mass. The others in the group had no memory of that, but they're all younger than I am.
Katherine, The wooden clapper was back. And the kid playing them is one I've known since second grade. He is in high school now and plays piano, guitar and trombone. He was solid on the clapper as well. I'm pretty sure we never had one in our parish in the past couple of decades.
DeleteSynchronicity. Most of my Facebook feed is posts from groups of interest, or people of interest, rather than from personal friends or family. One of these is Brian McLaren, whom I mentioned a week or so ago. McLaren comes from a conservative protestant background, but is now one of the leaders of the "emerging church" movement. (Richard Rohr, quoted in Jim's initial post, is also part of this group). McLaren's FB post today is relevant to this discussion. The first part is a Question from a reader, and the second is his Response. It will take two comment boxes to put in the entire discussion, but I found it interesting, and I hope others do too. I can't easily link to it, but people could search FB for McLaren's FB page.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/mclaren.brian/posts/10156346204757990
Here's the Q:
...Your writings have been a great source of companionship and hope for me...[and] have helped me shift from what was a more "belief" centered understanding of Christianity and life, to a "faith" centered understanding of Christianity and life. ... The burden of thinking the right beliefs can be exhausting and migrating toward faith based in love is much more transformational …
Yet, there is a little fundamentalist that still resides in me, … I'm trying to process how the Christianity I attach myself to has any particularities. Anything that sets us apart from other great religions. Loving God thru loving others can be done thru other religions. Though I've migrated away from a need to nail down atonement theories, (I've especially moved away the substitutionary version, though I'm surrounded by many who embrace it), I wonder if Christianity particulars still prominently revolve around the cross....do you have thoughts you could offer?...
Here's the R: Two things especially interest me in your question.
First, it's fascinating that you mention the word "particularities," by which you mean "anything that sets us apart from other great religions."
… I am with you 100% on the need to understand and celebrate Christian particularities. That's a much better term than "exclusivity," I think, because a religion can be particular, even unique, without being exclusive. Christian faith, like every other religion, arose in a particular context. It has a particular core message (although there is less agreement on that core message than most people realize!). And its history has unfolded in a particular way.
What is most particular, most unique about Christianity is Jesus. Jesus makes a particular and unique contribution to humanity. If we lose that understanding of Jesus' uniqueness, we're all worse off.
Of course, it can also be said that Moses, the Buddha, Mohammed, and others have contributed unique messages and examples and practices to the world. The followers of all these religious leaders - Jesus included - have at times built wisely upon the foundation of those unique messages, while at other times, tragically, they have obscured and even betrayed them.
So to be a Christian, I believe, is to frame our lives by the unique and particular life and teaching of Jesus. While that doesn't preclude you from learning invaluable lessons from the Buddha or Mohammed ... it means that Jesus is, for you, at the center, and he serves as the gracious host who invites truth, beauty, and wisdom to be welcome, whatever their source
………
Second, on this Good Friday, I'm especially interested in your question whether Christianity "prominently revolves around the cross." Because you and I come from a similar background that installed a similar "inner fundamentalist" inside us, we both know that for many people, to say Christianity revolves around the cross actually means it revolves around an atonement theory ... a theory (penal substitutionary atonement) about what the cross is and does.
Part 2 of McLaren
ReplyDeleteIn that view, the cross is central because it somehow changes God's heart toward us. God's wrath (as a popular song says it) is "satisfied" by being poured out or vented upon Jesus. We were both brought up being told that was the heart or gospel of Christianity.
A much better understanding of the cross arises when we ask this question: is the problem between us and God on God's side or our side? Is God's heart hard toward us, or is ours hard toward God? If God's heart is by definition OK - always loving, always just - then the problem must be on our side.
Which raises the question on this Good Friday ... if we ponder "the sacred head now wounded," if we meditate on the "wond'rous cross on which the prince of glory died," if we open our hearts to the great suffering of Jesus, from mocking and scourging to crucifixion and stabbing ... what effect does it have on us?
Does it reveal to us that God loves us with a love that is willing to suffer and forgive rather than inflict revenge? Does it reveal to us the ugliness of human violence - and the ease with which religious and political institutions unleash violence on innocent people like Jesus? And does that dual realization (again, in the words of a beautiful hymn) inspire awe in our hearts at "the wonders of redeeming love" and "our unworthiness"?
If the cross works on us that way, then the cross is indeed central to our faith.
But it is not central in a way that marginalizes Jesus' resurrection, or Jesus' teaching, or Jesus' way of life from day to day. Rather, cross/resurrection/teaching/way of life are all bound together in a powerful revelation of what God is like ... and what we can aspire to imitate as image-bearers of God.
Finally, you asked about other resources. Here are a few.
1. The work of Derek Flood offers great insight ...
2. ... as does the work of Brian Zahnd and
3. ... the work of Tony Jones, especially in Did God Kill Jesus?
4. Finally, I'm a big fan of the work of Rene Girard and the light it sheds on the meaning of the cross. I give a summary of Girard in a few chapters of Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road. Two excellent entrees into Girard's work are Compassion or Apocalypse and the amazing website of Paul Nuecheterlein.
On Good Friday, my heart is always stirred by this beautiful hymn:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fEOLUnoQdmQ" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://brianmclaren.net/q-r-what-about-the-cross-a-good-fr…/
Richard Rohr also quotes Rene Girard a lot in his books and talks.
Anne, thanks for sharing the McLaren piece. A lot of insights there.
Delete