Your The Redemption of God has made me think a lot. The idea of God as God of relation is nothing new; many churches have this as one of the cores of their teaching of the Christian faith. Your “in the beginning is the relation” seems to put even more weight to this relational aspect of God. This sentence that you have repeated throughout chapter 5 of The Redemption of God inevitably reminds us the use of the verse in John chapter one: “In the beginning was the Word…” What you say can amount to in the beginning is the relation, God is relation, and that without relation there is no God. This seems to be incongruous with the idea of the absolute transcendence, complete Otherness of God. I am reading an article by Reginald E. O. White on sanctification for my Introduction to Christian Theology class. White says, “Thus God is holy; ‘separate’ from nature, other gods, and sinners; unapproachable except by mediation and sacrifice.” I don’t think you will agree with White, but his idea seems to be the more dominant and accepted on in the church. I am thinking whether seeing God as the absolute Other makes the Christian faith intrinsically exclusive. The division between God and humans (who are not God), Christians and non-Christians, Us and Other… If God makes distinction (God as the ultimate Other opposed to God in all), then why shouldn’t we make distinctions as well? Does the exclusive tendency of the Christian churches stem from this Otherness of God? I am considering if your idea is a way to move towards a more inclusive Christianity and break down the barriers that separate the Jew from the Greek, the slave from the free and the male from the female.
But what you advocate will surely make the church uncomfortable. For example, if Jesus is not the only God in-carnate, if Jesus is not the sole messianic figure, then what would happen to the Christology that has been passed down from generation to generation ever since the early Church? You stress on the humanity of Jesus, but what about his divinity? This humanity/divinity debate has caused many discussions, arguments, and even the naming of some as heretics in the church history. Does your focus on the humanity of Jesus come from an overemphasis of his divinity in church or are you denying Jesus’ divinity altogether? You make a distinction between God and “God” in your thesis. And I see you as attempting to rescue God from being limited to what humans have constructed so that they can go on with their passivity in life and wait for a saviour from above. So “God” is not really God and to worship this “God” is even idolatrous. But this “God” may well be what some people know as what God is all through their life! What you suggest is too controversial to many. Being controversial doesn’t mean you are wrong, but it surely means there will be enormous pressure against what you propose. You talk about the fear and cost of creative relation. I suppose the church as a whole is indeed fearful of such creative power. The passivity of church people facilitates control (when we see the church as an institutionalized from of religion) and there is the fear of disorder and chaos when people become creative and assertive in matters related to their faith. If, as you say, in the beginning is the relation, then what is left to justify the hierarchical church? The mutuality you propose inevitably damages hierarchy. This mutuality also brings me to your idea of mutually-messianic relation. The traditional church teaching has always been on the self-sufficiency of God; that God has no need on us. But you claim that God needs us, that God depends on us humans. I still haven’t made up my mind on whether God needs us or not, but I want to tell you what I heard in a recent lecture on God and creation by Dr Terrence Fretheim at LTS. Dr Fretheim’s thesis is that God created the world good but not perfect. God wanted to share power with humans (ie. Adam in the creation story). God invited him to co-create by asking him to name all the animals. The sharing of power wasn’t without risk as we can see in the so-called “Fall”. I think Dr Fretheim’s thesis shares some similarities with yours, but he doesn’t go so far as you do. But I think the risk he mentioned is similar to your point about humans being too afraid to take up their responsibility of co-creation; that they are afraid of the creative power of relation. I may as well ask Dr Fretheim what he thinks about your thesis. It has been said over and over again about how humans transgress their boundary by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, your proposal that humans are in fact too timid to take up their creative role makes me want to look at the creation story again and see how it can be interpreted with your line of reasoning.
The use of “god” as a verb reminds me of the concept of theosis (becoming God) in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Have you read anything about it? I am wondering if we can find any insights about this godding from the Orthodox theology. Maybe in the end, I’ll find out that what you propose has long been in the church traditions, albeit neglected or suppressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment