The comment from Fr. Bill Carroll in the previous posting is just so strong, I thought I'd put it front and center. This is in response to a letter posted by the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Michigan, composed in April of 2007, itself a response to the primates communique of that year. I bring this up not to bash the Northern Michigan folk but rather to point out a vision of the Gospel which simply must be spoken against. Bill does an incredibly sound job of it.
And please note -- this is not a question of 'conservative' vs. 'liberal.' Not at all. Neither is it one of 'progressive' vs. 'traditionalist.' No, this is a question of creedal/catholic Christianity vs. something altogether else.
Bill Carroll writes:
I'll respond in terms close to Karl Rahner's theology, because I think that Fr. Forrester's theology often is a distortion of Rahner (and Eckhart). At the same time, there are certain tendencies in Rahner that I would not want to endorse, because they might plausibly lead in KTF's direction.
With regard to 1, I could affirm it provided that "all is of God" were glossed "every creature as such is of God." Human creatures of course can turn away from their own true being in sin, and sin is not of God. As privatio boni, sin doesn't properly speaking exist, but a clearer subject is needed for the sentence than "all."
With regard to 2, I would want to insist with Rahner that the human creature as such is the possibility of incarnation and that the Holy Spirit is always, already present as prevenient grace and charity. Nevertheless, even the most radical permissible doctrine of the totus Christus better preserves the distinction between head and members. Moreover, whatever the merits of the theory of anonymous Christianity, the strong identification of someone as a member of Christ in the NT, depends upon his or her Christianity taking on a tangible, categorial ecclesial form.
With regard to 3, every creature as such is certainly a reflection of the uncreated Word and hence related to Christ, the incarnate Word, who sums up in his person all that is good in the created order. It is also true that the Holy Spirit is present in every human creature as actual grace (gratia gratis data) and therefore, in a sense, that Christ is present. But to have Christ living in oneself (as wrt #2) in the Pauline sense implies specific commitment to visible, tangible ecclesial communion through baptism and Eucharist, confession of articles of faith, and acceptance of the discipline of life in Christ.
With respect to 4, this is the root of the problem, ignoring the distinction between the only begotten Son, the second person of the Trinity, who becomes incarnate in our Lord Jesus Christ, and God's adopted children by grace, on the one hand, and between the vestiges of the Creator in every creature and the human being as God's image and likeness, on the other. A pet peeve of mine is that you don't get to call someone a child of God until they are a brother or sister in Christ. It doesn't mean that other people aren't in the image of God and therefore of infinite dignity. The grammar of the NT requires that child of God be restricted to an ecclesial sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"A pet peeve of mine is that you don't get to call someone a child of God until they are a brother or sister in Christ. It doesn't mean that other people aren't in the image of God and therefore of infinite dignity. The grammar of the NT requires that child of God be restricted to an ecclesial sense."
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm misunderstanding this statement, but isn't this the same as requiring cleansing prior to entering the temple, so to speak? If so, I guess I'm missing something there because I cannot find any consistency between the requirement that a "child of God" be deemed as such only in the ecclesial sense and the ministry of Jesus as given us in the Gospel texts. Nowhere does it say or did he require that one be made clean prior to coming into community with him (in the "child of God" sense).
Why can't we call someone a child of God until they are a brother or sister in Christ? I don't recall this requirement, however, in any baptismal covenant, statement of faith or any other inferred or literal message of the NT.
Do I believe that grace is transforming? Most certainly. Do I believe that grace is only for a select few? Most certainly not; it is for all.
There simply aren't restrictions on God's grace and upon whom such grace is bestowed. If we believe that grace is conditional, then we are not Episcopaleans, but really good Calvinists.
My take on the 4 statements is that there is an inexorable clash between the free will of our human condition and God's grace. These statements (admittedly read on my part only in the out-of-context portion as pasted for us here) seem either to ignore this reality or deny it altogether. This ignorance is certainly understandable (for to address the reality is to sign-on for a long debate and a lengthy defense of the faith). However, our friends in the NDMichigan seem to be relying on incorrect statements about authentic Christian community.
I would certainly not presume to restrict God's grace--God is God and I am not, and that is proven multiple times a day! However, I think that the family metaphor holds: I treat my family (both biological and eccesiastical) differently than I do others. I am more accountable to them and they to me. I have chosen them and they me (at least chosen to remain in relationship). Most importantly, in the church, they have actively chosen to be identified as children of God and brothers and sisters in Christ. Just as I would not presume to limit God's grace, I would also not presume to decide for someone else whether they are part of God's family or not. That is up to them, and I think we do both people and God a disservice in presuming a relationship that may or may not be there.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that God doesn't love everyone nor that all are to be treated as precious to God. All are created imago dei, in the image of God. That is the locus of the "dignity of every human being." Whether a person decides to respond to God's invitation to be adopted into the family of God through baptism is something else.
Great post, Tom. I agree about the family metaphor. As to your statement of doing both people and God a disservice in presuming a relationship that may or may not be there, I think the disservice happens when we, as Christians, do not conduct ourselves as if they are family already (with emphasis on the words, "conduct ourselves").
ReplyDeleteThis is not to suggest that we should presumptively decide on their behalf that they're "in", so to speak (as you rightly point out). We, ourselves, must continue to heed the call of the Gospels and act, nonetheless, as if they are "in".
If God is about community and relationship, which we certainly believe he is, and if that community and relationship is designed for all, then our response certainly should be to attempt to conduct ourselves in the same manner. As the OT and NT narratives often detail, sometimes the second participant in that relationship (the other) does not reciprocate.