a developed understanding of theology

Theology generally, means an inquiry into the God-experiences of human beings (contribution of Ancient Greek era) pursued in faith and fully guided by reason (contribution of the Scholastic era). It is, therefore distinct, yet related to other sciences. The fundamentals that distinguish theology like ‘God’, ‘human being’, ‘their relation’ ‘God-expereince’, its founding element ‘faith’, guiding principle ‘reason’ were not always understood similarly in the history of theology. It meant everything between pure pantheism (idealism) to radical dualism (materialism).

Accordingly theology, in the history, has been a discipline of the ‘imaginary world’/‘City of God’ reserved only to God-men/church-priests, and also as a discipline that exalted the ‘concrete world’ rejecting the existence of God, open to anyone who could make a clever argument, not to mention those positions that reside somewhere between these extremes. The discipline however has become balanced, more open and inclusive with a new understanding of theology in the contemporary period. This path-breaking novelty occurred in and through Karl Rahner (1904-1984), the German theologian, in catholic theology.

Rahner lived in a time that had been experiencing the brunt of irrational trust in reason and the reduction of Reality to matter that happened in the preceding centuries. Though it is justified that 17^th – 18^th century philosophy brought humanity back in touch with what it had lost – reason, art, culture and science – in the Christian early and middle ages with its outright other worldly philosophy and theology, yet the reaction was again lop-sided. With its emphasis on the socio-economical and cultural well-being, it failed to see the world/human beings in the broader perspective. Thus, it yielded to industrial revolution, which effected development at the expense of individuals’ well being and world wars, I and II that resulted in the mass destruction of human beings by human beings.

The traditional theism with its dualistic conception of God and the world and other profound intellectual jargon was irrelevant to the sufferings of the common person. It was as if God has been out for a long summer vacation in the late 19^th and the beginning of 20^th centuries. The dictum of the day was ‘God is dead’. It was both failure of God and failure of reason. In the midst of crisis, there evolved a new set of categories for doing philosophy, the existential approach. It took off from the concreteness (facticity/historicity/situatedness) of every individual, as a being-in-the-world. It produced a new shift in Theology that grew more sensitive to the existential conditions of human being (multi-religious context, colonialism, globalization and other socio-cultural-political context of the world). It reversed the process of theologizing with a humbler approach ‘from below’.  

Among the protagonists who were involved in this novelty, Rahner was a leading figure. He broke the traditional God-world duality by connecting the two as ‘distinct but non-separable’. He regarded God and human being as co-relative terms that would mutually affect each other and made plain that the ‘divine’ is manifest in us. It reveals itself in our quest, restlessness, questioning and creativity, which are nothing but ‘deep calling the deep’. He therefore refers to human beings an embodied-historical-spirit or as supernatural-existential.

With Rahner, there evolved a new God-talk that considered divine as an insider than a being beyond. Since an effort to understand God is an effort to understand human being, he propagated an authentic theological method that recommended a theology that situates the faith in the context of the theologian. He called it as ‘personal theology’. It was precisely the leap, from theology as a discipline discussing God and defending Him as if an outsider, with the aim to know His world like ‘heaven’ ‘angels’, ‘devils’, ‘prophets – his messengers’, to a theology that begins to perceive God as a mystery though distinct yet lives and transforms in and through the world. Rahner calls it as theological anthropology.

Contemporary theologians therefore following Rahner, though accept the traditional definition of theology as ‘inquiry in the God-experiences of human being pursued in faith guided by reason’, would redefine it as follows.

Theology is an enlightenment journey pursued in faith guided by hermeneutical reason, which helps us understand and then grapple with the unceasing revelation of the divine around us. The experience transforms us, gradually, into persons who lead a life in accordance to its values of selfless-love, justice, peace, equality and harmony.

Thus, it gave birth to pluralism in theology: contextual theology (regional theologies), liberation theology (black theology, dalit theology, minjung theology), feminist theology, narrative theology other than the traditional dogmatic theology and further opened the gates for ‘others’ introducing dialogical theology.

Note: In the Indian Tradition, this has always been the contention by major schools of thought. It is not however known to all nor accepted by all. Sadly, it is trying to ape the western mode of institutionalized religion. 

Dialogical Church, Dialogical Theology: a new way of being catholic

 A Summary of the Articles “Wrong Answers, but Right Questions” and “Church is Dialogical” by Paul F. Knitter.

Paul F. Knitter

The central theme of the articles “Wrong Answers, but Right Questions” and “Church is Dialogical” by Paul F. Knitter, is the urgency of the church, the higher-ups, to learn the art of ‘co-existing’ i.e. being tolerant towards the different and ‘co-operation’ i.e. learning to dialogue (give and take) with the other. It has become one of the urgent issues for the Church which often tends to be rigid, intolerant, shutting-the-door/closed to the different-coloured-neighbour. One such instance is Church’s rude and condemning response to the insights of New Age movement that genuinely challenged, despite its limitations, the dualistic understanding of the God-world relation of Christian theism and the exclusivity of Truth/salvation to the historical Jesus, Son of God. The Church could have lent a listening ear to the New Age movement, for the spirit blows where it wills (Jn 3,8), to help us see clearly what we now see dimly, to help us know fully what we know only in part (I Cor 13,12), but it refused. 

One of the unique contributions of the New Age philosophy is the non-separability of the divine and the world, a sort of pantheism. In its encounter, therefore, with the Catholicism, it sought to challenge and to remove the essential difference between creator and creation, man and nature, spirit and matter and so on. Though their pantheistic conception of the God and the world is inadequate, yet their challenge to Christian theism is relevant as it has become the rising problem for growing number of Christians. People struggle to reconcile with our idea of God, who needs to be reached only through the hierarchy for all the important matters in life. Such a concept becomes all the more difficult with people who have grown to recognize divine in and through the world – thanks to science and technology. The faithful as a result, find it contradicting their experience when the Church (not all) holds on to the dualism of God and the world in its worship and life. Gradually they begin to drift.

The problem, however can be overcome if the Church begins to listen to their voices and reconsider its positions as some of its theologians. Raimon Panikar, for example, drawing from his experience of Advaidic Hinduism, corrects Christian dualism with Christian non-dualism: it means that God and the world are distinct but inseparable. Thus he calls us to experience God as part of our very being, in and through the world. In this world view, every human being is conceived as supernatural-existential, if I express in the words of Karl Rahner and we find it difficult to distinguish between natural or human and supernatural or divine, nature and grace, my acting and God’s acting. We would be able to join St. Paul saying, “I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2,20). Such a discovery of the richness of Christian theism and its new interpretation owes to the challenge posed by the New Age movement, our neighbours who have opened for us new vistas. It is high time that Church begins to take the other more seriously.

Moreover, New Age movement challenges us to reconsider our absolutization of historical Jesus as the only way to the Truth/salvation/liberation, without any disrespect to His divinity and Son-ship to the Lord. It attempts, unlike the church, to regard him as a ‘symbol’ and ‘pattern’ (‘sacrament’) of what is to happen in every human being. But, the Church strongly condemned this view only to reaffirm that Christ is not a pattern but a divine person the only Son of God, the full revelation of divine truth and unique savior of the world. This is arrogance and intolerance in this world of pluralism, more over anti-Gospel as Christ recommends us to love our neighbours as we would do to God. The problem of the Church is with its inability to recognize the difference between ‘Jesus’, the human incarnation and ‘Christ’, the second person of the trinity who could manifest variedly in different cultures and traditions. Rahner, speaking about this regards the incarnation in Jesus as the realization of the potential given to all human beings. Though the issue is complex – “how Christ can be full identified with Jesus but not limited to Jesus – efforts to understand it shows our openness to relationship and co-operation with others, those who take a different road to reach the one Truth. But, condemning it takes us no further than self-destruction. The Church is yet to cultivate an attitude of openness and dialogue. It would not long sustain itself as the body of Christ, if it does not learn the art of genuine dialogue with the other. I quote, “There will be no peace among nations without peace among religions. And there will be no peace among religions without dialogue among them” – Hans Kung.

Dialogue, is no less than an engagement to grow in truth and well being, but is a two way street where each one is ready to give and take. In dialogue when one sees the truth of the other’s position he/she is ready to clarify, correct, even change his/her views. The task though is difficult (as it demands one to be humble, to listen, to be ready to learn, to be open to be corrected) and complex (as we struggle to find way to be fully committed to Christ Jesus and be genuinely open to the other) it is worth it. It would give rise to new heavens and new earth.

Knitter, though with the aim to stress the urgency of dialogue seems to exaggerate the negligence of the Church he is not blind to the positive elements in the Church: the documents and declarations that pave way to dialogue like ‘Nostra Aetate’, ‘Gaudium et Spes’, ‘Redemptoris Missioni’ and ‘Dialogue and Proclamation’ and contribution of the Church-in-Asia. His corrective measures are mostly from within. But, what bothers him probably is that these steps of the Church appear more external yielding to the pressure of the current thought lacking the inner conviction.

INSIGHTS INTO THE REALITY

A Summary of the Article ‘God and the World: One Reality or Two?’ By John Macquarrie

The central concern of John Macquarrie in this article is to unravel the mystery of God, world and their relation. Any true insight into one of these notions would enlighten us about the other for they are inter-connected. A simple and enthusiastic response to the question, whether God and the world are one reality or two, is choosing either pantheism (one) or dualism (two).  But, both are inadequate: the former though rightly understanding the ambiguity, mystery, awe and reverence of the world it fails to distinct God from the world; the latter, on the other hand makes them strangers/totally other forgetting their non-seperability.  The correct answer/Christian answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Most Christian theology, respond to the question by conceiving God-world as distinct but share an asymmetrical relation. It means that the world is dependent on God but God is unperturbed by the world. It emphasizes the transcendence of God. It is monarchical model of God-world relation. Quite unsatisfied with such a response that contradicts one’s experience, some recent Christian theology explains the relationship by qualifying the transcendence of God. They hold that God who is outpouring in love cannot but be intimately related to the cosmos and us. The God-world relation hence is symmetrical-asymmetrical. This is organic model/alternative model of God-world relation. God-world relation for instance can be compared to the relation of our head to the rest of the body. The example though is poor. The fullness of God seems to demand both the poles, transcendent yet immanent, eternal and infinite yet deeply involved in time and history, of impassible and passible and so on. The answer therefore is not-two.

This is however a shift from the usual type of God-talk. Let us understand it through John Wisdom’s ‘parable of the garden’ from his book Philosophy and Psychoanalysis (Oxford, 1953). The parable is the discussion between two people who return to their long neglected garden to be surprised by some plants growing well. They begin to inquire whether a gardener has been taking care of it. Quite unclear, one firmly believes in the arrival of the gardener while the other denies the need of a ‘gardener’ for their growth. This represents the accustomed God-talk that revolves around the question, “Is there or is there not a being beyond the world who laid it out in the first place and who still cares for it?” - the traditional argument between theists and atheists. But, such an argument today has become irrelevant and incorrect: the two people, who return to their neglected garden, henceforth do not discuss about the gardener as one coming from ‘outside’, but about the plot of the ground. There is a shift, though gradual, from the talk about the possibility of seeing, hearing or otherwise detecting a gardener at work to a discussion on the immanent characteristics of the plot of the ground.  Little by little the ground begins to reveal its apparently invisible pattern of gardenhood. We realize, then that the world is not God nor does it stand apart from God. Instead, it is in and through the world, the divine opens itself up, while remaining distinct from it. The insight is so radically new we are unable to adequately communicate it through human language, which always the case with any mystery. It takes shelter in analogy.

Interesting Fact:

The authour time and again recognizes the ambiguity of the ‘world’. How true it is, the more we uncover the mystery of the world through science, we are never done with it. It is, precisely the starting point of the organic model of God-world relation.

UNDERSTANDING SACRED SCRIPTURE

A Summary of Dei Verbum, Vatican II, 18 November, 1965.

Preliminary

With the aim to bid, to share her liberating/life-transforming experience of divine in and through Jesus Christ ‘the saving truth’, in Dei Verbum, the Catholic Church purports to present notion ‘“Divine Communication” (DV #1) in the life and mission of the church’. It accomplishes the task in two stages: first by understanding the intention and the dynamics of divine communication, second by learning its importance and the appropriate methods to discern, know and grasp His revelation.

1. Divine Communication

God is love. His intention to help wo/man to attain the fullness of life/salvation, from the beginning of the time (creation) in varied ways through his creation, messengers and finally through his own son Jesus Christ is divine communication (DV #2&3). A written record of the God’s saving plan is sacred Scripture. The first part is the account of his relationship with the chosen group of people ‘Israel’ made manifest in and through his messengers, the struggle to sustain it, and a promise of the Messiah. It is called as the first testament/the old testament (DV #3&15).  The covenant with Abraham, the exodus event through Moses,  the discernment of the voice of God in their daily life through prophets and the repeated renewal of their fidelity to the covenant are the highlights of the Old Testament.

The second part of the sacred Scripture, the second testament/new testament, contains the written record of God’s revelation in His son, Jesus Christ the promised messiah. It includes Jesus’ life, works and teachings, the events that followed his death, the preaching of the apostles through the spoken words and deeds under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the institutions established by them (DV #7,17,&20). The relationship between OT and NT is that of promise and the fulfillment of the promise. Since God has come down as man to reveal Himself in and through His son Jesus Christ, the fullness of Divine Communication, the Church expects no new public revelation surpassing the glory Jesus Christ the Risen Lord (DV #4). The Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – therefore have a special place in the Sacred Scripture (DV #18).

The authenticity of sacred books, is based on their apostolic origin who have witnessed, been instructed and finally enlightened by the Holy Spirit and the faith passed on by them (DV #19). It is also the case with the books of the OT, the document notes, “Sacred Scripture has been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (DV #11). Thus Sacred Scripture is believed to firmly, faithfully teach the truth which God wishes to communicate to us, for the sake of our salvation ‘without error’. But, it holds good only with the support of the sacred tradition passed down by the apostles to their successors – bishops, which authenticates the truth of the Scripture. The Church therefore, believes that both sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition together mirrors God (His holy will) in our journey to the promised land/fullness of life (DV #7). Sacred Tradition refers to the apostolic teachings/exhortations, customs and laws that assist us grow in our understanding of the mystery according to the signs of the times. It, the successors of apostles – Magisterium, thus, holds the task of authentic interpretation of the Word of God.

Externally, therefore, the three sacred Scripture, sacred Tradition and Magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit discern the “Divine Communication” for the faithful and contribute to the salvation of souls.

2. Human Response

An authentic response to God who freely communicates in love is the total surrender of ourselves to him. The document describes it as “‘the obedience of faith’ [...] ‘the full submission of [our] intellect and will to God who reveals’” (DV #5). Such a response, however, is a grace of God. This brings us to those truths that surpass the power of human mind to understand ‘the mystery of God/our life’. It can be achieved today, primarily by reading sacred Scriptures in the light of the sacred Tradition and Magisterium, while being open to other types of revelations authenticated by Magisterium. Knowing therefore the importance of sacred Scripture, we are called to live and move anchored to the Word of God, the supreme rule of our faith. The document presses every faithful to nourish their soul and strengthen their faith, in this fount of spiritual life (DV #21). Moreover, it is here the sacred theology has its inspiration (DV #24). To this end, the church strongly recommends the sacred Scripture be available to all people, at all times, through suitable and correct translations into various languages (DV #22).  The obligation is even more for priests and religious who have embraced consecrated life, because the document believes that God speaks to us through scriptures: “we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles” (DV #25).

It however cautions the reader to acquire the art of interpreting the ‘text’ to discern precisely the intention of the authour i.e. what God wished to communicate to us through the authour. It is even more necessary with regard to sacred Scripture as it belongs to a distant tradition. The church therefore invites the readers to pay attention to the literary forms, the historicity and finally grasp it in the context of the whole scripture (DV #12) as we read the Scripture. To this end, church also fosters the study of the sacred scriptures (DV #23).

Conclusion

 The document renders an overall clarity of the concept ‘divine revelation’ in the Catholic Church, more so clears the myth that surrounds sacred Scripture. But, the document sadly is exclusive. It highlights  ‘sacred Scripture’ and is negligent to other means of divine communication. Moreover it is so particular about the complementary nature of  ‘sacred Scripture, sacred Tradition and Magisterium’, the document appears to be sidelining, ignoring and at times denying the authentic relationship of God with the separated brethren.

Being a Disciple in the School of Mary Magdalene: Love/Bhakti Relationship

Mary Magdalene, the Gospel tells us, is one of the handful women who formed part of the inner circle of Jesus besides the apostles. Among the other women disciples she has gained popularity down the centuries because of her passion for the Lord more so due to the controversies that cloud her relationship with Jesus. In our memories and in the art she is mostly depicted as a prostitute, a sinner, a seductive woman anointing the feet of Jesus and as one who enjoyed an intimacy with him. I do not intend to discuss such claims but would like to begin from there. Mary enjoyed so close a relationship with Jesus, she is even regarded as the bride of Jesus. The Gospels mention that she was present at passion, death and resurrection, the crucial moments of the life of Jesus. I call her love special since the resurrection-event of Jesus the central mystery of his ‘person’ was revealed first to her, a rare privilege, which outruns everyone else who were close to him. Our aim is an effort to make sense of her simple and sincere love/bhakti for the Lord and learn from her.

                                     

                                     Mary Magdalene, Who?

In the limited material we have about Mary Magdalene in the Gospel tradition, she literally appears only in three different contexts: first, in the context of the women followers of Jesus (Lk 8:2) where she is also referred as one from whom seven demons have been cast out; second, at the foot of the cross (Mt 27:56, Mk 15:40, Lk 23:55 & Jn 19:20); third, in the context of the empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus (Mt 28:1, Mk 16:1ff, Lk 24:10 & Jn 20:1). From these instances presented by the Gospel writers, we learn primarily that Mary was not a legend but a historical person. Though we have no personal details of her age and family, her name suggests that she must have been an unmarried woman coming from Magdala, near Tiberias in the west shore of Galilee. A married woman would have had her husband’s name but Mary did not. Besides there is nothing in the Gospels that indicate that she was married or had children or a widow. Two thousand years ago, any unmarried woman was looked with suspicion all the more in the case of Mary who was a close associate of Jesus. It may be one of the reasons, they so easily assume her as the prostitute mentioned in the Gospels. Another fact that is associated with her is that Jesus cast out seven demons from her. At that time, people believed that every bad (unclean) person deserved to be possessed. Jesus’ casting out of seven devils from her in all probability refers to her total purification to be with the Lord, as she was a woman. It is one of the pre-requisites to be His disciple.

Her Discipleship: A Love/Bhakti-Relationship

Our major source of information in this regard is the Gospel of St. John, which makes an exclusive reference to her unlike the other Gospels as one who was present in the most important events in the life of Jesus. The classical episode is love-drama at the tomb of Jesus (Jn 20,1-18), a day after his burial. The Gospel writer narrates, “... on the first day after the Sabbath, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark...” (v.1). This narration picturizes Mary Magdalene as one filled with ‘sadness’, ‘urgency’, ‘longing’, ‘love’ and ‘anxious’ for the Lord. Mary must have felt so miserable about the death of Jesus who could not even be given a proper burial she rushes to the tomb at the next opportune time. This happens to us, when we lose our loved ones, (as we usually do when they are alive) we go to their cemetery (where they are found) time and again. It clearly manifests her (spiritual) intimacy, her intense passion for the Lord. She might have been so tormented with the thought of Jesus the whole night, as the Psalmist notes “for you my body longs and my soul thirsts as a dry and weary land without water. I remember you on my bed I think of you all through the night” (Ps 62, 1&7), early next morning while it was still dark she rushes to meet him. It happens only in a love relationship. 

But, she does not find him “the tombstone had been moved away” (v.1b). “I looked for the one I love, I sought him without finding him” I borrow from Song of Songs 3,1 to express her inner-anguish. Once she discovers the mishap, the Gospel writer notes, “She ran to Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. And she said to them, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don’t know where they have laid him.’” In other words, she seeks help hoping to find him. When she does not find him where she had last seen him, she desperately seeks assistance to find him, she leaves no stone unturned. Her information to Peter and the other disciple makes plain ‘her hope’ in finding the Lord. She, of course, should find the Lord as she could not imagine ‘losing’ him, even in the wildest of her dreams. Once again I quote Song of Songs 3, 2a “I will rise and go about the city, through the streets and the squares; I will seek the love of my heart...” Probably it is for this reason she cries when she realizes that the disciples could not solve the problem. We read: “The disciples then went home again. Mary stood weeping outside the tomb” (v.10-11a). 

This may apparently seem childish, but it is spontaneous reaction of the one in love at the loss of his beloved. A parent crying for the lost child/son/daughter, a child/son/daughter at the loss of his/her parent, friend for his friend, husband for the wife and the wife for her husband... is the law of love. Moreover we cry only in these moments since we feel helpless and desperate about the situation. Women as she was, so intense a love-relationship, early hour of the day, unjust political death of her beloved, controversial rumours about his resurrection... it is natural that she breaks down. The unusual thing that happens in this case is that she still hopes, with all tears she bends down to look inside the tomb (v.11b), she turns around towards garden (v.14) looking for her Lord. She deserves a miracle. She receives the divine intervention: angels (v.12) and Jesus (v.15) appear to console her. God blesses the sincerity of her search/love. We know the rest of the story. It is understandable that she fails to recognize the Risen-Lord, despite her closeness, since the risen form was first-time and new for the whole history of humanity, Mary was no exception. Being a disciple, then, in the school of Mary Magdalene is falling in love with Jesus. It is being married to Jesus. This is nothing new for Christianity, for we, the church, is the bride of Christ. An authentic God-man relationship as the authentic marriage has been the imagery of Old Testament all along the salvation history. But it takes courage to enter into such relationship, for every love-relationship though apparently seems romantic, demands radical choices. Crossing boundaries, enduring unjust sufferings, sacrifices, adventures and losing oneself are the cost of such discipleship.

Note: In the Indian tradition we call such relationships as bhakti-marga, a movement that revitalized Hinduism in the medieval and modern era of pre-independent India. It has become very popular in the post-independent India.