‘HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIVINE IN THE MAKING’

Apophatic Anthropology – Proposing a Non-Conclusive Take on Wo/man

courtesy: http://uconnhumanrightsinstitute.files.wordpress.com

In our early discussions on the subject Theological Anthropology we were made known that one of the aims of the course was to help us perceive the transcendental dimension of human beings. Accordingly, we learnt that we were not mere ‘humans’ in the narrow sense of the term. The testimony of scriptures from the judeo-christian tradition, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, history of humanity were offered as standing proofs of the divinity of humanity.  As a consequence, the call is to go beyond a materialistic, physical and psychological anthropology to a ‘theological anthropology’ for a holistic, intuitive, trans-empirical, trans-rational and contemplative take on the mystery of human persons. In this effort, we carefully avoid the latent fallacy of the traditional theology to ‘spiritualize’ anthropology. This awareness of the trans-temporal dimension of creation revolutionizes our conception of life, human person and reality as a whole. It is so fundamental a shift it compels every science to revisit its foundational principles to gain true insight about reality. With the rising inter-disciplinary interactions, (between empirical and trans-empirical sciences) the renewal has already begun. There is a welcome interaction between reason and intuition; knowledge and wisdom; and logical thinking and meditation. I think, any careful observation of our inner surging will confirm that we are eking out to transcend temporality. We can confidently state that we are gradually growing in awareness of our tempeternity. Here we intend to get back to this discussion reading Linda Woodhead’s “Apophatic Anthropology”[1] which presents a significant implication of this insight from the perspective of an apophatic theology for theological anthropology.

We read in the scripture “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness’ (Genesis 1.26).  In its attempt to makes sense of this passage, early Christian exegetical tradition sought to clarify ‘how does one resemble God?’  In it, the Western Christian tradition mostly identified it (the divinity/god) with the highest faculties of human person like reason, mind, soul, or freedom. In the east, theologians argued that human being as a whole - body and soul – resembles God as we are created in the image of God with both body and soul.[2] Most contemporary theologians, thinkers and mystics accept this and proceed further to affirm that nothing in the universe is unholy. Discriminations and dislikes for one or the other on different fronts manifest our ignorance. Their argument is that the whole cosmos participates in the nature of its creator, its source – God/Divine. This does not mean we are God - uncreated and infinite. It rather means that we share the nature/mystery of god. Our journey towards the realization of our nature (fullness of life) therefore, is our efforts to become like god. Subtly, it means that our end is to become like god.

In his interpretation of this passage, Aquinas explains that every human person is born with the potency to reach the highest perfection i.e. god. But, it has to be actualized through conscious individual effort. Irenaeus equates our potency to the term ‘image’ in the passage and our efforts to attain it to ‘likeness’.[3] In other words, we are actually becoming divine in and through our humanity, and attain eternal life in and through history. The dualistic neglect or denial of one for the other, for example turning to God at the expense wo/man, is erroneous. Irrespective of ideologies and conceptions of life when we work for a good meaningful life we actualize our potency for divinity. But for our resistance in freedom, everyone experiences an ontological compulsion to participate in this process. Spiritual traditions and theologians name this desire or inner urge as the push of the divine energy or Holy Spirit or deep calling to deep. Not just inspiration, this energy acts as encouragement and nourishment in this ‘spiritual’ journey. However, it is only a handful (enlightened people) in history consciously pursues to attain the end/meaning/purpose of our existence. Though there are many examples of such lives in history, as Christians our touch stone is Jesus Christ. Woodhead names this effort to actualize our potency, to realize full human nature as ‘process of deification’. She writes, “human beings are created possessing the capacity to be deified – a capacity that some Fathers identified with freedom to co-operate with God’s will. This capacity belongs to the whole person, body and soul, and it is the whole person who is also to be deified – in this life and in the next.”[4]  This process is led by the spirit/the divine energy.

The problem comes when we try to understand this transformed and transforming human nature i.e. the enlightened/deified persons and the humanity in this process of enlightenment/deification. The issue is whether we can fully comprehend it as it models divine nature which is beyond a total comprehension. In their quest to experience and make sense of god/the divine nature, an important insight of the theologians and mystics of Christian tradition was the impossibility of understanding or speaking about it. This is apophatic theology. Apophaticism insists that the divine nature is beyond words, concepts and understandings. However in the history of traditional theology, it was lost in the confidence of positive theology (cataphatic theology) which has given the images of father, son and spirit to God. However this hasn’t exhausted the mystery. If applied to human nature which is made in the image and likeness of god, we should be able to humbly accept that we can never arrive at a definitive description of human nature. Thus we cultivate a patient openness to the human person who is in the process of deification. This is called as apophatic anthropology. This is so vital an insight, here we find solutions for most personal, communal and institutional conflicts. She writes, “The Spirit draws us into the unknowable reality of God, into the mystery in which each unique human life finds its fulfillment. Thus the question of human life and the definition of human dignity must always be left open.”[5]  Thus we are open to the differences in human nature. The differently abled, for example would be actually manifesting some important aspects of human beings; similarly in all fields of science. This does not mean anything goes. As we have mentioned above, in as far as we are Catholics, our touchstone is Jesus Christ; we could also include others who have lived Christic values.

On the contrary, in its overall rigid, (narrow), suspicious and at times discriminative approach to different human persons – different physically, biologically, psychologically (in sexual orientations) etc. – Catholicism betrays an impoverished anthropology that is more physical, biological and corporal than theological. Consider for example the rigid stands of church on women regarding its ministerial priesthood. It sounds as if we are just bodies and biological selves. The problem with the church is that with its inclination to define, describe and fix everything (including god) it is bound to overstress physical aspects of human nature. Another area, Woodhead brings to our notice, is Church’s frustration over the developing medical assistance for child conceptions and births as contrary to natural way of giving birth. Actually this is the way most of us understand human persons. Take for example the case of physical disability, since majority is not that way. We pity them. We do not really accept them as equals. Our world is built in such a way that they feel guilty about their physical make up. What prevents us from perceiving that they are fully human, probably manifesting other dimensions of human mystery. We have a long way to go. There are those, the enlightened handful, who fight for their equal respect and equal right. The majority needs to become open. To cultivate this openness, Woodhead proposes that aware of the mystery of the human nature and its development guided by the Holy Spirit, we should take an apophatic approach (non-conclusive approach) towards human beings. This requires, I quote, “ [that] we open ourselves to the unknown in order to become more than we can possibly know. It is much safer and easier to choose a route that has already been clearly mapped out – but that is not the same as entering into Life.”[6]

-----------

---

[1]Linda Woodhead, “Apophatic Anthropology,” The Whole and Divided Self, edited by David E. Aune and John McCarthy (Crossroad Publishing Company,).

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

                [4] ibid

                [5] Ibid

                

[6] Ibid.

JESUS CHRIST: PATRIARCHAL BIASES IN CHRISTOLOGY

Discussions with Rosemary Radford Ruether Reader[1]    

One of the important methods of feminist Christian theologians to create feminist critical consciousness in the church is to deconstruct the foundations – the faith story (systematic theology) - that justify and sanction the patriarchal church. They re-narrate the faith story. Here we present once such re-narration of our faith story that “we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, who was sacrificed as a ransom for our sins”. Feminists have problems with this Christology. We do this by discussing “Created Second, Sinned First: Women, Redemption, and the Challenge of Christian Feminist Theology” by Rosemary R. Ruether (1936- ), a world renowned feminist theologian. In this discussion, we open up the patriarchal biases in the traditional Christology and the Soteriology, discuss them and learn the feminist renarration of the faith story - Christology.

courtsey: theprogressivecatholicvoice.blogspot.com

In Christian theology what do feminists do? We believe they fight female insensitive and discriminatory (patriarchal) passages or narrations and practices?

Here we need to clarify the terms patriarchy and the feminism. It is naïve to identify patriarchy with mere male domination, instead it is the whole system of domination, Ruether writes, “patriarchy is a multi-layered system of domination, centered in men’s control of women, but including class, race, and generational hierarchies, clericalism, war, and the domination of nature. […] Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza has coined the phrase ‘kyriarchy’ (the rule of the Lord) for this system of top down power firmly rooted in the religious hierarchy.” Hence the problem with patriarchal bias in theology is not just some insensitive and discriminatory passages and practices, which are included, but the whole lot of violent, dominant, hierarchical and dualistic understanding of reality. Feminist Christian theology fights, therefore, not just mere male domination of women, but all the consequent unjust system of thought. So, Ruether phrases it as “overcoming all forms of patriarchy.”

What is the - feminist’s - problem with Christian understanding of redemption as achieved in and through Jesus Christ? Traditional doctrine says that we are fallen through the sin of our first parents. We lost grace. It is restored in the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.

A careful reading of the traditional doctrines of redemption and original sin, would betray the subtle gender biases inherent in them. In the doctrine of original sin the sin enters through a woman. Redemption is wrought by a man, Christ on the cross. Here begins the inferiority and subordination of women to men. Ruether writes, “In the classical Christian paradigm, women, in order to be redeemed, must subordinate themselves to men, because women, to paraphrase I Timothy 2.11-15, were created second and sinned first.” Feminists, therefore, are suspicious about the traditional doctrine of redemption.

In its reconstruction, feminist theology first rejects the story of fallen soul in the doctrine of redemption. It believes that despite our pitfalls we are basically good and the humanity grows in this goodness. Thus, it would easily set aside the necessity of a mediator to restore our original state of grace. Ruether writes, “Feminist theologians reject the classical notion that the human soul is radically fallen, alienated from God, and, unable to reconcile itself with God, in need of an outside mediator. Instead human self is defined through its primary identity as image of God. This original goodness and communion with its divine ground of being continues to be the true nature of women and men”.

Your explanation, “we do not need a mediator”, jeopardizes the rationale of the church in the world which is founded and sustained in the Christ Event. How then do you understand Jesus Christ? What is his role in the salvation of the world (our salvation)?

Jesus in feminist theology is an inspiration, source and a model to be emulated. It strip Jesus of all the dogmatic accretions to conceive and experience him as the divine in history committed to creating an egalitarian society despite oppositions. He gets killed in the process; however death fails to silence him. He continues to live on in the church which heralds that good news (Jesus-story). Ruether writes, “Jesus’ role become quite different in feminist theology. His is a root story for the redemptive process in which we must all be engaged, but he does not and cannot do it for us. No one person can become the collective human whose actions accomplish a salvation which is then passively applied to everyone else. Jesus’ story can be a model for what we need to do for ourselves and with one another.”

The whole person and the message remains a touchstone for feminists who continue to celebrate and work for the redemption “in memory of him”. In fact Christian feminists still stick to church because of their attachment to Christ. They revisit Jesus story again and again to strengthen their theology and life. Ruether writes, “The Jesus story continues to be a model for Christian feminists because it exemplifies the redemptive paradigm of feminist liberation: dissent against oppressive religious and political structures, taking the side of the oppressed, particularly women, living egalitarian relations across gender, race and class, and pointing toward a new time when these hierarchies will be overcome, and anticipating redeemed relations in a community of celebration here and now.”

How then do you make sense of the Christ’s suffering on the cross? God so loved us that he sacrificed his only son for our redemption. Is not our struggle to realize the egalitarian society our participation in his suffering; our share in this great big sacrifice?

courtesy: whypain.org

Most Christian feminists question the focus on suffering and cross as central for redemption/redemptive activity. They explain that Jesus’ suffering on the cross was not one of passive or victimized suffering but one that was inflicted because of his life of protest against injustice and solidarity with the poor/the marginalized. Therefore they reject the traditional importance to ‘suffering’ as having redemptive value. In fact, they would critique such an understanding as manipulative tool of the higher-ups to sustain the discriminative order. Therefore they would allow suffering as only a risk factor that is involved in our efforts to establish the egalitarian society. Ruether writes, “some want to ask what kind of suffering is redemptive? [Victimized passive suffering is not redemptive]. What is redemptive is extricating ourselves from unjust suffering and changing ourselves from unjust suffering and changing the conditions that cause it. It is not Jesus’ suffering and death that are redemptive, but rather his life of protest against injustice and solidarity in defense of life. This is the Jesus we need to imitate. Suffering is a factor in the liberation process, not as a means of redemption, but as the risk one takes when struggling to overcome unjust systems whose beneficiaries resist change.”

But why Jesus, what compels you to be anchored to Jesus’ story? Is not the ‘male factor’ of Jesus a problem for feminist theology? How do you construct the whole thought on one who is after all a man?

Though there are two questions, cynically targeting our rootedness in Jesus highlighting his maleness and hinting at the possibility of finding women models, its intent is one: to project ‘Christian Feminism as self-contradictory. “Why Jesus”, there is no option. We belong to Jesus tradition. Moreover, he has lead such an integral human life with genuine love for others and deliberate choice for the marginalized. He can thus be our touchstone and our model. This does not blind us to other such lives in history as our inspiration.  Thus we note first, the inter-religious and global (transnational) openness of feminist theology. Ruether writes, “Christian symbols are one resource among others, along with Shamanism and Buddhism, as with Korean Christian feminist Chung Hyun Kyung, or along with indigtenous Latin American and African religions, as with Elsa Tamez and Mercy Oduyoye. […] Feminist liberation theology is a human project, not an exclusively Christian project.”

Second, there is the list of contemporary women who have lived a Christ-like life. They are equally regarded as models who incarnate Jesus in the contemporary society through their lives. Ruether writes, “Christian feminist theology […] goes beyond telling the Jesus story as one of a ‘good man who really cared about us,’ and dares to parallel the Jesus story with the stories of women liberators. […] Thus some Christian feminists begin to life up female Christ figures of their own cultures.” In this article Ruether refers to the story of Eku, a Fante woman of Ghana, who led her people to a new land where they could find a good life, at the risk of her life as mentioned in the writings of African Christian feminists.

About the question of Jesus’ maleness the answer is direct that maleness is only an accident like the details of his historicity. Ruether writes, “Jesus’ maleness is declared to be one ‘accident’ of his historical reality among others, like being Jewish, a first century Galilean.” Besides, they negate the patriarchal theology that makes maleness as normative for full human life and being the image of God. Everyone is created in and image and likeness of God. Divine transcends names and forms. (Ruether does not say this.)

Thus if summarized the feminist renarration of Jesus-story and the story of our redemption is that we live in the state of goodness and communion with the divine. The sin of the world is the unjust, inequal and discriminatory world on the basis of race, gender, caste, creed and economic status. We sin when we participate in it. Jesus became word incarnate to restore the just and egalitarian society. He got killed in the process, yet he continued to live on in his disciple and in the church. He is our inspiration, encouragement and model. We continue to incarnate him in the contemporary society collaborating with everyone who works for the just world.

---

[1] I use discussion genre for this assignment. I am the Rosemary Ruether Reader. My primary source is Rosemary’s article “Created Second, Sinned First” Conscience Vol. XVIII, No. 1, Spring 1997. My exposition of her feminist critique is substantiated with direct quotes from the article.