The Church and its members stand at the crossroads between times, as it were; and the complete pattern of progress on the journey is not visible to it. And yet there is a sense in which the journey is already over, and the Church has come to its heavenly home.
In his poem “Burnt Norton” Eliot writes (with strong allusion to the incarnation and passion) ‘only through time time is conquered’. Is ‘conquered’ the best theological verb to use? The incarnation of the Logos in time offers time to a divine experiencing of it. Time, and its sinister twin, Death, were not avoided by him by transcended in him. If they are ‘conquered’ by him it is not because they are denied by him but rather because they are experienced by him. Both remain, but their negative affects are attenuated.
As von Balthasar (reading Augustine) says, temporality as it stands ‘is an absence of the creature from unified eternity’ – which means death. It is not possible to grasp eternity in time: even Augustine’s impressive inventory of his memory does not lead him unambiguously to that condition. It is only by obedience, and in ‘acceptance of the renunciation which is imposed upon him’ that the journeying Christian and the pilgrim Church can experience that indwelling of the eternal in the temporal.
16 comments:
What has God done to time?
Only through time time is conquered
Time... and Death were... transcended in him.
How about 'redeemed'? Or 'fulfilled'? These are biblical ways of speaking about time. Isn't the aim not to get out of time (any more than the aim is to get out of the body), but for time (and the body) to be liberated from bondage to decay?
Well yes, 'fulfilled' is the word von Balthasar uses...
so, it is undoing the nexus between death and time...
Hi Michael,
I am very interested in your comment that "it is not possible to grasp eternity in time". There are many who might disagree arguing from a realist perspective that the universal can be experienced in time through God's intervention in time (John 1: 14 speaking of the incarnation as the logos made flesh seems to suggest that the universal or eternity can be experienced in time). Can I suggest that those Christians who adopt a realist view of the sacraments would argue that the universal (the nature of Christ as Word or logos) is experienced in time in say the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Those Anglicans who accept the sacramental principle would want to argue that the universal is experienced in time through the particular (e.g. the bread and wine of the Eucharist). This depends on the acceptance of the sacramental principle I agree. Augustine based his theology on a Platonic realism, arguing that there are eternal and immutable Forms that are exemplars of the divine mind. Augustine argued, for example “when the mind confesses that it too is changeable because of its failure and success in wisdom, it finds that above itself exists an unchangeable truth” (Augustine, Eighty-three Different Questions, 45, 1, edn. Mosher, 1982: 76). This unchangeable truth for Augustine was transcendent, ultimately being found in God, but nonetheless in a realist way participating in and identifying with material objects. It was through the sacraments, for example, that the truths participated in the material in a transcendent way. Augustine argued that it was through the sacramental signs of bread and wine that the faithful communicant received the reality of Christ’s body and blood and sacrifice, even though Christ’s body and blood as something with universal significance stood apart from the physical objects of bread and wine in space and time. There was in Augustine’s scheme a linking of sign and signified in a realist philosophical manner. Augustine says, as an example, “That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Augustine, Sermons, 227, cited in Muldowney, 1977: 196). This realist language does not however function in a crude physical or fleshy manner, but rather a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, not dependent on immoderate fleshy characteristics but on participation of the earthly signs in heavenly realities. Augustine says therefore, denying a fleshy notion of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, “to eat that food and to drink is to abide in Christ and to have him abiding in oneself” (Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26, 18, edn. Rettig, 1988: 274). It seems for Augustine that it 'is' possible to experience the universal in the particular.
Wow, thanks Brian!
I used the word 'grasp' to indicate a human reaching for the 'eternal' rather than a gracious divine intervention in the temporal... so, yes, we can experience the divine in the temporal but not by grasping at it...
Of course, I would say it is in the Word - and in the sacraments as an enacted Word - that this occurs... ('sure witnesses and effectual signs'!)
Are you then using the word 'grasp' in the sense of groping rather than in the sense of understanding or knowing? If so then I agree with you - we do not grasp at the eternal in the sense of owning it and possessing it in some material and personal sense. Rowan Williams makes exactly this point in his book 'On Christian Theology' where he argues against the idea that we can possess the eternal - using the Eucharist as an example. He criticises the older style Anglican Catholic theology which argues that we lock Christ up in some way in the Eucharist. You might be interested in looking at his work on my blogsite. If however by grasp is meant to know the presence of the eternal in time through say the sacraments, then perhaps it is possible to grasp the eternal but not to grasp at it as you and Williams seem to suggest.
yes, I am using 'grasp' as a perjorative - in the sense that Jacob's name meant 'he grasps'...
The question my other friends have raised here is: is the eternity/time dichotomy reflective of a Platonic (realist if you like) metaphysics that distorts the scriptural witness?
Yes I do agree that there are problems with what I am calling Platonic realism. As I understand it Platonic realism links the universal and the particular too closely in that the particular identifies with the Form in what some philosophers call an 'immoderate' way, that is the sign and the signified become one and the same. This I suggest is the main problem some people find so hard to stomach about any realist views of eucharistic presence and sacrifice. Realism however that is based on Aristotelian philosophy does not identify the particular with the universal in such a crude manner. Instead it speaks of instantiation, where universals are instantiated in particulars. This means in eucharistic theology for example that the divine Word of Logos is instantiated in the particularity of the person Jesus and in the particularity of the eucharistic elements, just as it in Scripture or in the congregation. This sort of realism speaks of the essence or the nature (the universal) being instantiated in particulars without the particulars being one and the same. Some philosophers call this moderate realism. This means that the universal, the nature or essence of Christ as Word or Logos can be instantiated in more than one place without disturbing the sensibilities concerned with the presence of Christ before the heavenly throne. David Ford at Cambridge puts this view as do many other Anglican theologians. Where this really stretches the brain is in the idea that the universal is strictly identical in its different instantiations while the particulars do not share this strict identity. Some philosophers call this loose identity or identity in nature. I think this sort of thinking assists with Michael's original question concerning the presence of the eternal in time.
To answer Michael's other question about Platonic realism distorting the scriptural witness, I would say yes it does, due to its immoderate nature. The Aristotelian realism however does not I think distort the scriptural witness due to it moderate nature. The John 1: 14 quotation supports this view I think since it is the Word or Logos that is made flesh - this sounds like an instantiation of the divine nature in the material to me.
Thanks Brian: very helpful! Actually, 'd' writing here is a student of David Ford's at Cambridge...!
Thanks Brian: very helpful! Actually, 'd' writing here is a student of David Ford's at Cambridge...!
Here's the reference to the David Ford article I mentioned:
Ford, D.F. (1995) What happens in the Eucharist?, Scottish Journal of Theology, 48, 3, 359-381.
He uses the term 'non-identical repetition' which I think means moderate realism. Hope this is useful
I haven't read all the other comments but some of my favourite poetry about time comes in Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral" including:
Some malady is coming upon us. We wait, we wait,
And the saints and martyrs wait, for those who shall be martyrs and saints.
Destiny waits in the hand of God, shaping the still unshapen:
I have seen these things in a shaft of sunlight.
Destiny waits in the hands of God, not in the hands of the statesmen
Who do, some well, some ill, planning and guessing,
Having their aims which turn in their hands in the pattern of time.
Come, happy December, who shall observe you, who shall preserve you?
Shall the Son of Man be born again in the litter of scorn?
For us, the poor, there is no action,
But only to wait and to witness.
Beautiful stuff.
PS I've broken my arm and this took an inordinate amount of time to type!
Thanks hk! the pain was certainly worth it for the rest of us!
wait and witness. That's all we have to do.
D's use of 'genuine realism' leaves me wondering. Is there therefore a 'non genuine realism' and what is that? Perhaps by 'genuine realism' is meant an empiricism that is implied by the idea of 'substantial'. Is there a danger here of leading us to the grasping after eternity that Michael originally spoke of in this post. Cranmer seems to suggests such a grasping in the Defence when he says: “.. our Saviour Christ hath not only set forth these things most plainly in his holy word, so that we may hear them with our ears; but he hath also ordained one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, and another visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment in bread and wine, to the intent that, as much as possible for man, we may see Christ with our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste him with our mouths, grope him with our hands, and perceive him with all our senses. For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our ears; so likewise these elements of water, bread and wine, joined to God’s word, do after a sacramental manner put Christ into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our senses.” (Defence, edn. Duffield, 1964: 70). The advantage of moderate realism, as I see it (an as it is used by some secular philosophers as well as theologians) is that we are not led down this empirical road and limited by it. Instantiation suggests that the nature of the divine logos s therefore present in things sure (the substantial?) such as the Word, the sacraments, the Church as the Body of Christ, as well as being eternally present but not limited by empiricism. Is this what talk of 'substantial' implies?
David,
Temporality is the experience of embodiment in a world created from nothing yet upheld in, with and for the Son through whom all things were made. Death is the distortion of temporality not the sign of it and therefore temporality has its own integrity which is redeemed and reconstituted in the risen Messiah.
Amen!
And again, I find myself in agreement with David over whether Jesus was merely the 'instantiation' of the Logos, particularly if there is another 'instantiation' of the Logos at the right hand of God. Not sure whether Ford would use this language - comments?
And re Eliot: witness and wait and work?
Post a Comment