Ever since I read Peter Carnley's version of Anglican Orthodoxy - which was so counter to everything I had ever thought - I have been struck by the place of mystery in Christian theology. It is important for Rowan Williams, too: though for these theologians who place great emphasis on the apophatic and mystical traditions in Christian theology I think there is a lack of a corresponding affirmation of a positive revelation. In the negative theology there is a hidden arrogance I think: that they can somehow see beyond the revelation to say that God is not like that. That is to say, they seem to claim for themselves a privileged position from which they can see and interpret the true reference of theological statements. It is its own form of speculation...
But they have highlighted something very important, to be fair, someting that evangelical theologians are prone to forget. That is, that mastering speech about God is never a possibility for human beings; that in the revelation of God in Christ which we encounter in the Bible we are still met by something beyond us. The trinity is the great example - God is revealed to us as trinity, but in this revelation he still retains his difference from us, his mystery (we might say).
Karl Barth writes:
Theology means rational wrestling with the mystery. But all rational wrestling with this mystery, the more serious it is, can lead only to its fresh and authentic interpretation and manifestation as a mystery... C.D. 1.1.368
This is surely no more than what Paul had in mind when he exclaims in Romans 11: 33-36
33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" 35 "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.
Of course, we need to place this in the context of all that Paul has affirmed theologically in the preceding chapters. But still, there is a line that even the apostle himself refuses to cross. It's a question of tone, in part, isn't it? As the preacher mounts the pulpit, does he do so with trembling knees and stammering tongue?
8 comments:
What is the 'it' that you are talking about here?
Yes. For Luther and Barth, something different is indicated by the mystery I think - God in revelation is veiled and unveiled. There is an appropriate reserve counselled by both, but also a demand that the actual revelation be acknowledged.
So two different arrogances: (i) thinking that God hasn't/can't communicate; (ii) thinking that we have mastered his communication. God remains Lord even in his self-revelation. Apart from trembling knees and stammering tongues, what difference(s) does (ii) make? And does (ii) continue into the eschaton?
Well, if we see face to face when we once saw through a glass darkly, there must be some qualitative difference I imagine; but we do not I would think lose the limitations of our creatureliness in the eschaton. We do not become GODS...
But what about now - what difference does mystery make? Does it imply the impossibility of definitively closing down any theological discussion?
Well, certainly Rowan Williams would say this. For him, the theological discussion is the end in and of itself.
I am happy with the trembling knees and stammering tongues. This is not insignificant: there is plenty of presumption and speculation in the practice of theology, and also in pulpits...
However, both Barth and Calvin held this 'mystery' as a safeguard against introducing into theological thought a rationalism that is not its own...that is to say, a tendency to foreclose on difficult questions in a tidy way, for the sake of 'rational' tidiness. This is what I think a certain kind of Calvinism does (not Calvin's kind, mark you!). Arianism itself was a kind of rationalism (all the Trinitarian heresies were!)- that is, an attempt to say more than could be said...
(P Knight)
The absolutes of christianity, such as "I know that my redeemer lives" "God is love" etc. are wonderful, strong naked truths given to us, indeed shouted, proclaimed, by the Lord, and it would be a great evil to throw up a veil of mystery to obscure these. Equally most christians readily agree in theory that what we do know is the tip of the iceberg, the printout, the need-to-know basis, as they say in the boardrooms. So there's a lot of mystery there.
The discussion has turned, it seems, to the uses, in the here and now, of this large supply of mystery. I've heard and always wanted to hate the approach that says "well if the bible is silent about it, then its not relevant". I mean, a rigorous application of that attitude ought to protect us from some of the egregious embarrassments of our own evangelical tradition: the "biblical" approach to short hair, rock music, racial segregation, (women in ministry?)... but it seems in danger of excluding some of the most profound spiritual experiences we can have: "consider the lilies of the field" says Jesus, "the heavens are telling the glory of god" say the psalms, well its OK to read, but to do it might be a bit god-in-nature...
We have a fightening freedom to pull apart everything that is not absolute, be open to points of view, discussion, empathy and ambiguity about just about everything, and to do it with tremendous confidence, because of our confidence in what is true. For even the most flexible thinkers among us, I would imagine this is very challenging. I think a practical outcome of a strong sense of God's mystery ought to be that we are very interested and confident at appeciating different cultural approaches to God and life, and uniquely perceptive and insightful about the philosophies of non believers as well, because everyone, even the most anarchic thinkers, have their own paradigms and structures in which to operate, which we should be able to cheerfully kick out from under them.
People that go on about mystical stuff - tedious and pointless as it can seem - are at least excited about God. Perhaps a respectful consideration of what we do not know will remind us that grace is amazing. Perhaps the tragedy of not fully engaging with the mystery of God is that christians can be some of the most cynical, unexcited and predictable fuddy duddies on earth.
Yes, perhaps 'mystery' is the wrong word: perhaps it is God's holiness that I am seeking to describe. This at least is a positive word...
yours
F. Duddy (this sounds like a rap star name...)
Post a Comment