Rahner was an amateur

Karl Rahner was a giant of Catholic theology in the 20th century (A lot of his writing was published in the 1960's and 70's). He engaged with the Wittgensteinian idea of language in multiple levels of meaning - i.e. that language doesn't stand still but shifts in its meaning all the time. He was also very quick on the uptake that 'Systematic' theology was over: as a late modernist ("pre-post-modern"?), he was already setting about writing theology in a different form. He called it 'Investigations'.

Rahner, as a Catholic, was from a tradition that holds continuity in absolute importance: For a Catholic, evolution isn't an option. Somehow though, Rahner was able at the same time to be faithful to his tradition, while being completely engaged with the culture and changing ideas of the period in which he lived, and developing and re-expressing theological ideas in forms that rendered them meaningful within their context. (Although, it must be said, he's not an easy read! When his brother embarked upon an English translation, someone encouraged him, saying "It would be so good to see Karl's work translated into English!" The brother wryly commented, "It would be good to see it translated into German!")

Rahner described himself as an 'Amateur'. He wanted the freedom of NOT being a professional theologian - with all the baggage that brings - so he placed his emphasis on being a priest, thus gaining the space to do theology, to some extent at least, on his own terms. But mostly, he described himself as an 'Amateur' in the original meaning of the word - someone who does something not through obligation, but simply for the love of it.

I like the description of doing theology that says its like "a little boy playing in the mud". I think, like mine, Rahner's eyes would have twinkled at that idea too.

Theosis

Anyone who's listened closely to the words of the Catholic Eucharistic liturgy will remember that it contains words something to the effect of "by the mystery of this water mixed with wine, may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity". In one of his letters, St. Athanasius, the fourth-century defender of the faith, made his famous statement that the Son of God became man "that he might deify us in himself." In his great work, On the Incarnation, he wrote similarly that Christ "was made man that we might be made God." Peter writes in his second epistle that our Lord's "divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness," so that through his promises we "may participate in [literally, "become sharers (koinonoi) of"] the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" (2 Pet. 1:4). All of these examples speak of the doctrine that is known variously under the synonymous names of theosis, deification, divinization, or, as I prefer, participation in God.

The idea of deification, of humanity somehow participating in the Divine, is an idea more likely associated these days with New Age or Eastern religions such as various branches of Buddhism. In reality however, this is doctrine with Christian roots as far back as the ante-Nicene period (roughly the late 2nd to 3rd Century A.D.), and is found to a surprising extent throughout Christian history, despite it being practically unknown to the majority of Christians today (and even many theologians) in the Church of the West. In Orthodox theology however, it is a controlling doctrine. I would go so far as to suggest that it is not too much to say that the divinization of humanity is the central theme, chief aim, basic purpose, or primary religious ideal of Orthodoxy. With the growing interest in fostering dialogue and mutual understanding between Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Christians, I believe it is essential that theosis studies be pursued. We Evangelicals may receive considerable benefit from a clear understanding and judicious appropriation of the doctrine. This is so particularly in light of the crying need for a robust biblical theology of the Christian life that will refute and replace the plethora of false spiritualities plaguing contemporary Church and society. Perhaps it is my own hunger for such a spiritual life that I have of late been captured by this concept and have felt the need to explore it further. In the coming weeks I will probably toss out a few thoughts here and there as I sort through some ideas and try to take hold of them for my own life. Those of you who have started to read some of my posts on this blog will likely see a few of my steps in that process. I understand that the territory I may venture into is new and that I may sometimes sound like I've gone off the deep end. Try not to worry too much if I sound like a wacko - I'm probably just speculating something a little out there to help me define the line of Orthodoxy (theology by reduction as my friend Joel and I so often do in our heretic humor). It is my hope that through a careful study of theosis which both affirms and critiques, this venerable concept might be appropriated in a way that is attractive to the contemporary North American Evangelical Church and that enriches the way we live out our Christianity.

At this point I'm just beginning to pull together some thoughts on the subject. At present, all I have to put forward is my working personal definition of theosis in language that I think is more comfortable and customary for Evangelical Christians. As I think on it more, I hope to draw some conclusions on how this doctrine can make a difference in practical life matters, as well as answer some of the tough issues it raises in regards to such things as the Incarnation of Christ and the nature of humanity in our Eschatological state.

But for now, my definition: With the fall of humanity and the advent of sin, we did not loose the image of God we were created with, but rather we damaged the likeness (Gen. 1:26). Theosis, as I understand it, is the reintegration of the divine likeness of humanity's original creation back into our human natures which have been seriously distorted by the fall. This work of redemption was made possible by the hypostatic union, death, and resurrection of the eternal Logos who was Incarnate in the historical person we know as Jesus of Nazareth. The process occurs today through the application of divine grace and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, conforming the redeemed person into the likeness of Christ and transitioning the believer from mortality to immortality so that we are enabled to participate in the bliss and beatific vision of eternal communion with God. In this life Christians grow more and more into the very likeness and character of God, as God was revealed in the man Jesus Christ. This is more than the customary Protestant concept of sanctification, however. In theosis, while there is no ontological change of humanity into deity, there is a very real impartation of the divine life to the whole human being - an ontological sharing in the Triune life of God, yet never in such a way that theosis means sharing in God's essence (nature), because the nature of God is utterly transcendent and therefore inaccessible to any created reality (thus all forms of pantheism are firmly rejected). Our deification will only be realized in its fullness in the age to come, after the resurrection of the dead. This union has, nevertheless, to be fulfilled ever more and more even in this present life through the redemption of our corruptible and depraved human nature as we move towards eternal dwelling with God face to face.

I'm not sure if that's of any benefit for anyone to read, but it certainly is helpful for me to write. I'd appreciate any questions or comments anyone might have on the subject, and I hope to return to it periodically over the coming weeks.

Peace out.

The Soliloquy

From his seat in the back row, Kyle perchanced to think.

I can't believe ENG 383 is Shakespeare and not advanced CAD/CAM. Who cares why Hamlet can't avenge his father's death? I hate my stepfather, but you don't catch me talking to myself about it.

Kyle looked down over the rows of students. Although, he thought, I did think about killing him after he made me get another job to pay for school. It was that time in church. I was embarrassed to be next to him with his singing all loud and out of tune. Every time the minister said something about sacrifice he'd start "Amen"ing. I remember thinking, when the hell did he ever sacrifice anything? He spends most of his life on the sofa sitting on his wide ass watching wide screen TV. He won't even get up to buy his own beer. He makes me bring it on my way home from work. This is supposed to be the best time of my life, and I spend half of it bagging groceries. How could Mom marry such a jerk? Right then I pictured the big ceiling fan in the church dropping down on his head. But then I thought, I wouldn't want him to die in a church. Maybe I could arrange it so the TV would fall and crush him? Well, I guess I don't really want to kill him. I just think about it a lot is all.

Kyle glanced at his watch. My God, he thought, another half-hour? Won't this class ever end?

If God is for me who can be against me?

Me...

The Skating Rink

The music from the skating rink
Drifts across the town
The stars of heaven high above
Forever looking down
I stand here looking upward,
And I'm listening to the sound
Of the city in the lonely heart of winter

The lights above the skating rink
Illuminate the scene
And on the snow the shadows show
Footsteps where we've been
And Danny's breath hangs motionless
Hovers like a dream
Above his head, in the lonely heart of winter

The sky above the skating rink
The blackened weight of space
Falls endless on the frozen world
Upon the saving grace
Of the lights around the skating rink
Laughing in the face
Of the darkness at the lonely heart of winter

Coupe du Monde

With the 2004 World Cup of Hockey kicking off this week I am again reminded of my deep love for the game. During the Olympics I heard several enlightened athletic elites criticize Canada because hockey is the only sport that our culture has really embraced. While it would be nice if we were good at swimming like Australia or gymnastics like Eastern Europe or Ping Pong like China, I fail to see why we need to despair that our best sport is and probably always will be hockey. You can't be the best at everything. It seems only fitting that different nations have different sports that they excel at. It reflects the diversity of talents and abilities that make up our world. Hockey is Canada's thing. Other countries are good at it too, but it is a part of us in a way that is not matched anywhere else. We appreciate it beyond the technical elements of the game to the point where it teaches us about ourselves and becomes a metaphore for life. There is something indescribable about a fresh sheet of ice and the sound of blades cutting in - the thud of a cold puck off the hard wood of the end boards - seeing your breath in clouds above you while you gasp for air on the bench between shifts - watching the twine bulge and the red light blink. There is a language to hockey; a code; an unwritten Scripture. We know it subconsciously and feel it inside. Names like Gretzky, Lemiuex, Orr, Howe -and now St. Louis, Iginla, Heatley - they evoke a lifetime of memories: that certain pass, how he flipped the puck just so, the hit at the blue line, that one timer from the slot in the dieing seconds. This is the narrative of our being - a part of who we are collectively as a nation. It is a thing of beauty. May it never die.

GO CANADA GO!