Yes, it does help. Thanks, Tim. But sometimes I think that my love for God is somewhat like my love for my wife–if I try to analyze it too closely, too intellectually, it loses some of its powerful hold on me emotionally.
Al Leo
The so called “Relational Theology” is a curious notion, in that it is another attempt to put God within human limitations. The relationship that is clearly articulated in the Gospel (and in fact the entire Bible) is that of God entering into a covenant with us. The relationship is exemplified in toto in Christ - and it is here that conditions that exceed those of the old covenant, are imposed by God on us, not the other way around. These conditions are in fact, the death of the carnal self, and the resurrection of the new self in Christ. These are the dynamics in our time, and these commence with human repentance, not a change of mind by God. If we cannot make sense of these core tenets of the Christian faith, we cannot hold any coherent view. Placing God within any restriction of time and space is, to my mind, simply ludicrous, as it places us outside of the Gospel. The opinions put forward as kenosis are a misreading of Paul, who wanted to show the enormity of Christ as the Son of Man - He freely chose to live amongst us, to share in our sorrows, and to show us the path to Salvation. This shows the enormity of the Grace of God, not any limitation. It is from this point that we may seek to comprehend the Love of God, given to us through the Holy Spirit. This cleanse us from the carnality (works of the flesh) that bedevils us humans, and also takes us to the Love of God, as shown in the fruits of the Spirit. The creation longs for these outcomes; the great creation is to bring citizens into the Kingdom of God.
Ted and Mervin: Thank you for bringing Danielson’s article to my attention. From it I better appreciate the point you are making. As I am sure you are both aware, evidence that heliocentrism was profoundly destabilizing is given in the well-known lines of An Anatomy of the World (1611) by the English poet and cleric John Donne (1572-1631), which Danielson mentions in passing:
And new philosophy calls all in doubt,
The element of fire is quite put out,
The sun is lost, and th’earth, and no man’s wit
Can well direct him where to look for it.
And freely men confess that this world’s spent,
When in the planets and the firmament
They seek so many new; they see that this
Is crumbled out again to his atomies.
‘Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,
All just supply, and all relation;
Prince, subject, father, son, are things forgot,
For every man alone thinks he hath got
To be a phoenix, and that then can be
None of that kind, of which he is, but he.
Given the date of the poem, Stephen Toulmin—quite credibly—sees this excerpt as referencing Galileo’s discoveries, along with those of Copernicus and Kepler.[1] The implications of the “new philosophy” of heliocentrism were keenly felt. Toulmin writes:
“Once the earth was displaced so that it became one of the minor planets of the sun, instead of occupying the center of the cosmos, people lost their former sense of “knowing where they were” in the overall scheme of things…”[2]
While one data point does not make a trend, it shows the extent of the dissemination of Galileo’s The Starry Messenger (Sidereus Nuncius), published in 1610. Clearly, such a poem is not theological argument that heliocentrism “debases humankind”, as I stated, but it does illustrate a depth of feeling, as humankind was now set adrift from its traditional moorings.
[1] Stephen Toulmin, The Return to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of Nature (Oakland: University California Press, 1982), 219-220.
[2] Stephen Toulmin, The Return to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of Nature (Oakland: University California Press, 1982), 221.
Unsettling indeed! Even given the century + of time it took to get used to the idea. I guess if your status in the universe is low – even at the bottom of things, at least you know where you are; and that is probably is hard to let go despite the promotional nature of the change.
What really resonated with me though was this remark of Danielson’s:
But I also suspect (though can’t yet prove) that the great Copernican cliche is in some respects more than just an innocent confusion. Rather, it functions as a self-congratulatory story that materialist modernism recites to itself as a means of displacing its own hubris onto what it likes to call the ‘‘Dark Ages.’’
Despite the speculatory precaution Danielson applies here, I (hasty conclusion jumper that I am) feel less hesitancy in thinking he probably nailed it here.
This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.