No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Contemporary Relevance of Schillebeeckx's Political Theology: On Ecclesial Participation in the Saving Work of Christ
Abstract
In this article I explore the relation between God's absolute governance of the world and ecclesial dominion over other communities in a shared political forum that seeks the greatest good of all. On this question I compare the positions of Colin Gunton, Robert Jenson, and Edward Schillebeeckx as representatives of three distinct political theologies. Whereas Gunton's reservation regarding the participation of the church's politics in divine governance shows excessive deference to human sinfulness, Jenson on the contrary tends to absorb God's Rule into ecclesial politics. Drawing upon Schillebeeckx's Christology, I argue that God's absolute Rule is compatible with ecclesial sovereignty; however, this does not allow for unilateral ecclesial dominion over others, inasmuch as God's Rule is disclosed as forgiveness.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
In response to prevailing perceptions, I contend that Søren Kierkegaard (1813–55) conceives of the wholly otherness of God via his dialectical category of the ‘infinite qualitative difference’ between the human and the divine, initially through the self's consciousness of sin and ultimately through the self's acceptance of the gift of forgiveness. Therefore, I claim that while the common designation of Kierkegaard's God as ‘Wholly Other’ may initially evoke the alterity of sin; it is not ultimately sufficient to describe the divine alterity which Kierkegaard regards as more faithfully manifest in the ‘impossible possibility’ of forgiveness. Through this reading, I finally suggest that the ‘Wholly Other’ is not ultimately representative of God in Kierkegaard's writings and might be more faithfully supplemented by the appellation of the Holy Other.
Not far below the surface of most modern theological dispute lies the question of the interrelationship of theology and culture. How shall those who take their intellectual orientation from the Christian Gospel understand their position in relation to the intellectual currents that represent the spirit of the age? Should the stance be that of Tertullian, Eusebius, or Augustine; Kierkegaard, Barth, or Tillich; or of some variation and combination of these and others? One of the many ramifications of this complex area of inquiry concerns the relationship of the Christian community to the institutions of the society and the world in which it carries on its life, as is well illustrated by recent controversy over the aims and methods of the W.C.C. Programme to Combat Racism. Here, of course, are obvious, if highly complex, moral and practical issues. But underlying them is a further theoretical and theological question: What is Christianity? In this paper, I should like to suggest that both the theological and the ethical problems can be illuminated by an examination of the interrelationship between conceptions of the person of Christ and the church's understanding of its relation to earthly rulers.
Art can be understood as experimenting with possible worlds. There is, however, a real world underlying the possible worlds – the world created by God. We do not have unmediated access to this world, and so must, and can, continue to be artists, and a loss of faith in the existence of the real world leads to a loss of the possibility of art. If Christ is to be understood as art, then the Father is the artist who experiments with a possible world, which is thus defined as the real world, through his Son, the Logos.
Personal identity cannot exist without narrative coherence – without, that is to say, drama. Two sets of narratives make up the identity of Christ: a narrative of a human being among other human beings; and a narrative of the Son with the Father and the Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity insists that these narratives are the same. A culture is necessarily dramatic: a story of persons and their relationships. Thus Christ may be understood as drama and as culture. This identification has implications for the liturgy of the church.
This article is a critical consideration of Robert Jenson’s understanding of the church as the Body of Christ in the light of 1 Corinthians. Jenson is understood to be claiming that the church is the presence on earth of the eschatological kingdom. This is based on a variety of faulty presuppositions. But Jenson’s view of the church as a social political reality is found not to allow for a distinctive ethic. 1 Corinthians is shown to assert the priority of the Word, creating the church, and to have an eschatological morality, relating worship and church polity.
Standard definitions of culture demand that we understand the church as a culture. However, if the church is the body of Christ in the world, then Christ is a culture. This recognition can be understood through the doctrine of the totus Christus, and offers a way of understanding the relation of Christ to Israel in the scriptural narrative. It also illuminates, variously, the practice of intercessory prayer and the question of ‘church–state’ relations.
This is in reference to the Johannine call to live a life that is ‘not of this world
- Schillebeeckx Christ Pp
In all references to this work I also refer in brackets to the page numbers of the original English translation
- E. Schillebeeckx Christ
Experience and Faith‘inCollected Works
- E Schillebeeckx