What follows is a summary of sorts by Richard Rhor about his discussion of many of the "theologies of the cross" in the book sited here at the end of the post. I highly recommend this book for those who are willing to think for themselves with a critical mind about their faith but beware, it will challenge much of what has been passed down to you. I find here a cross I can truly embrace. This theology of Duns Scotus makes much more sense to me than a loving God who requires blood in order for me to have a relationship with him/her.
To get the full import of what is being said here you may need to read the book.
A Bit of History
In the thirteenth century, the
Franciscans and the Dominicans
were the church’s debating
society, as it were. We were
allowed to have minority
positions in those day, which
makes me think we have moved
backward. We invariably took
opposing positions in the great
debates in the universities of
Paris, Cologne, and Oxford, and neither opinion was kicked out of the church in those days. One of the debates was on St. Anselm’s famous and influential writing, Cur Deus Homo? (“ Why did God become a human being?”). St. Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans were being true to the Scriptures, many of which give you the impression that a ransom has to be paid to someone, and that atonement has to be made to God. They were just being faithful to Jewish temple metaphors of sacrifice, price, and atonement. But our Franciscan teacher Blessed John Duns Scotus, who established the theological chair at Oxford, said that Jesus wasn’t solving any problems with God. Jesus wasn’t changing God’s mind about us but, rather, he was changing our mind about God. Scotus built his argument much more on Colossians’ and Ephesians’ understanding of the preexistent Cosmic Christ. Jesus is “the image of the invisible God,” who came forward in a moment of time so we could look upon “the One we have pierced” and see God’s unconditional love— and at the same time see what humans do to almost everything— and then witness God and Jesus’ unconditional love-response to that. The image of the cross was to change us, not to change God, andso Scotus concluded that Jesus’ incarnation and death were not at all necessary:
Jesus was a pure gift, and the
realm of gift is much better than
the realm of necessity. We were
not saved because of any problem
whatsoever, or to pay any debt to
devil or to God, but purely to
reveal to the soul Divine Love. As
usual, the Franciscans were
right, but unfortunately we lost
the debate, and the mainline
Dominican position has been
held by most Catholics and
Protestants to this day, with a lot
of sad results. Someone called it
“the most unfortunately
successful piece of Christian
theology ever written,” because
it implied that God was not
naturally and unconditionally in
love with what God created.
Rohr, Richard (2012-06-11). Lever and a Place to Stand, A: The Contemplative Stance, the Active Prayer (Kindle Locations 1274-1278). Paulist Press. Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment