From the Haights

Against the Grain has a very thorough, helpful post on the notification regarding the work of Roger Haight, S.J., here. A must-read.

John Allen's brief article here, and then a smackdown quote in his Word From Rome:

Haight has described Jesus: Symbol of God as an attempt to express traditional doctrines about Christ in a language appropriate to post-modern culture. Some reviewers found it an exciting new approach, but others were critical. One prominent theologian in Rome told NCR, "I don't see how the book can be defended." That was apparently the sentiment in the Vatican, where one official said, "Any first-year theology student could see what's wrong with it."

Comments

[Liam]

It would seem that, so long as you are a "very sincere, dedicated and committed theologian," you can "rework" basic Christian theology from its sub-foundation, let alone foundation. Oh, and such a theologian knows better than us plebes in the pews.

A dear friend of mine recently referred to Jesuits as the smartest dumb people he knows.

Q.E.D.

[Liam]

I should hasten to add that this is only a slur on them that deserve it; there are many fine Jesuits worthy of praise.

But reading some of that bilge provoked it.

[Anon]

That is such a Liam post!

Make a just criticism, and then politely assure everyone it is not applied indiscrimiately.

You must be the most even-tempered, fair minded person in blogdom. (Are you sure you belong here?)

[Liam]

Thanks, Anon:

I'm just hyper self-critical (but too lax to be scrupulous, of course).

[Donald R. McClarey]

I agree that the law as proposed is counter productive. Any pro-life legislation must not imprison women who have grown up in a culture celebrating abortion as a constitutional right. We want to stop abortion and we will, but not by that route. I do find it ironic however that someone who knowingly destroys an eagle egg can be sent to a federal prison, while someone who destroys an innocent human life will be lauded by powerful forces in our society. The death wish in modern western society is hard to overstate.

[Donald R. McClarey]

OOps, posted to the wrong thread. Not sure how I managed to do that. The flu must be having a malign impact on my minimal computer skills!

[Peter Nixon]

Well I'm a first year graduate theology student who wrote a paper on Haight's book last semster and, yes, it was pretty easy to see what was wrong with it. I say this with some sadness, because I appreciate some of Haight's underlying motivations. But it's a hard work to defend.

Methodologically, the most serious difficulty I had with Haight was his insistence that Christians rethink the entire development of Christological doctrine in light of the findings of contemporary historical Jesus research. Again and again, he insists that Christian claims about Jesus will not be "credible" unless they are grounded in the historical Jesus who stands behind the New Testament writings.

There are, for the record, a large number of "liberal" theologians who would find this approach problematic (and some more "conservative" ones, like NT Wright, who might be sympathetic to it). I would note that a large number of theologians with at least moderately liberal leanings--Robert Imbelli, Thomas Rausch, John Cavadini, etc.--were critical--in some cases very critical--of the book.

Haight's prior commitment to ground Christology in the historical Jesus also, in my view, distorts his reading of scripture, leading him to ignore or downplay substantial evidence of "high" Christology in both the synoptic Gospels and the Pauline writings.

It is pretty clear that Haight would like to replay the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon with different outcomes. He believes that his Christology is ultimately faithful to the underlying intent of those councils, but I would argue that he reads their intent far too thinly.

In the end, the portrait of Jesus that emerges from Haight's work cannot fully make sense of Christian beliefs about Him. As John Cavadini has argued, a principle of separation between Jesus and God is so strongly encoded into Haight's Christology as to make 2,000 years of prayer to Jesus seem to border on idolatry.

I take no pleasure in the CDF's action and I have seriously reservations with the disciplinary aspects of their approach. But forceful criticism of this book is well warranted.

[Rich Leonardi]

I disagree with Mr. Nixon's concluding paragraph. For thirty years, Haight and his intellectual confederates like Knitter have insisted that they could deny the reality of Christ's divinity and resurrection and still call themselves Christian.

Their theology is poison and works its way into homilies, parish ministries, and catechetical works. I have a parish friend who was given one of Knitter's tracts in RCIA and was scandalized by it.

My only concern about the CDF disciplinary action is that it took over four years. Faster, and more of it, please.

[Liam]

I welcome Peter's comments, thoughtful and insightful as usual.

Though I am often critical of how the CDF goes about its business, in this case I have to say I am sympathetic to Rich's comment in regard to this case.

And now St. Blog's can shut down, for it would seem hell may have frozen over!

I have spent many years in the groves of progressive Catholic communities. What has been rightly denounced in what Haight proposes is mortal poison to all of Christianity, of whatever flavor. Pure poison. Poison, again. It is philosophical materialism of the most insidious sort, and philosophical materialism is ultimately only a friend to the Ubermensch.

That Haight is blind to this is incredibly sad. It is so simple and elemental.

And I think it is a testimony against the current culture of Academe that one so learned can be so blind.

And this calls to mind the academic pathologies of the late medieval age: people so caught up in their logic that they have lost sight of their telos.

[Sherry Weddell]

Hi Liam et all:

Actually its all of a piece. Fr. Haight is a proponent of what I've come to call "Reign of God theology" which emerged out of the cross-fertilization of liberation theology of the 60's and 70's and the work of some Asian Catholic theologians.

One of it's working assumption is that revelation is from below, not directly from God, but from the experience of the poor and marginalized. This, of course, produces an endless variety of victimhood theologies: feminist, womanist, genderist, etc.

All share the working assumption that only that part of the historic faith that agrees with the experience of the designated victim group is relevant and binding - the rest is a corrupt product of oppressive systems and must be discarded.

"Reign of God" theology also assumes

1) multiple economies of salvation (Jesus is salvific only for Christians at best);

2) repudiates the crucifixtion as in any way redemptive because that would place an act of violence at the very center of God's purposes;

3)asserts that the Incarnation is an end in itself (God just wanted to share human life so much) and that objective redemption was not the purpose of Jesus' earthly life;

4) regards Jesus not primarily as Savior but as Announcer/Prophet of God's reign;

5) regards the Church strictly as a prophetic servant of the Reign of God which is independent of the Church and much more important; and

6)understands liturgy as a celebration of community which prepares us to go out and work for God's reign.

"Reign of God" theology has infected nearly all American Catholic missionary work over the past 40 years, is central to the JustFaith program which is sweeping the country, and is now making its way into adult formation via advocates like Thomas Groome at Boston College and even into those old Catholic Update bulletins that they stick in the vestibules of Church.

Just check out this example from St. Anthony Messenger and you get the idea.

The Incarnation:
Why God Wanted to Become Human

Kenneth R. Overberg, S.J.

The author explores the "alternative" view in Scripture of Jesus as present in God's plan from the very beginning of time. "God becoming human is not an afterthought, an event to make up for original sin and human sinfulness. Incarnation is God's first thought, the original design for all creation," Overberg writes. "The purpose of Jesus' life is the fulfillment of God's eternal longing to become human."

[Liam]

Sherry

I do understand that there is a strand of Franciscan theology of very long pedigree that posits a different answer from the Dominican standard to the entirely speculative question: If there had been no Fall, would the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity have become Incarnate? The Dominicans saying no, and some Franciscans saying yes. Though I must confess I don't know the theologian credited with this, except to assume it was Scotus. Please correct/educate me about that!

This "Reign of God" anti-theology, however, would be a case of partial logic run riot. The reason the logic is partial is that it presupposes a Creator (and celebrates Creation with abandon, it would seem) but then effectively says the Creator has bound himself to a strictly materialist operation of Creation. No miracles. And of course, No Incarnation, which therefore contradicts the strand of theology from which it presupposes a pedigree. The feedback loop is amazing.

Thanks for elucidating this. I find it terribly sad.

I find it so sad when believers in this ilk are amazed that I find the Paschal Mystery so liberating and worth celebrating: they see it as so, well, oppressive. Sigh.

[Liam]

And this Reign of God theology is what James Carroll preaches on the op-ed page of the Boston Globe on many weeks. I just cannot wait for the annual Holy Week bashing of our faith, in the name of his One True Faith. He used to worship in a community I worshipped in, but left it would seem because we did not share, celebrate and embrace his Faith.

[Sherry Weddell]

Hi Liam:

Yes, this is derived from a single strand of Duns Scotus - really to repudiate the idea that God might be "necessitated" by something outside himself to become Incarnate.

The Church does teach that our salvation did not absolutely have to be accompished as it was - through the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. We could have been forgiven by God just as a divine act. God freely chose to redeem us via the way of incarnation and the cross out of love.

But Duns Scotus would be stunned and horrified to realize that his theological speculation had morphed into a denial of the central drama of history and the center of our faith.

[Liam]

Thanks, Sherry. That was my impression of the proper context for that strand of theology. And I agree that Scotus would be horrified. and not subtly!

[Peter Nixon]

I think Sherry's points 1-6 are actually a pretty good summary of where Haight is coming from, and I suspect that if you worded them slightly differently he wouldn't argue with the characterization. I'll leave the Scotus discussion for another time.

But having criticized Haight, let me offer, if not a defense, at least a consideration of some of the questions Haight is wrestling with.

One of the key issues for Haight is religious pluralism, which is often a important concern for theologians working in Asia because Christianity is very much a minority faith there.

But it's a pastoral reality here in the US too. Most of us regularly encounter people of other faiths who pray, who lead "good lives," etc. Catholics, at least, are far from the days when we would seriously suggest that they are headed for damnation unless they embrace the Catholic faith.

So how do we think about how salvation comes to non-Christians, since we seem willing to accept that it can, in fact, come to them? And can we articulate a theology that makes sense of this in ways that don't come across as arrogant or paternalistic?

The statement Dominus Iesus (cf. para 21)stated that "theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished."

I don't agree with the way Haight has answered the questions, but even the CDF concedes they are important ones. So while I tend to reject Haight's solutions, I still appreciate the way that he has clarified some of the issues at stake.

[Liam]

I guess Peter, the concern over arrogance and paternalism puts the cart before the horse. But I do think you are correct to word it that way, because it is precisely why the theologians are getting it wrong: they are working back from a priori assumptions (a pervasive and largely unexamined and self-reinforcing orthodoxy of its own in academia) that a theology that might seem arrogant and/or paternalistic cannot be (1) true, or (2) persuasive.

That is very much a First World conceit and very culturally bound in itself.

Arrogance and paternalism are not criteria to evaluate a theology. They are criteria, perhaps, for evaluating evangelical methods, which is a subordinate issue of process, not substance.

[Rich Leonardi]

This question, "[i]f there had been no Fall, would the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity have become Incarnate?" ...

... of course brings to mind this prayer from the Easter Vigil, "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Peter Nixon asks: So how do we think about how salvation comes to non-Christians, since we seem willing to accept that it can, in fact, come to them?

The Church addresses this question from an inherently Christocentric point of view; that anyone saved has been saved by Christ whether he acknowledges it or not. The classic case of this is the God-seeking pagan, ignorant of Christ's Gospel and His Church, who seeks to do good according to his understanding of God. Haight, Knitter et al. would dispute that 1.) Christ, as a mere 'symbol', doesn't necessarily have a role to play in this situation, and that 2.) a form of revelation comes to that pagan via whatever he's worshipping (ditto for a God-seeking Muslim or Hindu).

Such a view rejects authentic revelation and thus the Christian dogmas associated with it.

[Rich Leonardi]

Substitute "would dispute" with "would argue or state"

[Sean Gallagher]

To get a good perspective on the way that the missionary can interact with those of other faiths, those who take and practice those faiths in sincerity, look to scripture. Look to St. Paul's encounter at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34).

In proclaiming the Gospel to the people of Athens, he did not use the language he used in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:13-51). There, he wove the tale of salvation history, from Moses through the prophets who foretold of the coming Messiah.

Such a mode of address would have been utterly lost on the Athenians. So what did St. Paul do? He reflected on their various temples and altars. He quoted pagan poets. But he also spoke about the hard reality of sin and of the joyful truth of the resurrection. He didn't find these realities "problematic."

(Notice that I said that his "mode" of address was different from Antioch in Pisidia to Athens. His fundamental message was the same.)

He respected and praised the truth that he found in the Hellenic culture. But he wanted it to deepen its beauty by adding to it the truth of the Gospel. I find his method neither arrogant nor paternalistic.

So what happened? The apostle didn't meet with a lot of success there. But if we look at his encounter with the Athenians in the context of what he wrote to the people to whom he preached next--the Corinthians--then we'll see that he probably didn't expect a lot of success there:

"Now when I came to you, brothers, [after his bomb at the Areopagus] I did not come with any brilliance of oratory or wise arguments to announce to you the mystery of God. ... I came among you in weakness, in fear and great trembling..." (1 Cor 2:1, 3)

In the end, I feel that St. Paul knew he wasn't going to get much of a hearing, but he was going to do his best anyway. And his best meant in part that he would show respect to the Athenians where respect was due. He was an apostle. And so in addition to showing respect to the Athenians, he also could not but preach the Gospel.

I think that we can also learn something by looking at evangelization from the perspective of eschatology. Yes, we are called to go and make disciples of all nations. But history has shown us that this happens in fits and starts, that sometimes we even take steps backward.

In the end, the task of making disciples of all nations will only reach its fulfillment in THE end and that will happen only by the work of the Holy Spirit, which is actually the way it happens all along.

Now THE end might happen tomorrow, so we need to preach the Gospel like THE end thusly. But we also need to let God do the heavy lifting. This, I believe, was the approach of St. Paul and it allowed him to be both respectful of the truth he found in other cultures and religions yet profoundly faithul to the Gospel in his preaching.

[Peter Nixon]

Liam,

I was actually thinking of Rahner's "anonymous Christianity" which, while well meant, did, I think, end up offending needlessly and also probably caused some problems for Christian theology as well. It is probably a concept that has outlived its usefulness.

Just a quick note on the whole Dominican-Franciscan debate over the Incarnation, etc. and its relation to Haight.

One can accept the necessity of the cross in our redemption without necessarily accepting a certain theory of it, such as substitutional atonement or Anselm's satisfaction theory. The Church has never dogmatically defined a particular theory of atonement (although it came fairly close to doing so with Anselm at Vatican I).

In the patristic period, the soteriological emphasis was more focused on the divinizing effects of the Incarnation. In On the Incarnation of the Divine Word, Athanasius speaks of the Word divinizing human flesh the way a king who comes to dwell in an ordinary castle raises the dignity of that castle thereby. There was also discussion in this period of how the Holy Spirit, sent by the risen Christ, dwells in us an divinizes us, saving us from our mortal, transient state. The Eastern Churches do not put as much emphasis as the Western Church on the redemptive power of the sufferings of Christ, partly because they don't fully accept our approach to Original Sin.

Although I haven't yet been able to find a copy of the CDF's notification online (anyone?), I think the reason that Haight's approach was condemned was that he seemed to reject, in principle, any role for the cross in our salvation. The way that Jesus died--except to the extent that it could be seen as a "prophet's death"--has no soteriological significance for Haight. I think this went too far for the CDF, although other theologians who have downplayed the cross have certainly not been condemned. The whole thing is somewhat ironic considering Luther's complaint that the Catholic Church had too much theologica gloria and not enough theologica crucis. I guess we got the message!

[Liam]

Peter

I appreciate those points, ones I have had to make from time to time myself. As Luther's comment shows, theosis is not exactly a stranger to Catholic soteriology (though it is sad when people are shocked by that passage in the letter of Peter, but I digress). I have to say that I share some of the traditional misgivings of the Eastern churches towards implications of St. Augustine's thought - then again, so did the Catholic Church, especially in the wake of Luther and Calvin!

That being said, the logic of Reign of God theology is fundamentally contradictory towards either the traditional Eastern or Western approach; it merely shares a few interesting intersections with both, insidiously enough to gull you into thinking it may share more.

I really do think your original phrasing of the problem is apt, in the sense that what drives so many people who want to believe in this anti-theology is the a priori premise that a faith that may appear arrogant/paternalistic can't be true or persuasive. I cannot think of anything less Eastern than that!

[Liam]

One other thought, Peter:

This anti-theology also betrays what might be called a mentality of the Industrial Age that has infected academia. It might believe itself eclectic, we might call it cafeteria-style. But there is a tendency to "rework" by borrowing selectively from different strands of theology, to crazy-quilt together a new theology therefrom. This involves a process of deconstruction that ignores the organic context of those strands of theology, and often renders false the selected morsels once taken out of their context.

This has an analogue in liturgical "creativity". For but one example, liturgists who invoke the example of the Eastern churches in terms of standing for the anaphora, but choose to ignore the fact that such a posture comes from a context that includes profound prostrations and far stricter abstinence during longer penitential times.

[Frank Gibbons]

If I can dumb this discussion down a bit -- why do these guys become priests in the first place? And if you're not going to wear a roman collar, why wear a tweed sport coat and tie? Heck, I'd wear jeans and a t-shirt. In every way, these guys are squares.

[Peter Nixon]

Sorry, Frank. Sartorial acumen was never my specialty...:-)

Liam,

I think I'm in agreement with much of what you've said in your last two posts. But let me offer another thought.

I would be concerned if legitimate criticisms of what we are calling "reign of God" theology would be taken as an excuse for avoiding the challenge of the Church's approach to social ethics. One does not have to be a "liberation theologian" to believe that the Gospel has social implications. Here is one line from Haight's book that I did agree with:

"Salvation refers to the effect of power for making whole and well that which is negative, corrosive and damaging to human existence, all the way to death or extinction...if there is no continuity between the work of human freedom and the final Kingdom of God...then the creativity of human freedom amounts to nothing...But this appears to contradict the very creation by God of human freedom as we know it today." (p.291)

I think this truth finds expression in the Church's social teaching and its concern for those at the margins: the poor, the disabled, the unborn, the incarcerated, those in the twilight of their years.

But I question whether the kind of Christianity that Haight articulates can really give me a motivation for standing in solidarity with the poor. I suspect Haight believes that the social teachings common to the "great religious traditions" provide some kind of basis for collective effort on behalf of the Kingdom.

But his views seem just as likely to underwrite a "couch potato" Christianity that does little more than give me a way to have my "spiritual needs met" while leaving my life substantially unchanged. To use the words of Notre Dame's Michael Baxter, Haight's Christianity is not a faith I can imagine dying for.

[Sherry Weddell]

Hi Peter!

I would certainly agree that your questions are very important ones.

I spent 10 days last spring trying to exhaustively read and come up with a faithful synthesis of magisterial teaching re: proclamation, evangelization and the Kingdom of God (after having done quite a bit of research on Reign of God theology).

A couple points stand out as relevant to our discussion:

The Kingdom is (and yes, I know that "reign" is the pc/non-hierarchical term)

1) already present in the person of Jesus

2) Slowly established in humanity and the world through “a mysterious connection with him.”
- Mission of the Redeemer, 16

This struck me because much Reign of God" theology is "theocentric" and wants to dispense with Jesus as a universal Savior, Redeemer, and Lord because he is "divisive". (And this is a surprise? Jesus had some pretty clear things to say on this score) Here is the key problem - you can't have the Kingdom without the King.

"mysterious connection" is where good non-Christian people fall - following the good and true as best they know it - but if they are truly building the Kingdom, they are de facto following the King. The fact that they are not aware of this (and might be disturbed in their self-understanding to realize it) does not render it untrue.

I once had a young Jewish woman come up to me at a Called & Gifted workshop and ask very excitedly: "Can I have one of those?" (meaning charisms). I'm Jewish and I'm not going to become a Christian."

I asked in return: "Do you want to be an instrument of God's love for others". Absolutely" was her reply. "You're qualified!" I said. (We did go on to have a fascinating discussion of the Incarnation as her beaming Catholic mother-in-law stood near-by. I suspect that this young woman is on a journey that she doesn't fully recognize yet).

The Church teaches that we serve the establishment of the Kingdom by:

1) Proclaiming Christ

2) Founding new churches & guiding them to maturity

3) Spreading Gospel values (and shaping cultures and structures)

4) Interceding for the world

So you can't proclaim the Kingdom without proclaiming the King. Evangelicals are acutely aware of the importance and power of intercession in the building of the Kingdom and it was a wonderful reminder for me.

Proclamation is the Catholic term for what evangelicals would call "evangelism". The content of proclamation, according to Church teaching, would be:

Jesus Christ

1)Son of God and fully human

2)His teaching, promises, Kingdom

3) Death for us and resurrection

4) Offers salvation

5) Liberation from sin and evil

6) Eternal life with God

Mission of the Redeemer, 44

As we've all noted, taking a couple points (Kingdom, liberation from sin and evil) out of the whole and trying to make an entire faith out of them is tremendously distorting and impoverishing.

The irony is that "Reign of God" theology is completely unknown by the new crop of priests and lay leaders that I've talked to. It seems to be the last gasp of the 60's generation - but because it is now circulating in popularized adult formation materials and leadership training, it could do a lot of long-term damage before it's day is done.

[Liam]

Sherry and Peter

I completely agree.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

How many of you have actually read Haight's book? It is long and complex. I haven't read it myself, but the Notification looks like a summary bureaucratic response from people alien to contemporary theological methodology. And yes, the Kingdom is at the very heart of the Gospel message and also of the message of Vatican II. A Christology that is not a Kingdom-Christology would be one out of touch with our present understanding of Scripture.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

How many of you have actually read Haight's book? It is long and complex. I haven't read it myself, but the Notification looks like a summary bureaucratic response from people alien to contemporary theological methodology. And yes, the Kingdom is at the very heart of the Gospel message and also of the message of Vatican II. A Christology that is not a Kingdom-Christology would be one out of touch with our present understanding of Scripture.