- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
“Hans Boersma makes a superb contribution to evangelical theological reflection in this well-designed book, and it goes a long way to drawing us back from the brink of a fashionable evangelical tendency to reductive historicism. His re-situation of the doctrine of the Incarnation in its historic sacramental language and thought opens up the way to a deeper understanding of the truths of faith that evangelicals and Catholics alike seek to comprehend and nurture.”
— David Lyle Jeffrey Baylor University
“Theology at its best, says Hans Boersma, is less interested in comprehending the truth than in participating in it. Skillfully marshalling passages from the church fathers and medieval theologians and drawing judiciously on contemporary evangelical and Catholic thinkers, Boersma shows that theology is not primarily an intellectual enterprise but a spiritual discipline by which one enters into the truth and is mastered by it. Though this 'sacramental tapestry,' as he calls it, is as old as the church, it is refreshing to have it presented anew in this engaging book.”
— Robert Louis Wilken University of Virginia
It is difficult for Christians — whether Catholic or evangelical — to imagine a time when theology was regarded as the most important discipline. The modern period has taught us to look to other sources as the main guides for establishing our life together. The argument that theology is the most authoritative guide for our common (public) life seems profoundly presumptuous to many who have grown up in modern liberal democracies. In fact, many will claim that such a high view of theology strikes at the very root of our cultural arrangement. I will not dispute this claim. It seems to me unsurprising and even logical, considering that modernity takes its cue from earthly rather than heavenly realities. Its basic, dissident choice has been to take temporal goods for ultimate ends. I find myself in agreement with John Milbank's oft-quoted statement: "The pathos of modern theology is its false humility. For theology, this must be a fatal disease.... If theology no longer seeks to position, qualify or criticize other discourses, then it is inevitable that these discourses will position theology." Furthermore, if the political and economic establishment of modern liberal democracies feels threatened by the view that theology should be our primary disciplinary practice, perhaps this is simply an indication of the ultimate incompatibility between modernity and the theological convictions of the Great Tradition. None of this is to suggest that this book sets out to do battle with "outside" economic and political forces. Rather, I am taking aim at historical developments within theology, which I believe lie at the root of our contemporary cultural problems. As a result, I am calling for a resacramentalized Christian ontology (or outlook on reality).
The word "ontology" may put some people on edge. The expression places us, so it seems at least, in the area of abstract, metaphysical thought. Should Christians really concern themselves with ontology? Isn't the danger of looking at the world through an ontological lens that we may lose sight of the particularities of the Christian faith: God's creation of the world, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the particular ecclesial community, and Scripture itself? I understand these fears, and I appreciate the word of caution as an important one. Nonetheless, the objections do not make me abandon the search for an ontology that is compatible with the Christian faith. As I hope to make clear throughout this book, I believe that the Great Tradition of the church — most of the Christian era until the late Middle Ages — did have an ontology. The call for a purely "biblical" theology seems to me terribly naïve. Whether consciously or subconsciously, we all work with a particular ontology; unfortunately, usually the ontology of those who plead for the abolition of ontology turns out to be the nominalist ontology of modernity (something I will unpack in more detail in chapter 4). However, I do agree with the cautionary comment that a Christian ontology must be centered on Christ, that it dare not avoid the particularity of the visible church, and that it needs to take seriously the church's engagement with divine revelation in Scripture. These concerns, I believe, were carefully safeguarded in the Platonist-Christian synthesis of the Great Tradition. This tradition was quite conscious of the fact that there is no such thing as a universally accessible, neutral "ontology" separate from the very particular convictions of the Christian faith.
Sacramental Ontology as Real Presence
Before going any further into this discussion, I think it is necessary to define some of my terms. What do I mean by "sacramental ontology," and by the "Platonist-Christian synthesis" on which it relies? I devote this first chapter to answering this question — or, at least, to providing the basic contours of an answer. The argument of part 1 of this book is that until the late Middle Ages (say, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), people looked at the world as a mystery. The word "mystery" did not have quite the same connotations that it has for us today. Certainly, it did not refer to a puzzling issue whose secret one can uncover by means of clever investigation. Our understanding of "mystery novels," for example, carries that kind of connotation. For the patristic and medieval mindset, the word "mystery" meant something slightly — but significantly — different. "Mystery" referred to realities behind the appearances that one could observe by means of the senses. That is to say, though our hands, eyes, ears, nose, and tongue are able to access reality, they cannot fully grasp this reality. They cannot comprehend it. The reason for this basic incomprehensibility of the universe was that the world was, as the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins famously put it, "charged with the grandeur of God." Even the most basic created realities that we observe as human beings carry an extra dimension, as it were. The created world cannot be reduced to measurable, manageable dimensions.
Up to this point, my explanation is probably relatively uncontroversial. Most of us, when we think about the ability of the senses to comprehend reality, realize that they are inadequate to the task. And I suspect that we generally recognize that the reason for this does not lie mainly in faulty hearing, poor vision, or worn-out taste buds, but in the fact that reality truly is mysterious. It carries a dimension that we are unable to fully express. But let me take the next step, and I suspect that in doing so, I may encounter some naysayers. Throughout the Great Tradition, when people spoke of the mysterious quality of the created order, what they meant was that this created order — along with all other temporary and provisional gifts of God — was a sacrament. This sacrament was the sign of a mystery that, though present in the created order, nonetheless far transcended human comprehension. The sacramental character of reality was the reason it so often appeared mysterious and beyond human comprehension. So, when I speak of my desire to recover a "sacramental ontology" in this book, I am speaking of an ontology (an understanding of reality) that is sacramental in character. The perhaps controversial, but nonetheless important, point that I want to make is that the mysterious character of all created reality lies in its sacramental nature. In fact, we would not go wrong by simply equating mystery and sacrament.
What, then, is so distinct about the sacramental ontology that characterized much of the history of the church? Perhaps the best way to explain this is to distinguish between symbols and sacraments. A road sign with the silhouette of a deer symbolizes the presence of deer in the area, and its purpose is to induce drivers to slow down. Drivers will not be so foolish as to veer away from the road sign for fear of hitting the deer that is symbolized on the road sign. The reason is obvious: the symbol of the deer and the deer in the woods are two completely separate realities. The former is a sign referring to the latter, but in no way do the two co-inhere. It is not as though the road sign carries a mysterious quality, participating somehow in the stags that roam the forests. In diagram 1, symbol X and reality Y merely have an external or nominal relationship. The distance between the two makes clear that there is no real connection between them. Things are different with sacraments. Unlike mere symbols, sacraments actually participate in the mysterious reality to which they point. Sacrament X and reality Y co-inhere: the sacrament participates in the reality to which it points.
In his essay "Transposition," C. S. Lewis makes this same point when he distinguishes between symbolism and sacramentalism. The relationship between speech and writing, Lewis argues, "is one of symbolism. The written characters exist solely for the eye, the spoken words solely for the ear. There is complete discontinuity between them. They are not like one another, nor does the one cause the other to be." By contrast, when we look at how a picture represents the visible world, we find a rather different kind of relationship. Lewis explains:
Pictures are part of the visible world themselves and represent it only by being part of it. Their visibility has the same source as its. The suns and lamps in pictures seem to shine only because real suns or lamps shine on them; that is, they seem to shine a great deal because they really shine a little in reflecting their archetypes. The sunlight in a picture is therefore not related to real sunlight simply as written words are to spoken. It is a sign, but also something more than a sign, because in it the thing signified is really in a certain mode present. If I had to name the relation I should call it not symbolical but sacramental.
For Lewis, a sacramental relationship implies real presence. This understanding of sacramentality is part of a long lineage. According to the sacramental ontology of much of the Christian tradition, the created order was more than an external or nominal symbol. Instead, it was a sign (signum) that pointed to and participated in a greater reality (res). It seems to me that the shape of the cosmic tapestry is one in which earthly signs and heavenly realities are intimately woven together, so much so that we cannot have the former without the latter. Later on, I will need to say more about what this reality is in which our sacramental world participates. For now, it is enough to observe that the reason for the mysterious character of the world — on the understanding of the Great Tradition, at least — is that it participates in some greater reality, from which it derives its being and its value. Hence, instead of speaking of a sacramental ontology, we may also speak of a participatory ontology.
Of course, any theist position assumes a relationship between God and this world. And many evangelicals will, in addition, agree that this link between God and the world takes on a covenantal shape. God makes covenants both with the created world as a whole (Gen. 9:8-17; Jer. 33:19-26) and with human beings (Gen. 15:1-21; 17:1-27; Exod. 24:1-18; 2 Sam. 7:1-17; Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:1-13). There is, I believe, a great deal of value in highlighting this covenantal relationship. But the insistence on a sacramental link between God and the world goes well beyond the mere insistence that God has created the world and by creating it has declared it to be good. It also goes beyond positing an agreed-on (covenantal) relationship between two completely separate beings. A sacramental ontology insists that not only does the created world point to God as its source and "point of reference," but that it also subsists or participates in God. A participatory or sacramental ontology will look to passages such as Acts 17:28 ("For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring'"), and will conclude that our being participates in the being of God. Such an outlook on reality will turn to Colossians 1:17 ("He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together"), and will argue that the truth, goodness, and beauty of all created things is grounded in Christ, the eternal Logos of God. In other words, because creation is a sharing in the being of God, our connection with God is a participatory, or real, connection — not just an external, or nominal, connection.
Few people have expressed this distinction better than C. S. Lewis has: "We do not want merely to see beauty, though, God knows, even that is bounty enough. We want something else which can hardly be put into words — to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it." We do not want merely a nominal relationship; we desire a participatory relationship. In fact, a sacramental ontology maintains that the former is possible only because of the latter: a genuinely covenantal bond is possible only because the covenanting partners are not separate or fragmented individuals. The real connection that God has graciously posited between himself and the created order forms the underlying ontological basis that makes it possible for a covenant relationship to flourish.
When we talk about "real presence," we tend to think in terms of eucharistic theology, and we ask the question: Is Christ really present in the Eucharist (the sacramentalist position), or is the celebration of the Lord's Supper an ordinance in which we remember what Christ did by offering himself for us on the Cross (the memorialist position)? Of course, there are all kinds of shades and nuances in the various positions, but this is nonetheless a fair description of the issue at stake in the differing approaches to the Eucharist. On the one side, we have those who insist on a participatory or real connection between the elements and the heavenly body of Christ itself; on the other side, people argue for an external or nominal connection between the elements and the ascended Lord.
Understandably, debates surrounding a participatory or real link between Christ and creation came to a head in connection with the issue of the ecclesiastical sacrament of the Eucharist. This was, after all, the central sacrament in the church's life. Eucharistic debates, important for their own sake, had wide-ranging implications. So, for good reason, by the time the sixteenth-century Reformation came around, the church had been debating the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist for centuries. Accordingly, I will devote special attention to the implications of medieval developments surrounding the Eucharist in chapter 6. For now, I simply wish to draw attention to the fact that the debates surrounding the real presence (or, we might say, participation) in the Eucharist were but the particular instantiation of a much broader discussion about real presence. While the church fathers and medieval theologians did look to the bread and wine of the Eucharist as the sacrament in which Christ was really present, in making this point they simultaneously conveyed their conviction that Christ was mysteriously present in the entire created order. Christ's sacramental presence in the Eucharist was, we might say, an intensification of his sacramental presence in the world.
The Celebration of Creation: Use or Enjoyment?
Why is this sacramental presence important? What does it have to do with life in our (post-)modern Western world? Let me explain by briefly mentioning some of the main factors that inform my theology. The basic motivation that drives much of my theologizing is twofold. First, I believe that, face to face with mystery of the triune God, theology needs a great deal of modesty. Theology, as Saint Anselm recognized, is a seeking of the face of God. Quoting Psalm 27:8 at crucial junctures of his "Proslogium," the great eleventh-century theologian pleaded with the God whom he knew as a humble believer:
Do thou help me for thy goodness' sake! Lord, I sought thy face; thy face, Lord, will I seek; hide not thy face far from me (Psalms xxvii.8). Free me from myself toward thee. Cleanse, heal, sharpen, enlighten the eye of my mind, that it may behold thee. Let my soul recover its strength, and with all its understanding let it strive toward thee, O Lord. What art thou, Lord, what art thou? What shall my heart conceive thee to be?
St. Anselm, often unjustly reproached for being a rationalist, had a deep appreciation for the mystery of God and was keenly aware that theology was not there to explain God but to draw us into the very mystery of his life. The modesty that theology needs is the recognition that we cannot rationally comprehend God. Theology is based on mystery and enters into mystery. Not only can we not grasp God, but, adds the fourth-century mystical theologian Gregory of Nyssa: "I also ask: Who has known his own mind? Those who think themselves capable of grasping the nature of God would do well to consider whether they have looked into themselves...." For Gregory, not only is the nature of God himself a mystery to us, but as human beings created in God's image, we also remain a mystery to ourselves. My concern with much modern theology is precisely that it has lost a great deal of this sense of mystery. Modern theology's problem is its rational confidence — and thus, ultimately, its pride.
Excerpted from Heavenly Participation by Hans Boersma Copyright © 2011 by Hans Boersma. Excerpted by permission of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Ressourcement of Heaven 3
Ressourcement for Evangelicals and Catholics Together 9
Ressourcement of Nouvelle Théologie 11
Part 1 Exitus: The Fraying Tapestry 17
1 The Shape of the Tapestry: A Sacramental Ontology 19
Sacramental Ontology as Real Presence 21
The Celebration of Creation: Use or Enjoyment? 26
Christianity and the Platonic Heritage 33
2 Weaving the Tapestry: The Fathers' Christological Anchor 40
Irenaeus: Salvation through Recapitulation 41
Athanasius: Unity in the Incarnate Logos 44
Gregory of Nyssa: Universals and Particulars 47
3 Unraveling the Tapestry: The Medieval Revolt of Nature 52
Juridicizing of the Chuch 53
Discovery of Nature 57
Scripture, Church, and Tradition 61
Nature and the Supernatural 64
4 Cutting the Tapestry: The Scissors of Modernity 68
Scotus and Univocity of Being 68
The Absolute Power of God 76
Ockham and the Rise of Nominalism 79
Heavenly Participation and Human Culture 82
5 Attempting to Reweave: The Reformation for Younger Evangelicals 84
Tearing Tapestry and Garment 85
Luther, Calvin, and Late Medieval Nominalism 89
Raschke and the Next Reformation 94
Part 2 Reditus: Reconnecting the Threads 101
6 Eucharist as Sacramental Meal 103
De Lubac's Two Opponents 107
Augustine's "Allegorized" Texts 109
The Threefold Body 112
The Shifting Corpus 116
7 Tradition as Sacramental Time 120
Congar and Augustine on Sacramental Time 122
De Lubac on Development of Doctrine 127
Congar and Vanhoozer on Scripture and Tradition 130
8 Biblical Interpretation as Sacramental Practice 137
Case Studies: Isaiah 53 and Proverbs 8 139
De Lubac and Medieval Exegesis 144
Christian Mystery and the Plurality of Meaning 147
Retrieving Spiritual Interpretation Today 150
9 Truth as Sacramental Reality 154
Modern Knowledge: Exaltation of Reason 155
Mystical Knowledge: De Lubac, Daniélou, and Gregory of Nyssa 157
Henri Bouillard's Analogy of Truth 164
10 Theology as Sacramental Discipline 170
Theology as Twofold Discipline 172
Theology as Initiation 178
The Unity of the Discipline 181
Epilogue: Christ-Centered Participation 185
General Index 201
Scripture Index 205