The Weakness of God
Reading this review of The Weakness of God by John D. Caputo was simply amazing. I was struck with many different thoughts of how Caputo's theology changes problems I have reluctantly held onto for awhile now and reinforces those aspects of theology and philosophy that have lit my heart recently. It seems Caputo inverts the Problem of Evil and the pervasive (perhaps modern?) definition of Power, emphasizes the feminine nature of God and incorporates the theme of God as Event rather than being or substance in his theology - all things I am already trying to sort out in my own head as I walk to get the mail or mow the lawn.
They are also things I have already had conversations with friends about and would like to return to. Daniel, can you give us an idea of what Barthe (or some kind of bionic Neo-Barthian) would add to/correct Caputo? Steve and Tyler (Steven Tyler), remember that Problem of Evil phase I went through awhile ago and how there seemed to be nothing close to an answer? Does the weakness of God present a solution or at least eradicate the question or is it simply rephrasing the Free Will response? Does anyone think this Caputo guy is completely out of his tree and that the omnipotence of God is something very necessary for a proper theology? Then lend me your ears!
According to our political discussion on Tuesday, here is a link to Jim Wallis' blog and here is an article by him. He is the editor of Sojourner's magazine, the big alternative news and political voice to Dobson and the Religious Right crew. Yet all is not quiet on the Wallis front, from Tlery's alma, James K. A. Smith has had some beef with Wallis in the past but focuses more generally on the tendencies of the religious left rather than the prolific and diverse Kruse Kronicle in this supes-long-but-well-thought post concerning specific arguments in Wallis' book. *(notice I put cartoons for the religious right references because I think alot of it is just silliness but for the religious left the problems are more subtle and, although still problems, cannot be narrowed into exaggeratory cartoon form.)*
Finally, in regards to looking back as we move forward (Charlie and Daniel), David Finch writes about Brian McLaren and Ancient-Future Faith. Lander, as you will be going into the trenches of Calvinist theology (with the already fully Calvinized tlery as your guide, no less) Scot McKnight might help with some pretty unbiased distinctions. And for all the rest, I don't know where Kim Fabricius came from but all these are glorious...and this...and this.
(again, sorry for the long and dry theology post. can we get some more music, film and book recommendations - spice things up a bit?)
seth
They are also things I have already had conversations with friends about and would like to return to. Daniel, can you give us an idea of what Barthe (or some kind of bionic Neo-Barthian) would add to/correct Caputo? Steve and Tyler (Steven Tyler), remember that Problem of Evil phase I went through awhile ago and how there seemed to be nothing close to an answer? Does the weakness of God present a solution or at least eradicate the question or is it simply rephrasing the Free Will response? Does anyone think this Caputo guy is completely out of his tree and that the omnipotence of God is something very necessary for a proper theology? Then lend me your ears!
According to our political discussion on Tuesday, here is a link to Jim Wallis' blog and here is an article by him. He is the editor of Sojourner's magazine, the big alternative news and political voice to Dobson and the Religious Right crew. Yet all is not quiet on the Wallis front, from Tlery's alma, James K. A. Smith has had some beef with Wallis in the past but focuses more generally on the tendencies of the religious left rather than the prolific and diverse Kruse Kronicle in this supes-long-but-well-thought post concerning specific arguments in Wallis' book. *(notice I put cartoons for the religious right references because I think alot of it is just silliness but for the religious left the problems are more subtle and, although still problems, cannot be narrowed into exaggeratory cartoon form.)*
Finally, in regards to looking back as we move forward (Charlie and Daniel), David Finch writes about Brian McLaren and Ancient-Future Faith. Lander, as you will be going into the trenches of Calvinist theology (with the already fully Calvinized tlery as your guide, no less) Scot McKnight might help with some pretty unbiased distinctions. And for all the rest, I don't know where Kim Fabricius came from but all these are glorious...and this...and this.
(again, sorry for the long and dry theology post. can we get some more music, film and book recommendations - spice things up a bit?)
seth
posted by coemergentco at 9/29/2006 10:21:00 AM
6 Comments:
Seth:
I hope it's okay if I comment here. I blogrolled you guys, so it'd better be okay :).
RE: omnipotence. Whether this is necessary for proper theology I can't say in those terms, but one of the strongest arguments (to me) for it is the simple fact that this is what most people mean by "God". That's been part of Christianity since the apostle Paul, and really earlier, and if you take God's omnipotence away what you have is not the same being that Christians have named God for twenty centuries.
You may be able to find verses of Scripture that support your reading, but so? The center of Christianity is not a book but a triune person. If you have a different idea of the fundamental attributes of that person, then you are embarking on a different religion, even if you are using the same text.
RE: The problem of evil. I don't see how removing God's omnipotence solves anything. Even if God is not *omni*potent, he is obviously *pluri*potent, and in Scripture he repeatedly demonstrates his ability to save his people miraculously when he wants to. Yet he doesn't save *everyone*, which puts us in the same bind as we were before. If you want to resolve the problem of theodicy in that direction, you have to go all the way and make God almost completely impotent, which has problems of its own.
Okay, so I wrote the last comment before I had read the linked article. (BTW, that link and about half of the others are broken.) I was assuming that Caputo was writing as some kind of Open Theist, in which case my arguments about omnipotence would have applied. But Caputo apparently takes a much more direct assault on the doctrines of creation and omnipotence, so really it's the third paragraph above that counts.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a creator. This is a fundamental assertion of the Scriptures and the Creed. If Caputo wants to throw them out, then he really is starting a new religion. He may use the words "God" and "Christ", but he doesn't have anything else in common with the Church.
Seth: I hope I'm not being too harsh. I have no idea what your struggles with theodicy were, so don't think I'm judging you.
I think I have fixed the broken links. Let me know of any that still lay totally depraved.
Response to come!! I don't trust myself this late at night. But, "Yes." Jesse, I say, "Yes."
Jesse,
I love the direct approach. We are talking about the one we devote our entire life to aren't we! I don't exactly know what I think of Caputo's absence of the "triunity" but I like your use of 'pluri'potent in the same way I am attracted to Caputo's theology of weakness - not that it removes God's omnipotence but that strength and power are reinterpreted to be an enabling force rather than something God has a monopoly on and holds over us.
You mention the God's demostrations of power to salvage His people in Scripture and I affirm that but I also believe that His opus is shown through Christ and that Event, that Word is the ultimate and defining aspect of God, constantly in action (and in action in my life with my response, made through the power of the Holy Ghost, to the Father's gift which is the Son).
The Creator, is another term to be redefined rather than tossed, and the distinction lies in the means God uses to create. Is it to make perfect with precision and accuracy or is it to develope and culture goodness and purity with an unstable, flawed substance? Is it not Jesus Himself that is the example of the broken (fully human) and perfected (fully divine)?
I think I'm rambling at this point but, hey, what do you think? I don't support Caputo fully - I haven't even read his book, and there are many ways where I become lost in translation (and worse) but I am just happy to be hearing from you Jesse and hearing that old rigorous wit again. Thanks for your thoughts.
seth
seth,
thank you once again for posting something elaborate and interesting on so many levels-- not just the caputo article; this was a rich post.
regardless of the comprehensive review, it would of course be wise for any of us commenting to read the book. i found myself questioning caputo's method as it was portrayed by the reviewer, namely his aim to resore the viability of (may I say) language of God, or maybe "god-talk" to a postmodern, post-structuralist(?) audience. however, in so doing, I of course found myself yet again reexamining my own constructs and committments.
it reminded me a bit of being in trembath's class... thinking to myself, "if i take up this system of thought, what implications would it have of my current idea of Christianity?"* and then sending the ideas i have now through flaming hoops held by freud, althusser, saussure, all dressed up like circus masters!
but i am reticent to take up what i perceive to be certain precommittments...
*[more often I ask myself how my idea of Christianity could be articulated to someone who has adopted these ideologies-- envision, for instance, a personal conversation with Prof. Trembath.]
i agree with a small percentage of what i understand caputo to be endorsing. he is definitely out of *my* tree... on a number of things, but perhaps most of all, the trinity. the part i appreciate most is the redefinition of power, as you mentioned. a writer who maintains a trinitarian view but argues for a redefinition of power is William Placher in his book, Narratives of a Vulnerable God. [it goes something like this: God is a God of love, he conquered (militaristic metaphor) the powers of Evil through the Cross, but, his exercise of his power was through making himself vulnerable, which stands in direct antithesis to the Greek notion of power (Zeus) which we tend to (erroneously) associate with the God of the Cross.]
*however* I find it interesting and problematic that scripture offers a multitude of voices on this and other points, such as the way God is portrayed in Revelation & elsewhere. Paradox, paradox.
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts regarding this in relation to Nietszche's ideas of power and how we can understand ourselves as a community governed by the Spirit of Chirst in contrast to power structures which may govern "the world" (you know Nietszche far better than I).
more than that, i would like to hear your thoughts on theodicy-- that has been an enormous mental/spiritual/emotional struggle for me. also, i came across an exciting anthology of essays on theodicy, published out of finland (?) rather recently. Biblical studies/comparative ancient literature in bent. I have not read it all, but I would strongly recommend it as a resource.
The problem I have with Caputo's notion of the weakness of God is certainly not with the beautiful sense of weakness displayed in the event of the cross which conquers the world of empire, it is the very idea that the problem of evil can be solved, even with limiting God's power. This is to me another intellectual answer that defies the need for raw existential faith in the face of the absurd. It misses the point of Kierkegaard's appropriation of Abraham and Isaac as the quintessential example of the leap. Scripture never exactly says that God is omnipotent in Greek metaphysical ways (omnipotence is Latin) but speaks in poetic ways about One Who is the creator and is sovereign. That is because we cannot understand such infinity and to limit God is another attempt to understand rather than deal with existential experience! It is another guised "free will" response which for me never worked.
If someone can explain the problem of evil by any theological machinations then such a person is a god.
Elwood
Post a Comment
<< Home