Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theologu in Liberal Perspective
Theologu in Liberal Perspective
Postliberal Perspective
DANIEL LIECHTY
seM PRESS
London
ed in a significant
from a knowledge that our presen t is ground
past . . . .
On one level, we see eVldence o f t h·IS spmtua l nee d 10. t h e searc h
for " roots , " and the current fad of geneological research . It is not
surprising that it is exactly in those societies most atomized that
the geneologist is kept most busy . For when participation in the
social community itself is no longer able to inspire a deep sense of
purpose , individuals will seek to find that sen se of groundedness in
personal fam ily history .
On another level, the historian works to create a story which
enables a particular community or nation to take hold of a sense of
purposeful past . Our best historians are those who weave a pattern
of coherent meaning from the past without resorting to uncritical
h agiography or m yth .
At yet a different level, evolutionary scientists seek to unlock
the mystery of the origin s of species, the earth and the universe
itse lf. While it is sometimes difficult for the nonspecialist to follow
the intricate reasoning of these scientists conceming their conclu
sions, there are very few who have no fascination in the museum
exhibits and media programs which are the fruits of this type of
research . That whole communities of our most gifted people
devote their lives to this research is itself evidence of the impor
tance we place on the question "from where? " for our construc
tion of a sense of meaning and purpose .
But the human soul and spirit want more than this. Understand
ing the mechanism of evolution can only go so far in satisfying the
quest of the soul and spirit for meaning and a sense of purpose . In
the final analysis, we are seeking an answer qualitatively different
from that which the theories of science can provide . It is in answer
to this qualitatively different question that the meaning of the
attribute of God a s Creator is found . It is not simply in answer to
yet another round of "then where did that come from ? " that
human beings are led to ponder the concept of God as Creator .
A scribing the attribute of Creator to our construct of God is,
rather, an almost Promethean insi stence of the human soul and
spirit that we will find meaning and purpose in this universe , in our
mother the earth , in human community and in our individual lives.
Scientific theories of the origins of the universe must assume
that random events plus chance account for " why" there is a
universe rather than no universe - wh y there is something rather
GOD IN THE NEXUS OF HUMAN HISTORY 25
than nothing . The same is truc for such theories as to the origins of
life OII this planet . We cannot easily retum to a cosmology in which
the earth was seen as the center of the universe and the universe
existed primarily for the benefit of the human race . Human pride
has been leveled b the scientists' theories and findings . Random
events plus chance may indeed be the "reason" we are here . But
our ascribing the attribute of Creator to God expresses the strong
suspicion we have that , at least in this case , the dice was loaded .
Historical purpose embraces necessari ly not only a sense of
rootedness in a meaningful past , but also a sense of direction
for the future . Therefore , because a construct ion of the concept
of God emerges directly from a quest for meanin g , it follows
naturally that another aspect we attribute to God is that of
Sustainer.
Because we feeI the split in our being between the transcending
abi lities of the mind , soul and spirit and the mortality of the
physical body , any reftective human be ing will also at various
times experience an intolerable and terrifying sense of the insecur
ity and "suspendedness" of life . The logicians' argument that j ust
because the sun has risen every moming up till now is no proof it
will rise tomorrow may strike many of us as ivory tower nonsense .
But who among us has not felt the shock of loss and has been
thrown back upon questions of ult imate concern by the tragic
death of a loved one or some other stark reminder of the frailty of
our very lives?
We rebe l at the fragility of our lives , our relationships , our
emotions. Yet where may we turn to make sense of things , to find
meaning, in these t imes of deep despair?
The inquiring mind at its best seeks to understand the material
causes of human suffering and despair. We seek, for example ,
through medical research and other such avenues to create the
resources necessary to min imize the tragedies which imperiI our
life on this earth . That whole communities of our most gifted
people devote themselves to this type of research and care is
evidence of the need we have to ensure that human life be
sustained .
Yet the sense of existential anxiety that sudden tragedy pro
vokes cannot fully be comforted by the heroic efforts we make to
minimize human suffering. It is comforting to know that less
people will die of, for example, cancer than has been the case up
26 THEOLOGY IN POSTLIBERAL PERSPECfIVE
fruit of the human soul and spiri t , for those choosing the path of
denial these are perverted . The person is drawn instead to symbols
of immortality based on power. Then the image of God , a
reflection of the soul and spirit, suffers the same perversions . For
those following the path of denial, analogies used in a construction
of God can only be based on extrapolations from the hierarchical
structures of power. God is seen as the j udges' j udge , the warriors'
warrior , the kings' king, the tyrants' tyrant , the apex of the
pyramid of power. God is conceived as an omnipotent ruler who
lords it over even the lords and princes of the earth . God becomes
that terrible Being seeking to punish , satisfied only with Godself,
whose love is unloving and whose j ustice is unforgiving . Obey this
God or else !
This God can be nothing other than mutually supportive of an
oppressive status quo. This God is the special preserve of the
powerful , the rulers and kings , a God who places the divine stamp
of approval on whatever actions bully nations of this world
perceive to be in their own selfish interest . This is the God of
nationalism , the God who is "on our side" in any and ali conflicts ,
a God for whom reflective self-criticism would be impossible .
It is impossible in the final analysis to establish a personal and
loving relationship with such a God . Fear and servitude are the
only possible attitude . Ultimately, while giving us illusions of
power and directio n , this God is defeating of the human quest
for purpose and meaning. For a God who acts capriciously ,
unlovingly, unforgivingl y , is no different from that blindness which
sees this as the "best of ali possible worlds" (best , that is , for those
who benefit from the present systems of oppression, who say,
"how can this be wrong? your oppression is an illusion , we are
really your benefactors , it is God's Will that it be so . . . " ) . Or it is
no different from the bland posture of abandoning ali things to
that random and impersonal entity called fate (that is, for the rest
of us, who say , "my oppression is my own fault, 1 must h ave done
something to deserve it, 1 am less like God than the rulers , rewards
will come in the next life , it is God's Will that it be so . . . ) ."
What are we saying here? Is God, after aII, nothing but a human
construct , a word game , an iIIusion? What about Godself? Does
God exist or not? Having Iistened to what has been said so far , the
skeptic has every reason to throw down the gauntlet, saying,
"Look, if God e xists, then God e xists quite apart from human
conceptions of God . Prese nt your evidence for God's existence
and 1 will make my decision pro or con based on that evidence ! "
The fact is, there is no way to answer this directly . If God were
an entity demonstrable by evidence , theological construction
would be unnecessary . We can, however, make a few observations
which at least shed some Iight on the nature of this type of
skeptical challenge .
First , for both the one along the path of acceptance and the one
along the path of denial, God reftects the deepest longing of the
soul and spiri t . God is a symbol of immortality. God is the human
mind's proj ection of perfection , the human soul and spirit's
insistence that, even in the full face of the tragedy of e xistence,
meaning and purpose can and must be found . God is our assurance ,
SPECfIVE
32 THEOLOGY IN POSTLIBERAL PER
meaning and
. the of despair, that our quest for
face
;urpose has a goal and is itself
be
meaning
every
ful.
probmg
"Ţh
is is ci�cular
of ultlmate
reasoning, to be sure, as must
concern. That predicam ent is one aspect of what we accept when
we accept the human situation as mortal and finite.
Secondly, the skeptic's demand for evidence is based on a
particular mode of logic which has flowered in modernity. It
has become part of what Antonio Gramsci referred to as the
hegemony of common sense.4 This hegemony is a ruling-c1ass
preserve. Religious skepticism, as well as credulity, can serve the
purpose of maintaining the status quo. Just as our notions of God
set parameters for human response in particular situations, so too
does atheism. Therefore, in particular social situations, taking a
position for or against the existence of God is an attempt to elicit
certain political responses. A discussion of the existence of God
•
I t aII of our ideas about God are human constructs , how can one
be better than another? Are they not aII essentially the same?
Does this not prove , once and for aII , that we have set ourselves
aftoat on a sea of relativism with nothing to anchor to? Is not
nihilism the only realistic understanding of our situation?
As a symbol of immortality , different models of God function in
E
34 THEOLOGY IN POSTLIBERAL PERSPEcrIV
agai n , where the Law had become an end in and of itself, Jesus ,
the Phari see of love , felt compe11ed to debunk this immortality
proj ect . This is not to say that Jesus broke the Law, and even still
less that he " abolished" it . He understood his attitude and actions
as a fulfillment of the l a w. That is , he saw the Law as a means to an
end , the inauguration of God's Kingdom , rather than as an end in
itself.
Jesus respected the Law as an expression of positive communal
v alues. B ut at the same time he strongly insisted that treating the
Law as an end in itse lf would stifte the environment of freedom
which al lows the creative , transcending and loving works of the
soul and spirit to prosper. In such cases Jesus was quick to call
attention to the intent of the Law, even going so far as to remind
his people that "Sabbath was made for people . People were not
made for the Sabbath ! "
m ain ly interacted with his own kind , the common people and
Pharisaic teachers .
A final place where Jesus confron ted political power was in his
rel ations with the Zealot movemenL 1 0 The Zealots were a terrorist
force of national liberation . Their goal was to throw out the
Roman oppressors and to establish an independent state of Israe l .
There are heated debates among scholars a s t o Jesus' attitude
toward the Zealots , and it is a difficult problem to sort oul . It is
made more difficult because it is inevitably colored by our own
attitudes toward national liberation movements in the presenL
The biblical record reflects the teaching of the early church on
this issue . We know that the Palestinian Christians did not
participate in the defense of Jerusalem during the uprisings against
the Romans in the generation after Jesus , and we must assume
this was j ustified in their view by way of reference to the memory
of Jesus' teaching . On the other hand , given Jesus' attitude of •
opposition toward the Roman state , the fact that his circle of
c10sest disciples did include people who were directly identified as
Zealots , and the fact that Jesus himself was martyred by cruci
fixion , a form of punishment the Romans reserved for political
rebe l s , it is impossible to conclude that Jesus held no common
ground with the Zealots .
From a secular point of view it is very difficult to understand
what the Zealots were trying to accomplish . With no other
weapons than fists , iron wills and the occasional concealed dagger ,
they took on the power and glory of the entire Roman empire ! Did
they really think that by ambushing single and drunken Roman
soldiers in the night they would wear down the will of the Roman
occupation ? If so , they simply had no understanding of the kind of
human sacrifice a colossal immortality symbol like the Roman
empire could chew up and spit oul . Like the superpowers of our
own day , the more human lives spent in the defense and expansion
of the empire , the "more life" that immortality proj ect con
tained . It literally fed on the spent blood of its citizens and
soldiers .
The only way to understand the Zealot actions is in the context
of apocalyptic . In this context, the Zealots thought that if they
could begin a popular uprising against the Romans , though
col lective suicide by secular standards , it would provoke the
cosmic forces to intervene on the side of the Hebrews . This made
THE EXAMPLE OF J ESUS 47