Antecedentes de modelación del sistema de drenaje de Bogotá

A third suggestion of how Schillebeeckx’s theological engagement with atheism should be updated, picks up on the critical distance he maintained to atheism, but overstretches it, thereby equally missing the subtlety of Schillebeeckx’s merciful critique. The similarity of Schillebeeckx’s criticism of atheism’s feigned neutrality to that of Radical Orthodoxy has led some to claim that Schillebeeckx showed great respect for secular humanism, but sought ‘to rescue it from its atheism’.918 These interpretations overlook that Schillebeeckx argues that Christian theologians themselves continuously fail to manifest adequately the reality they are meant to confess, and that his overall intention is not to overcome atheism’s shortcomings, but to learn from atheism in order to overcome theology’s entanglement in sin.919 Schillebeeckx is concerned about the problems with any imperialist advocacy of Christian theology, as playing the most central political role in post-Christendom societies, more than he is concerned about any theological rescuing of society from its atheism.920 Schillebeeckx is convinced that, in the current post-Christendom context, efforts to re-establish a society in which Christianity was the unanimously accepted, all- encompassing worldview must be rejected.921 This is no naive accommodation of the Christian faith to secular trends and expectations. Schillebeeckx’s rejection of Christian imperialism is not motivated by any desire to defend Christianity’s relevance in a secular age, but it is based on Schillebeeckx’s evaluation of the anti-imperialist post-Christendom critique as a new mediation of mercy which should redirect Christianity towards God.922

917

Schillebeeckx, Church, 121 [122-123].

918

William Cavanaugh, “Return of the Golden Calf: Economy, Idolatry, and Secularization since Gaudium et spes,” Theological Studies 76 (2015): 710.

919

Schillebeeckx, Church, 4 [4]. Also Martin Poulsom has recently observed that Schillebeeckx rarely rejects opposing views but ‘tends to affirm those aspects of them that he thinks are true, in order to invite them to move on together with him’ (Poulsom, The Dialectics of Creation, 121). I would qualify this observation by arguing that Schillebeeckx did not primarily aim at convincing atheists, but at correcting Christianity.

920

Schillebeeckx, Church, 159-161 [160-163]; Schillebeeckx, “The Church as the Sacrament of Dialogue,” God the Future of Man, 79-80 [130-133]; Schillebeeckx, Theologisch geloofsverstaan anno 1983, 9. Contributions of the church to public politics can consist in collaboration, encouragement, confirmation, help, but also criticism and protest (Schillebeeckx, “The Church as the Sacrament of Dialogue,” God the Future of Man, 81-82 [133-135]).

921

Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 4 [4-5].

922

Schillebeeckx, “The Church as the Sacrament of Dialogue,” God the Future of Man, 78 [128-130]; Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 16 [33-34]. For an explanation of how Schillebeeckx’s endeavour, of deciphering the way in which God’s grace is present in his surrounding context, relates to his metaphysics of the implicit intuition, and of how this is different from Milbank’s position, see Stephan van Erp, “Implicit Faith: Philosophical Theology after Schillebeeckx,” in Edward Schillebeeckx and Contemporary Theology, 209-223.

a) Theological appreciation of post-Christendom: Encountering God in atheism

Concerning the theological significance of the post-Christendom context, Schillebeeckx thinks that Christian theology can no longer serve as the necessary basis for societal values and politics.923 God’s grace would be belittled if it was believed that separating values from their Christian roots would diminish the positivity mediated by these values. The abundance of God’s grace is revealed precisely in the fact that these values can develop in more than one positive direction. In this vein, Schillebeeckx reads his surrounding society’s capacity to self-organisation as constituting a further refinement and development of the Christian values that once underpinned a monolithic Christian culture.924 This reception of the theological significance of the post-Christendom context can, thus, be read as an objection to Max Stackhouse’s public theology925 as well as to Radical Orthodox’s triumphant presentations of Christian theology as rescuing society from all of the problems associated with atheism.

Far from downplaying the issue of human sinfulness, but also not primarily interested in correcting atheism’s sinfulness, Schillebeeckx seeks to understand how the atheist post- Christendom critique reveals Christianity’s sinfulness. Schillebeeckx, thus, discerns the way in which God’s mercy over Christianity’s shortcomings is being mediated in this criticism from outside. Schillebeeckx argues that the churches are now liberated from erroneous political alliances, a contention resembling Yoder’s positive evaluation of the end of Christendom to some extent.926 Like Yoder, Schillebeeckx stresses that established alliances between church and state can limit the church’s focus on the gospel, but, in contrast to Yoder, Schillebeeckx also stresses that these alliances restrict the theological awareness of extra- ecclesial mediations of God’s grace.927 In other words, post-Christendom critiques of Christian imperialism are received as a mercy that redirects Christian theology’s attention to the church’s dependence on the reality of redemption in which it always already exists. In this sense, Schillebeeckx regards the diaspora situation of a post-Christendom church as a purification of Christianity.928

Moreover, Schillebeeckx’s position is distinct from Yoder’s insofar as Schillebeeckx does not elaborate upon the critique in order to discard the concept of Christendom as a whole.929 Schillebeeckx does not diagnose a principle contradiction between Christendom and truthfully following Christ. Instead, he laments that in the particular history of Christendom in the West, Christian theologians have downplayed the importance of Christianity’s God- centeredness.930 At this point, Schillebeeckx is in agreement with both Radical Orthodoxy and

923

Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 4-5 [5-6].

924

Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 4-5 [5-6].

925

See for example Stackhouse, Globalization and Grace, 85.

926

Schillebeeckx, “Church, Magisterium and Politics,” God the Future of Man, 87 [145-146].

927

Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,” Revelation and Theology, 315 [146-148]. Schillebeeckx mentions social revolutions against the established state politics in particular as potentially mediating people’s desire for the Kingdom of God.

928

Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,” Revelation and Theology, 314 [145-146].

929

Contrary to Yoder, Schillebeeckx claims that Christ can be followed better without the external pressures of state persecution (Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 50 [58-59]).

930

Instead of understanding the church as a service to God, God had been functionalised for the amelioration of the secular world (Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,” Revelation and Theology, 314 [145-146]). The church was preoccupied with its own self-

John Howard Yoder, that a purely immanent worldview has been consolidated during the history of Christendom, which must be regarded as insufficient in comparison to the Christian theocentric worldview.931 In agreement with Yoder, Schillebeeckx contends that an immanentist outlook cannot account sufficiently for the sacrifices that might, at times, be demanded from Christians for the sake of God’s kingdom.932 However, whereas Yoder argued that this is the case because the logic of the Cross and Resurrection surpasses the secularist ontology, Schillebeeckx laments the unintelligibility of prayer within a purely immanent ontology.933 He stresses that these spiritual sacrifices are only properly conceived of in light of people’s prayerful communion with God.934 The preoccupation with worldly wealth in Christendom was limiting, because immanent beings were too narrowly assessed in reference to some present enjoyment. Christian theology, to the contrary, must conceive of all immanent affairs as intrinsically open to God, which makes prayer to God about these issues intelligible.935

Schillebeeckx then retrieves, from the post-Christendom critique primarily the incentive to remind the church of the significance of praying to God. According to Schillebeeckx, the most decisive difference between Christianity and atheism is that for Christianity the worldly reality is no longer simply the object of philosophical analysis, but also the subject of God’s personal dialogue with humankind.936 Christian theology must always be based on God’s address to humankind, and in this way surpasses atheist philosophies that do not consider this prayerful relationship.937 Against any philosophical disavowal of this interpersonal relationship as idolatrous conception of God as one being amongst beings, Schillebeeckx stresses that the interpersonal relationship between God and people in prayer does not fall short of, but transcends a human interpersonal relationship.938 Despite all of the inequality between humans and God, despite God’s independence from creation, Christians believe that God in God’s mysterious absoluteness really offers reciprocity to humankind.939 It is not up to theologians to protect God’s absoluteness argumentatively, but to confess the mysterious reality of the reciprocity between God and humankind, and to thus motivate Christians to pray.940

interest (Schillebeeckx, “The Church as the Sacrament of Dialogue,” God the Future of Man, 79-80 [130-133]).

931

Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,” Revelation and Theology, 314 [145-146].

932

Schillebeeckx, “Secular Worship and Church Liturgy,” God the Future of Man, 68 [112-113].

933

Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,” Revelation and Theology, 314 [145-146].

934

Schillebeeckx, “Secular Worship and Church Liturgy,” God the Future of Man, 68 [112-113].

935

Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,” Revelation and Theology, 314 [145-146].

936

Schillebeeckx, “Revelation-in-Reality and Revelation-in-Word,” Revelation and Theology, 27 [39- 40].

937

Schillebeeckx, Church, 14 [14-15]. This does not mean that Schillebeeckx would discount the importance of philosophy for theology. To the contrary, he argues that purely metaphysical thought does reveal some truth about reality (Schillebeeckx, “Theologia or Oikonomia?,” Revelation and Theology, 286-287 [102-105]).

938

Schillebeeckx, Christ, 812-813 [817].

939

Schillebeeckx, “De zin van het mens-zijn van Jezus,“ Tijdschrift voor Theologie 2 (1962): 133; Schillebeeckx, Christ, 78; 82-83 [89; 94].

940_{Schillebeeckx, “De zin van het mens-zijn van Jezus,“ Tijdschrift voor Theologie 2 (1962): 132;}

However, instead of triumphantly presenting theology’s appreciation of prayer over the atheist disavowal of prayer, Schillebeeckx’s reception of the post-Christendom critique as incentive for Christian theology to re-appreciate the gift of prayer is precisely why he is not concerned with any triumphant presentation of Christian theology as something that promises to rescue society from its atheism. Instead of countering atheism, Schillebeeckx is concerned with prayerfully relating to God through all of creation, including atheism.941 Prayer refers Christians back to the world which can now be interpreted as the context in which God reveals Godself. Schillebeeckx primarily re-appreciates that ‘the genuine life of faith [...] remains magnetized by a prayerful longing for encounter with God’.942 It is, consequently, Christian prayer which stimulates the church to an active commitment in the world without ever identifying this commitment as the goal at which it could find rest.943 Atheist political contributions do not have to be countered, despite all of their shortcomings, because knowing itself to be addressed by the reality of God in Christ, the church is freed from any natural fear in its political engagement.944 In prayer, Christians know that their own as well as non- Christian political efforts are bound to remain imperfect on the one hand, and that these shortcomings do not endanger the ultimate victory of God’s grace on the other. In this sense, Schillebeeckx calls prayer Christianity’s most critical element that can really change the face of the world. ‘[P]rayer – and I think only prayer – gives Christian faith it’s [sic] most critical and productive force.’945

b) Theological appreciation of pluralism: Expanding the theological vision non-triumphantly

This reception of the post-Christendom critique as theologically significant, thus further elucidates why, despite exhibiting certain similarities with Milbank’s criticism of atheist secularism as ideological, Schillebeeckx’s rejection of the postmodern atheist interpretation of pluralism also remains distinct from the Radical Orthodox critique. Schillebeeckx also evaluates pluralism from a particularly Christian perspective, still positing God as the all-encompassing framework within which he assesses pluralism, while equally denying the neutrality of atheist understandings of pluralism. However, for Schillebeeckx, this means that atheist interpretations of pluralism are not to be replaced triumphantly, but theology must discern the way in which the atheist appreciation of pluralism, despite its shortcomings, mediates a grace for theology. Schillebeeckx receives this appreciation of pluralism as a merciful reminder for Christian theology that God’s grace is mediated in plural ways.946 He receives the secular celebration of pluralism as new positive incentive to examine critically and enlarge Christian theology through dialogue with others.947 Dialogue with non-

941

Schillebeeckx, Christ, 805-806 [809-810].

942

Schillebeeckx, “Secularization and Christian Belief in God,” God the Future of Man, 50 [81-82].

943

This is why it has recently been aptly stated that, for Schillebeeckx, mysticism and politics stand in a mutually productive tension with each other (David Ranson, Between the ‘Mysticism of Politics’ and the ‘Politics of Mysticism’: Interpreting New Pathways of Holiness within the Roman Catholic Tradition (Hindmarsh: ATF Theology, 2014), 107). The secular realm of politics is identified as an important locus for Christian spirituality (217). See also Poulsom, The Dialectics of Creation, 121-26.

944

Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 52 [61-62].

945

Schillebeeckx, Christ, 813 [817].

946

Schillebeeckx, Church, 165 [166-167].

947

Schillebeeckx, “Theological Criteria,” The Understanding of Faith, 48 [53-54]; Schillebeeckx, “The Church as the Sacrament of Dialogue,” God the Future of Man, 76-77 [125-128]; Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,” Revelation and Theology, 315 [148-148]. Schillebeeckx argues that ‘in order to communicate, [the church] must also receive from and listen to

Christians must be entered into in order to understand the reality of redemption.948 This means that Christian theologians must assess the goodness of every non-Christian insight in reference to the revelation of God in Christ.949 In this way, Christian theology can show how the transcendent unity of all worldviews in God can be dimly seen in analogical relations within the world.950

Identifying God as pure positivity, Schillebeeckx understands the reality of God to be really mediated in all instances of goodness and as opposed by all instances of evil.951 All worldly goodness directly participates in God and is, as such, revelatory of God’s own Being.952 The theological endeavour of understanding the Christian God better, thus, demands that the theologian attends to the positivity of human history. At the same time, when relating all this worldly goodness into one coherent vision of reality, it must be respected that God’s transcendent positivity surpasses that which has already been mediated.953 Although theology can somehow already see the harmonious whole, this total vision slips ‘from our grasp into depths unfathomable’.954 At this point, Schillebeeckx refrains from elevating his theological interpretation of pluralism triumphantly over and above its atheistic counterparts in order to acknowledge God’s transcendence over his own theological vision. Schillebeeckx stresses that precisely because Christian theology relates all mediated goodness into one coherent vision of God, it must at the same time ‘slide into mysticism’.955 Christian theology cannot be presented as something superior to other interpretations of reality, because it must witness to the God who remains greater than the Christian integration of all worldly positivity into one coherent vision.

Although God cannot be known independently from any ontological framework, theology must somehow evidence in its conceptual ontology that the abundant reality of God can never be adequately captured by any vision of reality.956 As has already been observed by others, because the superior power of grace is affirmed as true, independently from human responses to this reality, Christianity would wrongly focus on itself instead of on God if it

what comes to her from the world as “foreign prophecy”, but in which she nonetheless recognizes the well-known voice of the Lord’ (Schillebeeckx, “The Church as the Sacrament of Dialogue,” God the Future of Man, 76 [125-127]). Also Roger Haight has recently argued that in his theocentrism, Schillebeeckx did not fall short of, but went further than, an inclusive Christianity with regard to religious pluralism (Haight, “Engagement met de wereld als zaak van God,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 50 (2010): 84). However, Haight relates this to Schillebeeckx’s theology of creation instead of redemption.

948

Schillebeeckx, Theologisch geloofsverstaan anno 1983, 9.

949

At this point, Schillebeeckx admits to be involved in an inescapable hermeneutical circle, which cannot be resolved prior to the eschaton (Schillebeeckx, Church, 161 [162-163]).

950

Schillebeeckx, Church, 165 [166-167].

951

Schillebeeckx, Church, 73 [75-76]. In Schillebeeckx’s context, human liberation was an instance of grace and human enslavement was an instance of evil.

952

Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 110 [126-127]. This indicates that, in agreement with Radical Orthodoxy, Schillebeeckx affirms that God’s ontological otherness from creation must be thought of in analogical, not in equivocal terms (Schillebeeckx, Church, 55-56 [56-57]). Schillebeeckx also claims that an equivocal understanding of God’s otherness would render Christianity politically irrelevant. (Schillebeeckx, “Secularization and Christian Belief in God,” God the Future of Man, 43 [70-71]). Doctrinally, Schillebeeckx relates the analogical understanding of God and world to the Incarnation (Schillebeeckx, Church, 125 [126-127]).

953

Schillebeeckx, Church, 73-74 [75-76].

954

Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 16 [33-34].

955

Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 51 [60-61].

956

claimed that Christian theology is necessary in order to construct a better society.957 To affirm the reality of redemption means precisely that Christian theologians must be able to discover true goodness, also in non-Christian interpretations of reality.958 Because of the real superabundance of grace, Christian theology can never be demonstrated conclusively to be the best interpretation of reality.959 Consequently, Christian theology is concerned with the totality of reality, but it is itself not totalising.960 Christian theologians must win their own vision of reality over and over again precisely as not totalising, for such totalisation would be a disacknowledgment of the superabundance of grace. In this sense, ‘the theologian is [...] a custodian of transcendence but he [sic] does not guard it like a treasure’.961 Theology should not be concerned with securing a respectable position in public dialogue, but it should be entirely outward-looking, precisely because Christian theology should be primarily preoccupied with discovering how other worldviews might redirect Christianity towards God.962