Problemas Empresariales

As in theatre, life in the theodrama involves the dynamic interplay between formation and performance. Theodramatic formation is the preparation, development and growth of individuals and the church toward Christ-likeness, along with the readiness for particular roles and performances in the theodrama.9 _{This formation is a process of being transformed} and conformed into the image or form of Christ by the Spirit (1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; Rom 8:29) together with the active “putting on” of Christ-like character and the gifts of the Spirit (Rom 13:12-14; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:22-24; Col 3:10-12).10 _{In the theodrama, of course,} performance encompasses all of life; actors are always on stage and “in character,” and as such, there is no distinction between off-stage identity and on-stage roles. Theodramatic performance, therefore, constitutes the entire lives of individuals and the church on the world stage. The purpose of theodramatic formation is faithful performance, and performance is the means and context for formation.

Rather than maintaining this interdependence and complexity, however, many approaches to theological ethics focus on either the formation of performers or the quandaries of performance. A performance-oriented approach primarily addresses problems, decisions, issues, and cases arising in performance and judges them according to principles and/or concrete situations.11 _{For example, this approach might explore if abortion is right or} wrong in principle, and whether there are particular exceptions to a general rule. The formation-oriented approach, however, investigates the character, virtue, habits, and attitudes of the performer. For instance, it takes a step back from quandaries to ask what kinds of people would consider performing an abortion in the first place. While each approach has its strengths, each also has a tendency toward imbalance by either overlooking formation in favor of performance or vice versa. The weaknesses of this false dichotomy are obvious, but does a theodramatic perspective do any better in maintaining the dynamic interplay between formation and performance, between actor and action?

9 _{While theodramatic formation shares much with “spiritual formation,” it highlights the dynamic} interplay with performance and the readiness for roles and performances in the theodrama.

10 _{The themes of imitating Christ, Christ-likeness, and putting on Christ will be explored in} greater detail in Chapters 3 and 5.

11 _{This approach includes both casuistry—reasoning from principles to particular cases—and} situation ethics, which emphasizes the uniqueness of each case. Each borrows in different ways from the deontological and consequentialist traditions.

Balthasar addresses this issue by emphasizing the inseparable relationship between contemplation and action. For Balthasar, contemplating the beautiful enables actors to perform the good, and performing the good leads actors into formative encounter with the beautiful. Contemplation naturally gives rise to action, for in contemplating the beautiful action of God in Christ, “we suddenly realize that we have been made to take our part in the action as a whole and that we are therefore participants in this action.”12 _{In general,} Balthasar presents a movement from contemplation to action, but also emphasizes their dynamic interplay: “Action is the fruit of contemplation, though contemplation can and must continue throughout the action and fertilize it.”13 _{Thus, Balthasar creates an inseparable link} between theological aesthetics and theological dramatics: “There can be no question of simply perceiving, contemplating, or registering what is shown; whoever is moved in faith must go out on the stage (!"#$%&'(: Heb 10.33, cf. 1 Cor 4:9), in sight of a world which at first imagines it can afford to be nothing more than a spectator itself.”14 _{While appreciating} this relationship between contemplation and action, it would be misguided to limit theodramatic formation to contemplative perception of the beautiful. Formation includes a vision of the beautiful, but also involves formation of attitudes, desires, virtues, knowledge, skills, habits, and more. What is needed, therefore, is a more holistic understanding of formation while maintaining the dynamic interplay with performance, which is what both Hauerwas and Wells seek to accomplish.

Like Balthasar, Hauerwas observes how aesthetic vision impacts virtuous character, which in turn engenders faithful action; he also reverses the order, showing how action forms vision and character.15 _{Therefore, the Christian life is a matter of “learning to live as you are and be} as you live.”16 _{Hauerwas adamantly resists any approach to ethics that focuses merely on} quandaries, decisions, or situations, since “the kind of ‘situations’ we confront and how we understand them are a function of the kind of people we are.”17 _{Moreover, the kind of people} we are depends on the drama in which we are situated and how this drama shapes our

12 _{Hans Urs von Balthasar, Engagement with God, trans. John Halliburton (London: SPCK, 1975),} 53.

13 _{Ibid., 52–53.} 14 _{Balthasar, GL II, 52.}

15 _{Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre} Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 138–39. Cf. Hauerwas, Vision and Virtue.

16 _{Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 150.} 17 _{Ibid., 115.}

imagination and habits.18 _{Similarly, Wells identifies imagination and habits as crucial} components of theodramatic formation. According to Wells, the ability to improvise skillfully in the theodrama is dependent on the readiness of the performer, which means that ethics is more about rehearsal and formation than action and performance. He identifies worship as the theodramatic equivalent of theatrical rehearsal, both being the time and place during which performers build habits and cultivate imagination.19

Although Wells accurately represents the formative power of worship, one weakness of comparing worship to rehearsal is that Sunday worship is itself a part of theodramatic performance. Worship does not form actors outside of or preceding performance, but is part of the performance with powerful potential to shape our vision and virtue. In addition, James K. A. Smith convincingly argues that Christian worship as the liturgy of the church exists alongside other “cultural liturgies” such as shopping or watching television, which compete in forming our hearts, minds, and wills.20 _{The question is not if these liturgies are formative, but} which “liturgical performances” are in reality the most formative in our lives, and also which ones ought to be. Indeed, each decision we make, like the decision to watch a football game instead of participating in corporate worship, is by default a decision to be formed by a particular liturgy. And the more we perform a liturgy—whether worshipping, shopping, or frequenting social media sites—the more these liturgies will shape our identity as actors and the quality of our performances. In other words, every decision is an instance of formation, and how we are formed inevitably influences our decisions. Consequently, rather than prioritizing actor formation over appropriate action, it is more accurate to recognize how formation and performance are dynamically interwoven.21 _{Quandaries form character just as} character helps us deal with quandaries, or even determines which quandaries we will face. Despite this dynamism, it is still important to distinguish between these two aspects of theodramatic participation, and to explore each one in greater detail.

18 _{Hauerwas develops the theatrical model together with James Fodor in chapter 3 of Performing the} Faith.

19 _{Wells, Improvisation, chapter 5.}

20 _{This is a central thesis in James K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural} Formation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009).

21 _{Wells articulates the priority of actor formation, but exploring how action informs the agent} might augment his argument. “It is the actor who matters, more than the action: ethics is about forming the life of the agent more than it is about judging the appropriateness of the action.” Wells, Improvisation, 81.