Wednesday, November 17, 2004
(8:39 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
More Theology!
Since my opaque theology post yesterday drew such an enthusiastic response, I thought I'd inform you of what I take to be two non-starters in terms of theological ethics:- Referring to the example of Jesus: This often involves the sheerest projection. Since Jesus was God and must therefore be in favor of good things, then he must be in favor of what I take to be good. Primarily, this would include love and mutual understanding. Love, at least of the agape variety, seems to be yet another screen for projection, much like "fairness" in its common usage (i.e., meaning "what is most favorable to me"). No one ever mentions, for instance, Jesus' vicious denunciation of the Pharisees when appealling to his heartfelt longing for love and mutual understanding. No one talks about how he routinely insulted his disciples or the crowds following him. No one mentions him calling the Phonecian woman a "dog." For instance. Unless people are willing to take all the facts into account and remain open to the possibility that Jesus might be in favor of something we would initially oppose, then I think it'd be better to leave Jesus out of the ethical discussion entirely.
- Referring to the "image of God": I hear about the image of God constantly at CTS, and again, this seems to be a clear-cut case of utter projection. First of all, the image of God, as applied to humanity in general, appears in only one verse in Genesis. It is in an important context, that of the creation, but other than "male and female," there is no indication of what this image of God could possibly mean. The tradition of theological reflection on the content of the image strikes me as a sordid history of groundless speculation. Thus, when the image of God is deployed as a basis for ethics, it becomes a mandate to -- treat the other with love and mutual understanding. (See, since God is good, God must be in favor of everything I consider to be good, even when in Scripture he is demonstrably in favor of and directly implicated in things that I take to be horrifying -- but, since God is a "black box," I can simply assert that everything God does is for [what I take to be] the good, that all the apparent errors will come out in the wash, that it will all make sense in the Kingdom.)
