By Schubert Ogden
Scanned PDF Version of this Document
For Some some time now, I've been bothered by the way I expressed myself in a passage from pp. 97 f. of Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many? Were I to rewrite it, I would write something like this (indicating changes of words, phrases, or sentences by caps, and omissions by square brackets):
Panel | |
---|---|
But Jesus also need not be understood otherwise, since there is the obvious alternative of thinking and speaking of him with Rahner and others as the primal Christian sacrament. By 'sacrament' here, of course, I mean what is better referred to more generally as 'means of salvation' (IF NOT, MORE FORMALLY, AS 'MEANS OF ULTIMATE TRANSFORMATION'). In my view, ( ] sacraments in the ordinary sense are rightly thought of together with word as equivalent SUCH MEANS in that they are equally valid ways of REPRESENTING Jesus Christ as the explicit gift and demand of God's love. Thus it would be equally appropriate to develop an analogy between the word of preaching and Jesus and to think and speak of him, accordingly, as the primal Christian word, rather than as the primal Christian sacrament. In either case, the point of the analogy would be to assert both the similarity and the difference between ALL ordinary means of salvation and Jesus Christ. Like both word and sacraments, he does not constitute God's love, but RE-PRESENTS it. But whereas they RE-PRESENT God's love by also RE-PRESENTING him, he RE-PRESENTS God's love by also constituting them. Because this analogy is undoubtedly available, however, there is no need to think and speak of Jesus merely as prophet, sage, or saint. On the contrary, one can very well think and speak of him as savior, in the precise sense that, being the primal Christian word and sacrament, HE HAS THE UNIQUE SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND ECONOMY OF SALVATION THAT HE IS NOT MERELY REPRESENTATIVE BUT CONSTITUTIVE OF IT. |
...
But I also argue there that "the term 'religion' by its very meaning always has an objective as well as a subjective reference – -- analogously to the way in which, on a traditional theological analysis, the term 'faith' refers to the 'faith which is believed' (fides quae creditur) as well as to the 'faith through which (it) is believed' (fides qua creditur)" (10). In fact, the way I argue this second point betrays my assumption that it somehow follows from the first. (Note the "Thus" connecting what I say about the two points.) Perhaps it does. But, as I now think about it, it seems rather to note yet a further characteristic of religion, that, in addition to essentially involving particular concepts and symbols as well as the explicit understanding of our existence that they serve to mediate, religion is constituted, in its objective sense, by just such an explicit understanding, and, in its subjective sense, by understanding oneself accordingly.
In any event, in my later argument in the same book, that Jesus, although representative and not constitutive of the possibility of salvation, is constitutive of everything specifically Christian, I maintain that "prophets, sages, and saints can never be constitutive of a faith or religion, in the way in which Jesus is constitutive of Christianity,' because "\[i\]n the nature of the case, they are always only one among others, dependent for their authority upon the explicit understanding of existence that alone is thus constitutive of the faith they represent" (97). The clear implication, then, is that "\[i\]n the specific case of Christianity, ... this explicit understanding \ [_sc_. that alone constitutes it as a religion in the objective sense of the word\] is not, in the first instance, some law or teaching or word of wisdom, but Jesus himself, through whom the meaning of ultimate reality for us is decisively re-presented" (97). Wiki Markup
But what, exactly, does it mean to say that Jesus himself is the explicit understanding of existence that alone is constitutive of Christianity as a religion in the objective sense? First of all, it does not mean that Jesus is simply identified with a certain understanding of human existence. One must say, instead, that Jesus is the bearer, or vehicle, of such an understanding, and therefore what alone makes it an explicit understanding, analogously to the way in which the element of a sacrament alone makes it a means of salvation. But to say that Jesus himself is the explicit understanding of existence that constitutes Christianity is to say that he himself is the primal concept and symbol through which the Christian understanding is mediated, and thus, by analogy, the primal Christian word or sacrament, i.e., means of salvation.unmigrated-wiki-markup
In this sense, one may say that, "in its essence, in the presence in our human history of Jesus Christ, \ [Christianity\] is simply the representation to man and the world of their ultimate significance within the encompassing mystery of God's love" (_The Reality of God:_ 69).
4 September 1999