14 minute read
Without Vulnerability, There Is No Love
By Rev. Parulihan Sipayung, Gereja Kristen Protestan Simalungun (GKPS), Indonesia
Rev. Parulihan Sipayung is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in World Christianity and Intercultural (Mission) at Yonsei University-Global Institute of Theology (GIT), Korea. He is an ordained Pastor at Gereja Kristen Protestan Simalungun (GKPS), Indonesia. He worked as a missionary in Korea from 2016 to 2021.
His research interests include the intersection between postcolonial theology, Public/Planetary theology, Asian and African philosophy, Simalungun studies, ecological studies, and indigenous wisdom. He can be contacted at lihan89@yonsei.ac.kr and https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3916-8161
Problems of Vulnerability
In the context of postmodern competition, there is an assumption that being an ideal person means being successful, advanced, strong, healthy, winning, and perfect. Vulnerability is often considered weaknesses and needs to be repaired, corrected, restored, and normalised. Vulnerability also refers to a social burden such as the elderly group, the children, the sick, the victims, and the poor.1
Some scholars associate vulnerability with disability. The assumption is: someone is vulnerable because he/she is disabled or his/her status as disabled makes him/her vulnerable. Medically, and this definition also seems to be adopted by the community and the church, disabled or vulnerable are considered as fragile, weak, imperfect, defective, and need medical and social help. This statement needs to be reconsidered. The argument of this article is neither to romanticise nor to idealise the condition of vulnerability but to respect and transform the paradigm about it. This article aims to explore the beauty of vulnerability. It argues that vulnerability is the nature of all creations. It is also the working background of philosophy and theology. Even God chooses to be vulnerable. If so, the vulnerable must have some important philosophical-theological lessons, ‘a cosmic beauty’, that may change the paradigm of the church and society.
Vulnerability: The Essence of Life
Vulnerability and fragility are the fundamental essence of life. According to Sturla J. Stlsett, every human being is always vulnerable, he even emphasized “if a human being could be invulnerable, it would be inhuman”.2 Vulnerability comes from the Latin vulnerare which simply means to injure or harm. It illustrates human’s fragility to suffering. For Sturla, vulnerability could be articulated as “the ability to be corporeally, mentally, emotionally, and existentially affected by the presence, being, or acting of another or something other - It means openness, relatedness, mutability, and communicability.”3
In this vulnerable earth, everything that lives will die. Whenever life begins, the shadow of death rushes in. The growth process can also be comprehended as a process of aging, weakening and ending in death. In all living beings there are limitations both in time, being, and becoming. No creature is self-sufficient so that it can live alone. Human life changes rapidly, uncertainly, ambiguously, complex and prone to various unexpected things. Moreover in the current pandemic catastrophe, conditions of illness and death can occur at any time. Even though humans have capability of being resilient, intellectual imperfection, existential limitations, and scope that are bound by space and time create this vulnerability inevitably inescapable.4 So, it is not an exaggeration if I claim vulnerability is the essence of life.
1 Sturla J. Stlsett, “Towards a Political Theology of Vulnerability Anthropological and Theological Propositions.” Political Theology 16 (2015): 467. 2 Sturla J. Stlsett, “Towards a Political Theology of Vulnerability, 467-8. 3 Sturla J. Stlsett, “Towards a Political Theology of Vulnerability, 467. 4 Matthew R. McLennan argues “They are limited in at least three basic ways. First, they are logically limited, since not all human possibilities are compossible (i.e. possible together). Second, my existential possibilities are limited in time because humans are mortal and there are hard limits to human longevity. And finally, they are limited in scope because human lives and endeavours proceed from a place of situatedness, partiality and variously limited and fluctuating capacities.” See, Matthew R. McLennan, Philosophy and Vulnerability: Catherine Breillat, Joan Didion, and Audre Lorde (London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020). Kindle chapter 1 - see the first chapter 1-32.
As stated above, vulnerability is also often equated with disability with negative nuances. However, Thomas E. Reynolds argues, “vulnerability, or lack of ability is not a flaw detracting from an otherwise pure and complete human nature. Rather, it is testimony to the fact that our nature involves receiving our existence from each other.”5 In line with Reynolds, Sturla affirmed “vulnerability is intrinsically good, and could be a cause to joy. The vulnerability of human beings should be seen, promoted, and protected as a value.”6 For Sturla with this vulnerable character we are invited into “a responsible relationship: that the vulnerable person be recognised, taken into account, cared for, respected, loved, and protected.”7 McLennan also argues that “vulnerability is in the background of disciplinary philosophical activity.”9 For McLennan philosophy should not only be limited to opinions, world views and systems of thoughts but also in daily activities. He emphasizes “philosophy, in short, happens when human finitude obstinately and self-consciously risks reaching beyond itself.”10 Chuang Tzu asserts, “Our life has a boundary but there is no boundary to knowledge. To use what has a boundary to pursue what is limitless is dangerous; with this knowledge, if we still go after knowledge, we will run into trouble’11 Synthesizing the above ideas McLennan concludes “Philosophy is a self-conscious activity of finitude reaching beyond itself, through itself; finitude describes or encompasses human vulnerability. Thus, philosophy is inherently tied, in some way, to vulnerability; it is, in one sense, an activity of vulnerable beings, labouring in and through their vulnerability.”12
One of the reasons why philosophising, according to Jean F. Lyotard, is because of vulnerability. “why we philosophise: because there is desire, because there is absence in presence, deadness in life; and also because there is power that is not yet power; and also because there is alienation, the loss of what we thought we had acquired and the gap between the deed and the doing, between the said and the saying; and finally because we cannot evade this: testifying to the presence of the lack with our speech.” 8
For Lyotard phenomena such as death, power but not really power (because it remains limited), marginalisation, loss, and conditions of deprivation are life events born of vulnerability. This philosophical image is inseparable from the theological posture. Of course, theology is also born out of vulnerability. Theology is vulnerable because it cannot be universal.13 It is also limited to describing God. It is impossible for the limited to elucidate the unlimited transcendence. Prayer, worship, grace, the cross, and the search for the face and will of God are characteristics of human vulnerability. Acknowledging this limitation theologians thus formulate what we call as apophatic theology. Theology is indeed born of vulnerability and longing for God's favour.
So does vulnerable human being who was created from God's image and likeness also imply the character of a vulnerable God?
5 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality, 1st edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008), 106. 6 Sturla J. Stlsett, “Towards a Political Theology of Vulnerability, 467. 7 Sturla J. Stlsett, “Towards a Political Theology of Vulnerability, 467. 8 Jean F. Lyotard, Why Philosophize? trans. A. Brown (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2013), 123. 9 Matthew R. McLennan, Philosophy and Vulnerability, kindle, see the first chapter 1-32. 10 Matthew R. McLennan, Philosophy and Vulnerability, kindle, see the first chapter 1-32. 11 Chuang Tzu, The Book of Chuang Tzu, trans. M. Palmer with E. Breuilly, Chang Wai Ming and J. Ramsay (London: Penguin Books, 2006), 22. 12 Matthew R. McLennan, Philosophy and Vulnerability, kindle, see the first chapter 1-32. 13 See Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 2002). Sigurd Bergmann and Mika Vähäkangas, eds., Contextual Theology, 1st edition (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge, 2020). Angie Pears, Doing Contextual Theology, 1st edition (London ; New York: Routledge, 2009).
There are two images of God that are generally understood by Christian theology. First, God is perfect: omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. Only God who is so powerful is able to create and organise this world. Sturla explained that “mainstream doctrinal Christianity confesses God as immutable and impassible— hence invulnerable.”14 This idea is possibly rooted in Greek philosophy. Plato said “god and his attributes are in every way perfect …., it is also impossible for god to have any desire to change himself, …, each of this gods, it appears, is as beautiful and good as possible and remain forever simply in his own form”15 This idea explains that God cannot be affected by emotions, cannot possibly be hurt and suffer and be wounded. Aristotle, a Plato’s student, also described God as “eternally unchanged changer” or often referred to as “unmoved mover”.16 This idea seems to have been embraced by church fathers like Augustine who adored God as: “most high, most good, most powerful, most omnipotent, most beautiful … changeless”17 and Thomas Aquinas who argued “God is altogether immutable.”18 These images of God were also widely employed in the context of Christendom.
This concept needs to be reconstructed to show that God is also empathetic and stands on the side of the weak and vulnerable. He is a God of Immanuel. God who incarnates and becomes vulnerable. God who possibly feels hunger, thirst, hurt, cries, and shares with the suffering people. William C. Placher elucidates that the God that Christianity describes in Jesus Christ looks different. God is vulnerable.19 Lenardo Boff affirms that God in Jesus is a God who “weak in power but strong in love”.20 Choan Seng Song in his classic book, the Compassionate God, asserts that the hallmark of the Asians’ and Africans’ God is compassion. God does not sit on a throne but dwells with the people. God also dances and laughs, cries and mourns with the people accompanied by rites where people dance and the traditional drum beats vibrantly.21 Compassion means to undergo, feel, or ‘suffer with’ another. Reynolds emphasizes that the word “with” is crucially important. Suffer with another affirms a participative connection. It shows a deep empathy. Reynolds argues that compassion strongly means “It does not hide or flee from suffering but shares it— respecting and affirming the vulnerable presence of another enough to abide with them faithfully so that they are not alone.”22 This is the kenotic message of the incarnation and culminates in the suffering of Christ on the cross.
14 Sturla J. Stlsett, “Towards a Political Theology of Vulnerability, 472. 15 G. R. F. Ferrari, ed., Plato the Republic, trans. Tom Griffith, Tenth edition (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 67. 16 R. Michael Olson, “Aristotle on God: Divine Nous as Unmoved Mover” In Jeanine Diller., Asa Kasher. (eds). Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities (New York: Springer, 2013),101-109. See more on, Aristotle and John H. McMahin, The Metaphysics (Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus, 1991). 17 Saint Augustine (of Hippo), The Confessions of S. Augustine: Ten Books (Longmans, Green, 1890), 4. 18 See also Thomas’ Summa Theologiae Prima pars: q. 9 Article 1, Thomas used Malachi 3:6, ‘‘I am the Lord, and I change not’’ to justify that God is immutable. 19 William C. Placher, Narratives of a Vulnerable God: Christ, Theology, and Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 19. 20 Leonardo Boff, Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Christology for Our Times, Trans. Patrick Hughes (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1978) 27. 21 Choan-Seng Song, The Compassionate God (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1982). This book is translated in Indonesia entitle, Allah Yang Turut Menderita, Stephen Suleman trans. (Jakarta: BPK GM, 2008), 35. 22 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 125.
Vulnerability deconstructs the concept of supremacy, superiority and individualism that are widespread in the west. We are imperfect, vulnerable and self-sufficient to nothing. Vulnerability makes us possibly opened, touched, and related to others. This condition prepares love possible to emerge. It is one of the beauties of being vulnerable. According to Reynolds, “Love is the moral heart of human existence”.23 He adds “It is not out of sufficiency but in relationship with the presence of another that love is born.”24 Reynolds elucidates “Love introduces vulnerable connection, solidarity, and reciprocal belonging.”25 An inclusive and vulnerable love is the core message of Christianity, is not it? (Matt. 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-8) Juergen Moltmann argues that God continuously presents and participates in human history. God is the God who also suffers because of the suffering of the people.26 God loves the world and became vulnerable and died for the world not because the world and human were perfect. Precisely, even when we are vulnerable, God's love is abundance (Rm. 5:8). C. S. Lewis argues “There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable.”27 This is what God really do for this world as in the words of Terence E. Fretheim, “God suffers because, with, and for, or on behalf of, the people.”28 Daniel C. Migliore suggests that this kind of love carries a “strange power.”29 It is a theo-philosophical “secret power because it radiates with divine plenitude, a surplus of love that ruptures conventional categories of instrumental value.”30
Another cosmic-beauty of being vulnerable is solidarity. Cooreman-Guittin and Thiel write a powerful statement in their book, “If human beings have survived so many cataclysms over millions of years, it is not because they are so powerful, but because they know how to adapt and be in solidarity with the most vulnerable.”31 Solidarity has long been the core message of Christianity. In the context of the current pandemic, we also hope that solidarity can become the principle of society and nations. In solidarity there is a message of togetherness. Solidarity encourages people to share their burdens, be present and abide with the vulnerable and leave not the vulnerable alone. Jean Vanier elucidates that by being together and being in solidarity with the vulnerable we relearn aprofound moral lesson.32 Reynolds argues that we are not ready-made. We are incomplete and unfinished beings. We are vulnerable so we need to live together.33 He emphasizes “solidarity with the vulnerable is the beginning of a moral conversion”.34 Vulnerability changes the way we see the world. Solidarity is one of our basic needs. Stanley Hauerwas asserts that solidarity requires “cooperation and love of others from which derives our ability not only to live but to flourish.”35 By seeing how vulnerability can become a significant meeting point for God, creation, humans, and love, we can also see how the pandemic has boldly proven our fragile nature. The concept of “nobody is safe until
everybody is safe” is a call for solidarity with the most vulnerable.
Love and solidarity contain profound beauty. In love and solidarity we build relation. We maintain a genuine communion, we connect with each other. We collaborate and cooperate to survive. We come to realise, no matter how powerful we are, we cannot live without the other. Human and creations are vulnerable event God chooses to be vulnerable. It means we are the cosmic family of interconnected vulnerable creation. We carry a kind of shared-vulnerability. An inter-being vulnerability where humans’ vulnerability connects with cosmic vulnerability and both vulnerabilities are embraced and transformed by God’s voluntary vulnerability. Here we can affirm “when I am weak – vulnerable - , then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). This is strange yet powerful moreover this is the cosmic-theological beauty of being vulnerable.
23 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 122. 24 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 121. 25 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 121. 26 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 253. Moltmann emphasizes “one who cannot suffer cannot love either”. 27 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 121. 28 Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 108. 29 Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 52. 30 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 173. 31 Marie-Jo Thiel and Talitha Cooreman-Guittin, La vulnérabilité au prisme du monde technologique - enjeux éthiques (Strasbourg: PU STRASBOURG, 2020), 253. 32 Jean Vanier argues that vulnerability and disability “have profound lessons to teach us.”Jean Vanier, Becoming Human (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1998), 45. 33 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 117. 34 Thomas E. Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 117. 35 Stanley Hauerwas, “Suffering the Retarded: Should We Prevent Retardation?” in Critical Reflections on Stanley Hauerwas’ Theology of Disability: Disabling Society, Enabling Theology, ed. John Swinton (Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 2004), 97.
