I resonate most with Luke Timothy Johnson and N.T. Wright but would not so narrowly categorize them as Jesus the Savior theorists. I think they both very well articulate a much more robustly integral Christology, as I tried to articulate, myself:
quote: In my opening post, I offered a Fivefold Christology/Pneumatology: If we look through a Lukan prism, we might see a fivefold Christology, which recognizes that Christ came to orient, sanctify, empower, heal and save us. As Luke’s narrative continues in Acts, we see the Spirit continuing this divine work.
For Bourgeault, both gnosis and sophia imply an integral, participational knowledge carried in one's entire being toward the end of transformation of one's entire being. She points out that the Oneness that Jesus talks about is --- NOT that oneness often implied in the Eastern sense regarding an equivalency of being (a robust intra-objective identity) but, rather --that of mutual indwelling. Once more, the thrust is epistemic and not ontological as she teases out the distinctions between those aspects of our consciousness that do or do not differentiate.
As long as one engages transformation (which I broadly conceive in terms of theology, Christology, pneumatology and human anthropology) integrally and holistically (along with soteriology, ecclesiology & eschatology), as did Lonergan, for example, that makes good sense to me. Discussions regarding over- and under-emphases can also be useful. It even helps to discuss matters of primacy but we must take care to point out whether we mean it in an ordinal or cardinal sense, in other words, does it indicate merely the first in a series or in time or first in importance or in value?
There is likely a case that can always be made against this or that approach to Christianity vis a vis matters of relative emphasis. To the extent that sophiology, as inherently integral and holistic, would include soteriology, it would make little sense to me to ask which is more important. While a case CAN be made against many who've overemphasized both the soteriological and epistemically dualistic, Bourgeault's question, Savior or Life-Giver? and juxtaposition, soteriology or sophiology?, DO present false dichotomies, in my view.
Her explication of sophiology was helpful. To the extent that foils can be useful, the proper foil for her, as I see it, would have been this or that overemphasis on soteriology and not, rather, soteriology per se. Also, in citing such an overemphasis, it does seem that her 1
indictment of the West was much too broad. Within Western Christianity, there has existed a constant tradition of sophiological teaching, in the early fathers & mothers, in medieval doctors, mystics & mendicants, in esoteric and minority reports, in our religious orders and consecrated vocations, in our saints and unheralded lay anawim, in our contemplative and apostolic, cenobitic, monastic, eremitic and prophetic traditions. So, the core teaching has always been there as have practical supports and approaches to robustly transformative realizations. So, the indictment doesn't stick in that regard. On the other hand, as Merton observed and lamented, our churches have been much more about the mere tasks of socialization (part of the journey to authenticity, to be sure) and much less effective, it seems, in fostering transformation (coming closer to completing the journey vis a vis True Self realization and moving beyond the moral, social and practical to the robustly relational & intimate). In that regard, the indictment sticks fairly well? Witness the political polarization of our Christian country as so often grounded in shallow, fundamentalistic religious apologetics.
What I was hoping to accomplish in this thread was the introduction of some categories and vocabulary that would be more descriptive and less ambiguous than much of that employed in these particular aspects of formative spirituality. Toward that end, after explaining these concepts and teasing out the associated meanings and insights, I next had in mind introducing Phil's approach to God, self and ego and trying to merge his definitions and descriptions with my own. We started to do some of this in correspondence awhile back but I haven't followed through yet. I thought it might be more helpful in an open forum where we could negotiate their meaning together. Let me say, also, in the context of discussing this descriptive exercise. It was my original intent to stay away from the normative angles regarding what is or is not helpful vis a vis formative spirituality and this or that nondual approach, but it is only natural that that type of discussion will ensue. To the extent that it has, this has helped to tease out nuances and clarify definitions.
Also, regarding the use of foils and over against approaches, while these can be helpful both in our deepening our own self-understanding and in better understanding others, we do not want to miss the opportunity to define our approaches, positively, on their own terms as we seek to clarify what it is we are for and what it is we believe. Further, others with whom we may differ or disagree are foremost persons and not foils, fellow sojourners and not sparring partners! Phil and I once corresponded a little re: Pannikar and I recall parsing and faulting some aspect of his epistemology. Maybe I can find it and offer it here.
2
And it helps to be clear when we say nondual whether we mean nondual mystical experience or nondual epistemic approach. Keating says that, when Christians hear identity they best translate that as intimacy, consistent with what Bourgeault meant in her distinction between an equivalency of being and an indwelling. Also, as Arraj pointed out, it is a mistake to impose Western metaphysical concepts on Eastern phenomenal experiences because the East isn't
There is a difference in suggesting that from the start Christianity has gotten the Jesus path slightly wrong and in believing that the apostolic tradition that emerged was a distortion of Jesus' teaching and the meaning of his life? that celibacy is an essential requirement of the ascetic path but not the kenotic path? As far as Jesus' physical celibacy is concerned, Bourgeault is correct, we just don't know. I would add that I just don't care! Big Grin Back to intra-objective identity, from an onto-theological and metaphysical perspective, the problem of the One and the Many perdures (although Neville approaches it by drawing a distinction between God's indeterminate reality and determinate being as Creator vis a vis creatio ex nihilo ). Our inter-subjective value-realizations are indispensable. Still, how it is that physical reality might interact causally with a God, Whom we can only affirmatively describe via metaphor (the weakest of analogies), remains puzzling. What stuff or matrix mediates divine causation in our physical milieu? What Unknown Causes are proper to those effects for which there are otherwise no known causes? The Hesychasts introduce an intriguing distinction between God's essential nature and the Divine energies. Lots to muse over. As John of the Cross pointed out, at some level, even a person in mortal sin is still held in existence (such as by a creatio continua ); THAT this is true is more important than HOW ; good thing!
3