THE INTERRUPTION OF CHRIST – THE LANGUAGE, BEAUTY, AND THEOLOGICAL AESTHETICS OF DAVID BENTLEY HART by Ari Koponen HERE is a superb full blown study of David Bentley Hart.
In it he explains Hart’s position in regard to rhetoric and narration.
He Calls Hart's theory "a Christian creative correspondence theory” :
Christian thought is “made to interrupt”, not to fill ontological or logical gaps that classical or postmodern thought may problematize regarding transcendence, for example. As John Milbank claims, the theological “method” of his rejects “the correspondence between the intellect and extra-mental reality” and its aim “is not to represent [...] externality but to join in its occurrence; not to know, but to intervene, originate.”
And Hart himself notes in the last chapter of Beauty of the Infinite,
“I believe there is indeed the possibility of a consummation of all reason in a vision and a wisdom that cannot be reached without language, but is as much theoria as discourse; as such it is indeed “aesthetic” in the highest sense [...] but is also “rational” in the highest sense, in that it can “see” where and understand how other narratives fail the great theme of being, are too impoverished to speak the truth of reality’s goodness, and simply lack the fullness and coherence that shows itself in the true.”
In that dissertation, ARI KOPONEN also notes the importance of actual practice,
“As a side note, it can be said that narrative coherence also ultimately governs tradition and its development. Hart implies, for example, that Arian controversies showed that each dissident party could quote sources of theology quite evenly, and thus as a singular issue either one could have been vindicated. But it was the narrative compatibility (faith that was already practiced, sung, and understood for centuries) with dogmatic theses that resolved the matter in favour of the Nicene party.”
And he adds,
"For Hart, if there is a non-foundation, it is always grounded in something “given,” ultimately in the differential unity of being of the Trinitarian God.
It may be said that Hart’s theology is not “aesthetic” theology, for it acknowledges that revelation, in creation and in Christ, is also an act, not a mere category of beauty to appear.”
Kopone goes on,
“…for Hart, the truth of Christianity is a narrative, not simply “a narrated truth.” Narration is not simply a formalistic vessel in which truth is explicated or through which it is conveyed. The Christian narrative cannot seek theoretical support for its central concepts outside itself (while being aware that expressions and ideas are historically constructed).
Therefore, Hart views his narrative as being more than a hermeneutic skeleton key; narrative is not an “option” but in a very real sense, it is what it proclaims. It does not “fit” in any other narrative as such (and vice versa), but as praeperatio evangelica, it can act as leaven.The rhetoric of God is continued in the rhetoric of creation, not simply as a dialectical process, but in an infinite way corresponding to the very nature of the Godhead himself. Thus, for Hart, Christian discourse seeks a “totality,” but it is the manner (or ontology; for questions of style and ontology seem to coincide in Hart’s theological writing) of this seeking that makes Christian rhetoric stand apart from its violent counterparts that seek rhetorical dominance.
….the Christian story must not be understood as a watered-down version of Wittgensteinian communally constructed language games, but as a discourse that resonates even in other languages, non-Christian ones and anti- Christian ones, as the truth about Jesus of Nazareth.
….his narrative differs from postliberal accounts in that Hart sees the other narratives as severely lacking the full account of being, although the Christian truth may address, inform, and influence these other accounts. It is not something that is merely open for discussion; it presents itself as superior. This is something that Hart admits at the outset of his major opus.
For Hart, the justification of his narrative lies in the rhetorical effectiveness, or the story’s phenomenological openings, being comprehensive and true to the “great theme of being,"
The truth of narrative is not found in “matching narrative against reality” but in “matching reality-stories against the truth: Jesus Christ.”
A narrative is a method that refers not to the truth, but to the world where this truth manifests itself, and finds its logic; it also presents a hermeneutical task to the reader to enter into this world, thus disseminating meanings that, in a sense, “overflow” its own narrative structure.
Hart’s opinion that it is impossible to do without a narrative in the first place: there is always a “fictional” element to every truth, not least because truth needs to be articulated and articulation, but also because every attempt to “purify” or “deconstruct” a narrative ensues ultimately from yet another narrative. Therefore, choosing a narrative is not an option, but choosing between narratives is what Hart is after. And if choosing is always an act of preferring, it rests on aesthetic, not primarily on fideistic or epistemological grounds (while these moments certainly help to narrow down the possible alternatives).
…the narrative of Christ is something that is able to explain (both depicting and giving meaning) what the truth of being must be.
In the end, the concept of narrative may be too restrictive here, as Hart himself notes:
It would be best simply to say that I assume that theology, even in its most properly evangelical moments, is most properly a practice of inner witness and anamnesis, a submission of language to the form of Christ revealed in the Scripture and in the unfolding tradition, but also one that seeks to find therein the true home of every “natural light”. [This means] dogmatic discourse that is also an opening out to what is beyond obeys a kind of trinitarian logic: just as the eternal “discourse” of God, the circumincession of the Person in the infinite articulation of the divine utterance (Logos), opens “outward” to creation according to its own eternal motion, expressed economically, so this dogmatic diastole and systole around the story of Christ has a power to include what is other within itself, through mediation of the Holy Spirit who makes all words open to the Word that embraces every created difference.
It can be said that if truth is primarily a manifesting, a heavily laden pre-laden experiential event, rather than a correspondence, then narrative is simply a way to find other narratives inadequate, not necessarily untrue completely or false in good faith.”
Koprin offers this diagram and the following explanation,
Figure 1. The form of narrative according to Hart
“The boldest arrow represents the particular narrative of a particular person, God-man Jesus Christ, developing and living in history. The narrative is outworked as Tradition, as a respiratory act of the Holy Spirit (remembering the Trinitarian taxis in the Christ- event, as the supreme rhetorical act of the Father) and is “gathered” or “thought” communally, in the Father and beyond. From this narrative ensue theological notions (the relation of God and the world, ‘metaphysics’ and ‘creed’—elucidations of the biblical narrative) resulting in the theologically conditioned philosophical concept of particular beings. Their particular forms are also hammered into being against rival narratives. Yet this historical process echoes and replicates the Trinitarian infinite life, in which the “text” of the world is “spoken” and “called” into being by the Father through the Logos with the Holy Spirit. The narrative stretches out, only to be also found in unusual forms and places as “already there.”
The descending arrow is not to be understood in a chronological sense, but more in a diachronic sense, meaning in a traditional sense, in which Christ borrows the form of Trinitarian discourse, and that narrative can not only entail and lighten mundane metaphysics but can also give rational and “natural” sense to faith and its vision. The narrative cannot be “unfolded” or traced back to its ingredients (though it seemingly can be evaluated by is representatives), for the logic of tradition corresponds formally to immanent Trinitarian capability and eternal circumlocution (in the literal sense of the word) of the “other within itself”. The narrative of Hart is about this world, not of it. It has a certain definitive and speculative tendency, just because its main power source is eternal and historical at the same time. This unitary impetus is reflected in creedal and philosophical developments in history (on the right side, below the arrow). These developments are to be checked with the “eternal” (the left side); they are to re-narrated in order to reflect the “grand theme of being” originating from the Triune life. And Hart is keen to show that speculative elements are not in any way indifferent or secondary to the elemental core of the Gospel narrative; more to the point, they are inevitable, because otherwise the narrative would be a dead one, purely a myth, incapable of nourishing or criticizing other discourses. In short, it is always important to remind oneself that rhetoric is not simply a viable hermeneutical way of understanding Christianity; it is the very form of it.”
Finally, Kopenon concludes,
"Hart wants to show that rhetoric concerning the nature of theology is not only an option, but precisely its truest nature. The persuasive character of theology is not about finding supremacy through reason or faith, but disclosing theology itself as a persuasion, a narrative capable of a holistic alternative vision. That being said, the narrative of theology is to be distinguished from other rhetorical approaches in at least three senses.
Firstly, it must give an account of an ontology, and not stay merely on the level of persuasive talk of God. Secondly, it must do so in a manner that upholds an alternative vision of peace amid worldly rhetoric of power and dominance. Thirdly, it accomplishes this by making the Beautiful the primary decisive point of interpretation, yet grounding it in other great transcendentals in the Godhead, meaning that while its vision is aesthetic, it must also be rationally coherent. Because the Beautiful cannot be treated “from below,” its unity with the Good and the True is affirmed.
Moreover, Hart wishes to distinguish his post-modern position precisely through this anti-modern rhetoric: he embraces a holistic vision of narrative, the universal capacity of it, yet he upholds a realistic view of beings as they are rhetorically spoken into existence by God himself.
Hart claims that with only the three aspects withstanding, theological narrative can be competitive instead of combative.
Accordingly, the language of theology is capable of speaking about God, not governing him.
Just because the analogy of being falls on the difference between the created and the Creator, theology can wrest itself free from closed systems of philosophy, and “re- narrate” itself in order to criticize other narratives, without having first to yield to their primary premises."
No comments:
Post a Comment