Fish Out of Water: The Gay Gospel [W:42]

RGacky3 said:

Could you expand on that? I'm not that familiar with Heidegger ....

Click to expand...

Heidegger influenced Rudolf Bultmann, one of he preeminent biblical scholars and theologians of the 20th century, as well as Jean Luc Marion, whose book, "God Without Being" is a seminal text of nonfoundational theology.

The gospel is a calling to us to be our authentic self -- the self that is a loving person. Thus when we accept the transformational power of God's love (expressed through the gospel narrative), we aren't choosing some course of action, to do this or that, as if it were a self-help program to lose weight (or sin less). We are becoming who we truly are, and would be, were it not for the alienation of being captured by the everyday world of self-involvement.

We don't have to respond to the call, we don't have to become authentic loving persons. But to say it is a choice, in the same way that I have a choice about what shirt to wear, simply beggars the primordial and existential nature of the event. The gospel happens to us. It's an event. It may be we can ignore or reject the event of the calling to authenticity, but this is much more fundamental than the dichotomy between he philosophical concepts of free will and determinism. It is the fact that we have an authentic and inauthentic self at odds with one another that makes free will as a philosophical category possible; not the other way around.

head of joaquin said:

Heidegger influenced Rudolf Bultmann, one of he preeminent biblical scholars and theologians of the 20th century, as well as Jean Luc Marion, whose book, "God Without Being" is a seminal text of nonfoundational theology.

The gospel is a calling to us to be our authentic self -- the self that is a loving person. Thus when we accept the transformational power of God's love (expressed through the gospel narrative), we aren't choosing some course of action, to do this or that, as if it were a self-help program to lose weight (or sin less). We are becoming who we truly are, and would be, were it not for the alienation of being captured by the everyday world of self-involvement.

We don't have to respond to the call, we don't have to become authentic loving persons. But to say it is a choice, in the same way that I have a choice about what shirt to wear, simply beggars the primordial and existential nature of the event. The gospel happens to us. It's an event. It may be we can ignore or reject the event of the calling to authenticity, but this is much more fundamental than the dichotomy between he philosophical concepts of free will and determinism. It is the fact that we have an authentic and inauthentic self at odds with one another that makes free will as a philosophical category possible; not the other way around.

Click to expand...

ok, I know Rudolf Bultmann .... and obviously totally respect his work, (Haven't heard of Jean Luc Marion, but I'll check him out).

The gospel calls us to "renew then man inside" to "put on the new personality" to "lead our body a slave" to "Carry the cross" it calls us to "sell our possessions, give to the poor and follow christ."

THe gospel damands self-sacrifice, which along with Gods love, transforms us, I agree with you, it isn't a "self-help" program, it's a "self-denying" program. I think we get in muddy waters here, because we cannot do anything apart from Gods grace, yes, but with Gods Grace we must take up the cross.

I get what your saying, but the question is still there, do we have the choice to respond to the call? ... if we do is that our will to do so?

Can you clarify what you mean by "authentic" and "inauthentic" self, I was going to rail against it by saying the gospel tells us to put on the new personality and so on, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

RGacky3 said:

ok, I know Rudolf Bultmann .... and obviously totally respect his work, (Haven't heard of Jean Luc Marion, but I'll check him out).

The gospel calls us to "renew then man inside" to "put on the new personality" to "lead our body a slave" to "Carry the cross" it calls us to "sell our possessions, give to the poor and follow christ."

THe gospel damands self-sacrifice, which along with Gods love, transforms us, I agree with you, it isn't a "self-help" program, it's a "self-denying" program. I think we get in muddy waters here, because we cannot do anything apart from Gods grace, yes, but with Gods Grace we must take up the cross.

I get what your saying, but the question is still there, do we have the choice to respond to the call? ... if we do is that our will to do so?

Can you clarify what you mean by "authentic" and "inauthentic" self, I was going to rail against it by saying the gospel tells us to put on the new personality and so on, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Click to expand...

I think we agree on this but are just using different terminology (since mine is influenced by Bultmann's existential Christianity, which was derived from Heidegger to a great extent -- and ironically Heidegger derived some of his categories, like Fallenness, from Christian theology).

It really is about the self, and overcoming it. But I don't know if "denying" captures what is happening. It is a curse to be trapped in egoism and narcissism. (And I could articulate this as the basis of "original sin" seen as our dual nature, which Paul calls the natural man and the spiritual man)The more excellent way, as Paul calls it, is love, which liberates us from our self involvement. But it's not a sacrifice to overcome the self. It's a blessing. The truest words Jesus ever said was that it's better to give than to receive. One way to put this is that we were made by God to be loving persons, but have become trapped in the inauthentic public world of getting and spending. The gospel restores us to our purpose, which I call our authentic self. It isn't hard, it's easy, as Jesus said about his yoke. That doesn't mean we don't still struggle with selfishness; but it is perceived as selfishness, as a flaw, as something alien to who we really are as Christians.

Naturalistically, we have evolved to be both selfish and altruistic. We needed both to survive. I think most people want to be loving persons (the altruistic side), but are restricted by our selfish nature. But existentially we aren't limited to this biological history. We can become loving person and put aside narcissism, but not by our own efforts. Only through God's transforming love (which become "grace" in the theology of Christianity)

In any case, more or less, that's what I mean by the authentic self.