Here at Vox Nova a recurring theme is the relationship of the “already” and “not yet” dimensions of the Reign of God. (One such installment in the ongoing discussion is here.) I recently rediscovered a great interview with University of St. Thomas theologian William T. Cavanaugh which states the relationship quite clearly, and with reference to Advent and Christmas:
In the Christian reading of Isaiah, however, God has already acted to redeem history. The shoot from the stump of Jesse has already sprouted. The longing of Advent is fulfilled in Christmas. People sometimes misunderstand the “not yet” of the kingdom of God to mean that God is holding back on us. But God has held nothing back; God has given us the Son, the Way. The “not yet” is because we are holding back. We carry on as if nothing has happened, waiting for God to realize the vision of Isaiah. But the good news is that God has acted. God has given us the Christ, in whom Isaiah’s vision of a transformed reality is fulfilled. (Emphasis added.)
Read the entire interview here for a good introduction to Cavanaugh’s work.
Michael
This is a theme which cannot be over-discussed. Gnosticism, with its rejection of the already, is a major factor in today’s world.
Perhaps one of the reasons why I am so moved on this concern is that many (not all) of my favorite modern thinkers were, to one degree or another, Gnostic [their Gnosticism was not always spiritualistic, to be sure]. It makes me have to be careful with their thought, though I do learn much from them (Owen Barfield, Philip K Dick, Vladimir Solovyov, etc).
The “not yet because we are holding back” is exactly right (when understood properly — he is not suggesting, as I fear some might think, that we must make doomsday happen). It is because of our sin, and the structures of sin which we continue to defend, the create the “not yet.”
Yes – Cavanaugh is great. We persistently and inevitably hold back from giving everything to Christ.
When I teach my students about the Eucharist and the Church I point out that we call both of them “the body of Christ.” Believe it or not, I find that most people have actually never noticed this. The next question, of course, is, “What’s the difference between the Eucharist and the Church, between the bread and us?”
Simply put, we’re more stubborn than bread.
I’m afraid I have some reservations about Mr. Cavanaugh, from the interview Mr. Iafrate linked to.
“The modern nation-state is founded on violence. If the church is going to resist violence, it has to emerge from its privatization and have a political voice, one that seeks not to regain state power but to speak truthfully about it.”
It is likely, given my lack of familiarity with Mr. Cavanaugh’s thought, that I am simply misinterpreting him here, however, it seems to me that he issuing a rather blanket condemnation of violence, for he does not make any distinction between just and unjust violence. Just violence being, for example, limited wars of self-defense.
So, I hope for some clarification on this point.
And thank you, sir, for posting this article, I found it very intriguing.
I’m not sure if Cavanaugh would consider himself a pacifist (I don’t think I’ve ever seen him use the term about himself) but even if not, he’s pretty close. When he refers to just war teaching, he uses it the right way as a very severe critique of all violence, holding a stance of suspicion toward all claims of “just” violence. So yes, he does make blanket condemnations of violence. He, like official Catholic teaching and unlike most “just war Christians,” makes a presumption against violence.
This is not really any different from the practice of the Church on an official level. Although the Church, in theory, holds the hypothetical possibility of “just” wars, the Church too issues blanket condemnations of violence quite frequently.
Mr. Iafrate, can you tell me more about this “right way” of understanding just war theory?
I believe that Cavanaugh identified as a pacifist somewhere, in a condemnation of the Iraq war, I believe. Though, has the church condemned pacifism outright, or has it allowed pacifism to exist as compatible with just-war theory (since there can’t really be just wars anymore)?
Crusader – What I mean by that is that Cavanaugh is rightly rigorous in his use of just war teaching, unlike most Christians who consider themselves “just war Christians.”
Ryan – He may have called himself a pacifist somewhere. I’m not sure. He certainly did oppose the Iraq War but one need not be a pacifist to come to that (obvious) judgment. And no, the Church has never condemned pacifism. On the contrary, the Church has affirmed pacifism.
I believe it went something like “I’m a pacifist, but… you should at least take just war theory seriously if you’re going to use the phrase.”
Crusader–I would recommend John Howard Yoder’s recent (posthumously released) book “Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution.” He, though a pacifist, took just war theory very seriously and thought the two were interrelated. A very even-handed look at the theory.
Ryan – You might be right. And good call on Yoder. Another good book of his that looks at just war theory seriously is When War Is Unjust.
Crusader:
I’m a little new around Vox-Nova, so I don’t know whether this is a name you’ve used before, or you picked it for the occasion of discussing “just” and “unjust” violence. Your choice of name communicates a more violence-positive attitude than a name like “White Dove” would.
The greatest danger in theories of justification — whether of war or any other behavior that might “ordinarily” be characterized as evil — is the natural human tendency to favorably prejudge whatever I identify myself with. It is natural to assume that my country’s military endeavors and my church’s political alliances are “just” until proved otherwise.
Just saying,…
Mr. Muennemann,
I suppose the name “Crusader” is violence positive in a perhaps unsettling way as it directly correlates with a portion of our historical patrimony most of us would generally prefer to be without, if we could make such a choice. As for whether or not the name is itself something I should go without, I would say that that depends on the crusade of which I consider myself a part. Also, I myself am new to Vox Nova, so this name is simply a screen name I chose for posting here.
Now, I simply follow the mind of the Church as closely as I can on the matters we are discussing. As far as I can tell that means permitting war in certain very restricted circumstances. Just war theory can never be viewed or abused as a sort of blank check for accomplishing one’s military and political objectives.
I will be the first to admit that I myself abused the just war criteria. When I was in high school and the Iraq War started I quickly became a cheerleader for the effort. I was young, impressionable, and a Republican through familial influence. So I fell for it. My thinking now is: never again will I make the same mistake.
As to your second point, I suppose your are right that we all tend to have a prejudice for our own tribes. I’ve made that mistake myself in the past, and I am hoping not to make it again. Hence why I am reading this blog.
Crusader – I had a similar experience in high school, though the noble crusade at that time was the Gulf War. I was a Rush Limbaugh fan in high school. I am amused when Republicatholics (and some right wing Evangelical acquaintances and family members) give me this “you’ll see the light someday” attitude, because they don’t realize that I’ve been there, done that.
I too am curious about your online name. If you are sticking close to the “mind of the Church,” why choose a name that invokes that particular history? Unless you are attempting to subvert it somehow? What “crusade” are you associating with?
I’ve been thinking about this since being challenged here about my name. I started using it back in 2003 on a completely different website in debates over politics and religion. I was much more politically conservative back then. I suppose it might be time for me to change it. Still, I should answer your question.
This is might sound a little silly, but since the age of 16 I’ve considered myself on a personal crusade for the truth. Six years later, I can see more clearly now that the name is perhaps a bit much. I guess I’ll just have to come up with a new one :) .
“Simply put, we’re more stubborn than bread.”
Brett, did you come up with that yourself? If I use it, and I expect I’ll want to, I want to get the attribution right.
Along the line of needing to be reminded . . . I remember one Holy Thursday when there was a big crowd of people outside the chapel of repose where I had attended mass, and I was grumbling to myself about my inability to get near the Sacrament, when a tiny/huge voice spoke to my heart, reminding me that all these people “in the way” were each members of the same Body of Christ I supposedly wanted to get close to …
R
R,
Yes, the line is my own. I have done so much reading in this area lately that I couldn’t tell you exactly when or from whom I picked up the sentiment. I think it is probably a combination of many different thinkers. It may well have been one of those things that first crystalizes mid-lecture.
I’m glad you find it helpful. Thank you for your anecdote. Another time when the link between the Eucharist and the Church becomes particularly clear is when one faces the possibility of an awkward sign of peace. If we cannot wish someone peace, the Lord clearly tells us that we must leave our offering outside the temple.
If we cannot wish someone peace, the Lord clearly tells us that we must leave our offering outside the temple.
Yep.