Protestants of all kinds are getting interested in Thomas Aquinas, particularly those who write on "practices" and the virtues with inspiration from the work of Stanley Hauerwas. The "postliberal Aquinas" is very popular these days, especially for those who do theology in heavy conversation with Wittgenstein.
Aquinas's doctrine of the "hylomorphic union" of body and soul seems to appeal to the current Protestant interest in "embodiment" as well (Aquinas isn't like Plato: he thinks a human being is a soul and body united, and that our bodies are an essential part of who we are as human beings and how we relate to God).
Aquinas doesn't get a mention in James KA Smith's book Desiring the Kingdom, but there's a connection there that he may not have been aware of. Smith’s reading of “secular” and “Christian” liturgies and his focus on embodiment finds a clear parallel in one of Aquinas’s arguments for the necessity of the sacraments. In this argument in the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas says that one reason that the sacraments were necessary was in order that human beings might be offered “bodily exercise” whereby they might be “trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds” (III, 61.1).
Of course, Smith's understanding of the sacraments clearly differs from a lot of what Aquinas says, and he, along with Hauerwas and others, seems to be wary of the language of grace and individual salvation as was traditionally used by Reformed and Catholic theologians. At the same time this little overlap between Smith and Aquinas's Summa is notable for those interested in dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A lot of good stuff here, as usual, Matt. This is of course the almost-thoroughly-historicist me talking, but I don't think Hauerwas, Smith, et al. take issue with the language per se (though that's far too sweeping to be helpful....you're talking about a LOT of things [what "traditionally" are you talking about? Just late medieval-early modern?]). What I take to be their general stance is that repeating the same words today doesn't mean quite the same thing because we inhabit a different form of life: a world where it's typically assumed not only that body and "soul" are two different things, but that the same goes for "thought" and "action", "religion" and "politics," etc.
ReplyDeleteI struggle with an elegant way to put it, so perhaps the "traditional Reformed/Catholic" view of salvation is a bit of a chimera.
ReplyDeleteBut Hauerwas and Smith do have the specific project in their work to address an "individualistic" notion of salvation as, we might say, "fire insurance?" They are arguing against the idea that what Jesus did is merely to help us go to heaven, rather than to institute an alternate political form of life on earth. I think Smith says something very close to this same phrasing.
Hauerwas, especially, is very cautious about describing grace as a "state" people are in. He says in print somewhere something about Protestants letting grace "run wild like a greased pig" or something like that. Hauerwas (and I think Smith also) has particular philosophical convictions that make language of "grace," "soul," etc. improper. I think Hauerwas metaphysically is very materialist. This is why he says in Grain of the Universe that the only proof for Christianity is the faithful actions of its disciples. Hauerwas has a philosophical view of religion that I think Smith picks up, and this view puts them at odds (in some ways, but not in others) with (here's a chimera-) the general shall we say "platonic" outlook of pre-Enlightenment Christianity? I think there's a basic platonic outlook that informs the language of grace and the afterlife in both Aquinas and the early Reformers.
...And I should say I wonder if this basic outlook is something essential to the Gospel. Benedict XVI, John Milbank, and some other folks say something similar to this. Robert Jenson is a good example of someone who thinks the opposite.
ReplyDeleteThose are some good points. There's a lot that needs to be disentangled here. Or at least it needs to be asked if certain concepts are intrinsically related. I think the "individualism" question is distinct from the Platonic-Thomist-Aristotelian question.
ReplyDeleteAt the recent Wheaton theology conference with N.T. Wright, Edith Humphries (a former evangelical, now Orthodox) raises some great questions to Wright. She appreciates so much of his work and challenges him to see if his historical work would be both reinforced in important ways and deepened by engagement with the "fathers."
In a very different context, I think their exchange raises many similar issues to the ones you raise. I'm not teasing all that out here, but I hope to listen to the talk again more carefully and think about it more carefully.
I think individualism and platonism are a little related in terms of salvation, and that the division between the premodern view of salvation and Hauerwas is big enough to be described as a distinction.
ReplyDeleteAugustine, Aquinas, and Calvin all think that for a Christian to be "saved" means that something metaphysically happens to your soul and that when you die you go immediately to disembodied life with God, awaiting resurrection.
Hauerwas (and I think Smith if you pushed him) think that nothing metaphysical happens to you at all when you are "saved," but that instead you come into a particular form of life consituted by particular habits, and that when you die you might go to heaven or you might wait until the bodily resurrection to exist again, but it's more difficult for them to articulate how an intermediate state would work.
"metaphysically" might have not been a proper term there, but meh
ReplyDeleteThis is, of course, a dissertation topic in itself. And if you need help thinking about how to make the case for how your project fits into the "U.S. Catholic experience" we can talk about it (if this is indeed a direction you're moving).
ReplyDeleteI still want to say that we would need to distinguish between several kinds of individualism to make good progress. The patristic emphasis on the ontological solidarity of the human race (of course all that needs nuancing too!) and even the early Calvinist/Reformed emphasis on the covenant are far removed from modern nominalistic notions of individuals qua individuals. Mike Hanby's book on Augustine goes to great lengths to distinguish the self of Confessions and de Trinitate from Descartes' version.
Jonathan Edwards was certain a kind of platonist, but his (in many ways, patristic) account of original sin was seen as bizarre and incomrehensible by most of his evangelical peers and later admirers who couldn't conceive of the entire race being "in" Adam in a real, ontological sense.
Sloppy thinking, I know, but it's good to be writing something that's indirectly related to the dissertation, while I grade papers and exams.
Eh it's blogging, the only genre where sweeping, unsupportable claims are the norm and even encouraged.
ReplyDeleteIt fits the way I normally talk about theology I think.
One of Smith's colleagues, Rebbeca DeYoung, recently published a book called "Glittering Vices" about the 7 deadly sins, drawing heavily on Aquinas. She teaches a course about Aquinas at Calvin College where I attend. I agree, there are correlations between Smith's emphasis on practices as educational formation, and Aquinas' work on the virtue and vices being practices that give our lives a certain trajectory toward whatever "good life" we love.
ReplyDelete