Daniel Levis
October 17, 2013
Graduate Research Symposium
Theophany as a Model of Sacramental
Presence
In an effort to explain the way God is present in
sacraments, the Catholic Tradition at least since the time of Thomas Aquinas
has looked toward the metaphysical philosophical system. This ontological approach to sacramental
theology brought a systematic, rational, and unified perspective that has
lasted through the Enlightenment up into the twenty-first century. Glenn Ambrose, a contemporary theologian, has
attempted to “overcome” onto-theology by referring to new frameworks. In his book, The Theology of Louis Marie Chauvet: Overcoming Onto-Theology with the
Sacramental Tradition, he has summarized the work of Louis-Marie Chauvet
and has drawn further conclusions for sacramental theology. Through my own interest in biblical theology,
I saw that there is a framework of God’s presence especially expressed in the
Hebrew Scriptures that is in harmony with the work of Ambrose. Theophany is a manifestation of God’s
presence to His people usually in dramatic ways; for example in the burning
bush narrative. I suggest that theophany
is a helpful model for sacramental presence as it addresses many of the
questions of sacramental theology today, while avoiding many of the pitfalls of
metaphysical theology.
In this paper, I will first briefly summarize Ambrose’s appropriation
of Chauvet and Jean-Luc Marion. Secondly
I will examine two examples of Old Testament theophanies noting the
insufficiencies of a metaphysical reading, and highlighting the contributions
each example can bring to contemporary sacramental theology. My goal is not the same as Glen Ambrose. I do not hope to overcome onto-theology. Rather, I would like to suggest a model that
can provide insight into the sacramental experience of God’s presence in the
Church today.
Overcoming Onto-Theology
Aquinas understood the sacraments
with the notion of instrumental efficient causality. Sacraments are instruments through which
God’s grace is given to and take effect on the receptive human. We will not develop this concept here, but
suffice to say that this instrumental causality has permeated Catholic
sacramental consciousness since then.
While there is theological consistency in Aquinas’ view, Chauvet is
critical of how this can be put into practice.
The metaphor of “production” can tend to describe grace as a thing or
commodity. Chauvet is careful to point
out that this “reification” of grace can quickly lead to idolatry and the sense
that we have mastery over grace.[1] The scholastic, ontological approach, seen in
its negative light, understands that if a sacrament is performed by the
authorized human minister in a licit way, the effects of the sacrament are guaranteed.
Much of
Abrose’s work attempts to overcome this false sense of mastery over the divine
and religious certainty. Two of
Chauvet’s concepts are of particular interest to this study: the mediating
quality of symbols, and God’s revelation as presence/absence.
Chauvet’s concept of symbol is built upon a philosophy of
“body-consciousness” and a turn to language as an integral part of
corporeality. In his view of the person, it is incomplete to conceive of the
subject as a disembodied “I” who is communicated through a body and language.[2] A disembodied “I” thus conceived treats the
body as an instrument of mediation. For
Chauvet, humans are both corporeal and symbolic. Body and language are not external to the
person.[3] The “I” and the “You” encounter each other
through the body, not in an instrumental objectifying way. Language and body are the subject, and thus body-consciousness
is the meeting place between two subjects.
Chauvet applies this to symbols.
The symbol mediates the presence of that which is symbolized. As such, the symbol is actually greater than
that which is perceived. This broadens
what it means for the sacraments to be symbols.
Sacraments not only make visible that grace that we cannot see. Instead, sacraments (the physical elements
such as bread and wine, but also the gestures, prayers, and community) are the
gift of God. As the gift they mediate
the presence of God.[4]
The
second concept of interest to our study is the way Chauvet understands God’s
revelation as presence and absence. For
him, grasping at a full knowledge and definition of God’s presence is
contradictory to the biblical experience of God’s presence. Rather, in the resurrection, for example, the
glorified Lord is reveal as much by the empty tomb, or absence, as he is in his
resurrected body.[5] Ambrose
also reflects on Jean Luc Marion’s concept of idol and icon. To reduce God’s being to the bread (or any
other sacramental species) is considered idolatry. To see sacraments as an icon is to understand
that they mediate more than what is seen.
For Marion the distinction between idol and icon is the admission of
distance from the elements themselves and God.[6]
Symbolic and Theophany
Transfiguration of Material-Exodus 3
We will now turn to biblical examples
of theophany and explicate the significance for sacramental theology. The theological foundation of symbols can be
used as a lens to understand the mediation of divine presence through the
physical elements of theophany. The very
fact of God manifesting God’s self to a human being means that God’s presence
is mediated through some perceivable element.
God’s presence is mediated through a burning bush (Ex 3), a storm on a
mountain (Ex 19), a pillar of fire and cloud (Ex 13:21), or even a prophetic
vision (Ez 1). Theophany is therefore a
completely mediated experience. In the
biblical account, God’s presence is always mediated through physical “stuff.”
Let us take Exodus 3 as an example of physical
mediation. While Moses was tending sheep
on Mount Horeb, “an angel of the LORD appeared to him in fire flaming out of a
bush.” (Ex 3:2). “An angel of the LORD”
is a common phrase used in such appearances.
The phrase immediately gives the sense of mediation as “angel” simply
means “messenger.” There is not a sense
that the angel and the bush are not God, for instantly the visual was combined
with the audio as God spoke to Moses telling him to remove his sandals “for the
place you are standing is holy ground.” (Ex 3:5). The ground was holy because God was present
there.[7] God was present through the bush and in the
words.
Metaphysical questions about this scene would miss the
theological thrust of the story. “When
exactly did the burning bush transform into God?” “Though the bush retained accidents of a
bush, was its substance changed?” “If
someone could have dosed the bush with water, would God have been
injured?” God’s use of materiality does
not bind God to the material world. The
thrust of the story can be found later in the chapter. God was calling Moses to mission (v 10). God was revealing God’s self to Moses through
the disclosure of the Divine Name (v 14).
Finally, God was promising God’s presence would remain with Moses (v
12). Though God was mediated through
materiality, God would continue to be present even once the theophany ended.
Thomas Fitzgerald, in article entitled “The Eucharist as
Theophany,” suggests that the use of the physical in theophany occurs because
humans cannot experience God in God’s full existence. He quotes Nicholas Kabasilas, “For since it
was not possible for us to ascend and participate in that which is his, he
comes down to us and participates in that which is ours.”[8] The significance of this for sacramental
theology is that the perceivable qualities of sacraments (including words) are
God’s participation in human experience and human life. Fitzgerald assumes an Eastern Orthodox
perspective that distinguishes between essence and energy. It is said that God’s essence is beyond human
perception. What is experienced in
theophany and in sacraments is God’s “energy,” that outflowing of God’s power
into the human situation.[9] Thus for Fitzgerald, the substance of the physical
elements is not destroyed, but rather the physical elements are transfigured by
the energy of God. The distinction
between the essence and energy of God is rooted in the patristic tradition[10]
but it is not necessary for a theophanic approach to the sacraments. What is helpful about the discussion is that
it does not assume an ontological change in physical elements. The material and the immaterial aspects of
sacraments become transfigured to bear God to the Church. Just as the burning bush was transfigured, so
are the bread and wine and even the words of the sacrament transfigured.
To summarize, the Bush mediated the presence of God in a
way that can be understood with Chauvet’s mediating quality of symbols. The entire theophanic event was undeniably an
experience of God’s presence, but it was completely mediated through corporeality. Thomas Fitzgerald explains this physical
mediation as a transfiguration of physical elements by the energy of God. A
theophanic approach to sacraments understands that there is a change in the
elements, but it does not depend on a metaphysical explanation. Rather, the sacramental symbols that mediate
the presence of God are transfigured like the mysteriously transfigured burning
bush. As mediating symbols, they become
that which is symbolized.
Distance in Theophany-1Chronicles 28
Marion’s
critique of the philosophical god of metaphysics is that there is no distance
between the sacrament and god. It
assumes a mastery over the vast incomprehensibility of God and thus creates an
idol. For example, onto-theology insists
that we know the exact moment of the change in substance in the bread and
wine—when the priest says the words of consecration. A theology of theophany
can help to maintain distance.
Once the
great theophany on Mount Sinai ended, God continued to manifest God’s presence
to Israel first in the Tent of Meetings during the wilderness wanderings, and
then in the Temple built in Jerusalem.
While at times these structures gave a false sense of assurance to the
people, they also served to maintain distance as God refused to let God’s
presence be manipulated by these structures.
When the people were disobedient, Ezekiel saw the Glory of the LORD
leave the Temple, and go to a far off land (Ez 10). The theology of God’s presence in the Temple
is significant.
The
temple was conceived as an earthly pattern of a heavenly reality. When Moses was instructed to build the Tent
of Meeting, he was given specific details to follow from the pattern (Ex
25:9). When David commissioned Solomon to
build the Temple, he gave his son a similar divinely revealed pattern (1Chron
28). The significance for the people is
that the Temple acted as a gateway into heavenly realities. When the priest stood in the Temple in the
presence of God, he was also mysteriously standing in the heavenly Temple. Therefore, God’s presence was with His people
in the earthly Temple, but not exhaustively.
Metaphysical questions about the extent of God’s “being” in the Temple, miss
the theological thrust of the Temple.
God dwelt with His people. It was
truly a blessing, but His presence was certainly not unconditional. When God is in the midst of His people,
there are certain covenant demands.
Falling short of the covenant, would mean the removing of the Glory of
the LORD. While God gives Himself as a
gift, He is not confined to our spaces.
Viewing
the sacraments as theophany satisfies Chauvet and Marion’s critique of
manipulating our understanding of God’s presence. God is with us in the sacraments, but He is
certainly not contained or limited by our ritual. Alexander Schmemann, explains the meaning of
the Eucharist through an examination of Divine Liturgy. Schmemann indicates that in Divine Liturgy
the Church ascends to meet Christ.[11] As the Church prays the “Holy, Holy, Holy”
the Church enters into the heavenly Temple to join the thrice holy hymn of the
Cherubim.[12] The connection between the liturgical
celebration and the heavenly worship is a similar connection of the Hebrew
Temple with the Heavenly Temple. The
Eucharistic celebration reveals God’s presence, albeit in a specific, and
non-exhaustive manner.
The main
thesis of Samuel Terrien’s book, Elusive
Presence, is that Old Testament theophanies that revealed God to His people
also concealed God. We have already
looked at the burning bush and the disclosure of the Divine Name. Metaphysical attempts to interpret the Divine
Name, “I am who I am,” suggest that God was revealing that God is “Being”
itself. While this certainly probes
ontological questions, it must be noted that the Hebrews did not have the
underlying metaphysical framework making that interpretation less tenable. Terrien interprets the name in the context of
the entire narrative to mean “I will be who I will be.” As much as the Divine Name offers the promise
of continued presence, Terrien also acknowledged that it contains a “quality of
elusiveness.”[13] Attempting to read the psychology of Moses,
Terrien suggests that Moses’ inquiry into the Divine Name was an attempt to
capture full knowledge of the divine; to attain “religious certainty” (not
unlike onto-theology).[14] God’s response did not satisfy this inquiry
completely. Instead, it offered the assurance of presence that could not be
fully grasped.[15]
“I will be who I will be.”
To
summarize, the Temple and Tabernacle theophanies show a connection between
God’s presence with His people and God’s presence in the heavenly Temple. This theology shows a connectedness between
the sacramental celebration and God’s presence.
As a corrective, the Temple theology also admits that God is not
exhaustively or unconditionally present in the Temple. This elusive presence is central to theophany
as a model of sacramental presence. Sacraments
as theophany remove the tendency of manipulation and control that comes with
certainty of God’s presence. Just like
in the Temple and with the Divine Name, God’s sacramental presence cannot be
manipulated or cajoled. This emphasizes
the sheer gratuity of God’s gift. The
Church is not a dispenser of God’s grace.
Instead, in every celebration of a sacrament the Church again asks for
God’s grace to be present for the Church.
The “efficacy” of the sacrament is completely dependent upon God’s
initiative.
Concluding Thoughts
We have briefly discussed two
significant theophanies of the Hebrew Scripture and summarized their
contributions to a contemporary sacramental theology. The burning bush narrative takes seriously
Chauvet’s concern for body-consciousness and the symbolic mediation of
sacraments. The Temple theophany admits
a connection and distance between God and the sacramental celebration. We would find more insights as we unpack
further examples of theophany, including contemporary sacramental theology’s
attempts to connect sacraments and ethics, and articulating the community
dimension. I do not hope to suggest a
new normative model for understanding sacramental presence, nor do I pretend to
be free from onto-theology. Instead, I
hope that this concept from biblical theology would bring a richness to sacramental
theology in order to recover the mystery of God’s presence with his people.
Works Cited
Ambrose, Glenn P. The Theology of Louis-Marie Chauvet:
Overcoming Onto-Theology with the Sacramental Tradition. Burlington:
Ashgate, 2012.
Clasby, Nancy. “Dancing Sophia:
Rahner’s Theology of Symbols.” Found In Religion
& Literature, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring, 1993), pp. 51-65.
Fitzgerald, Thomas.“The Holy
Eucharist as Theophany.” In Greek
Orthodox Theological Review, 28, 27-38, 1983.
Terrien, Samuel. The Elusive Presence. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1978.
Murphy, Francis X. “The Patristic
Origins of Orthodox Mysticism.” In Mystics
Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1984, pp. 59-63.
Schmemann, Alexander. The Eucharist. New York: Crestwood,
1987.
The Roman Missal. International
Committee on English in the Liturgy.
[1] Ambrose,
Glenn P. The Theology of Louis-Marie
Chauvet: Overcoming Onto-Theology with the Sacramental Tradition.
Burlington: Ashgate, 2012. 49
[2] Ibid
62
[3]
Ibid 60-62.
[4]
Ibid 93-94.
[5] Ibid
56.
[6]
Ibid 22-25.
[7] To
say that the ground is holy because God is present also says something about
the ground where the burning bush was not located. If particular ground is sacred, certainly
there was ground around Mount Horeb that was profane or secular. This may illuminate a Rahnarian sense of
cosmic sacramentality.
[8]
Fitzgerald, Thomas.“The Holy Eucharist as Theophany.” In Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 28, 27-38, 1983. 37.
[9] ibid
37.
[10] Murphy,
Francis X. “The Patristic Origins of Orthodox Mysticism.” In Mystics Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1984,
pp. 59-63. 60.
[11] Schmemann, Alexander. The Eucharist. New York: Crestwood, 1987. 60.
[12] Ibid
65.
[13] Terrien, Samuel. The
Elusive Presence. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1978. 119.
[14] ibid
119.
[15] ibid
119.
No comments:
Post a Comment