In her work On the Mystery, Catherine Keller attempts to expose a wider audience (other than theologians) to process theology and conclusions that she has reached while utilizing it. All the new beliefs that Keller presents in the book are drawn together with a central theme being the “third way.” That is, a new way of thinking about situations that Keller defines as the resolute method—it is neither dissolute nor absolute. Of these situations that Keller applies her resolute third way that is most interesting concerns divine power. While classical theism and most mainstream Christian beliefs hold that divine power is shown through domination, omnipotence, omniscience, and action, Keller holds a different view. Instead of displaying power actively, Keller posits that God, or what she labels as God, shows power passively. Of God, she says, “God lures. Love lures and lets be” (Keller 100). Yet, how Keller describes her idea of divine power does not seem to be “of or pertaining to God or a god” (OED Online). Instead, Keller seems to describe divine power as human power. A god need not be involved at all in what On the Mystery contains as divine power. Keller’s description of God and godly power is more akin to humankind’s ability to internalize morals (a sense of “what’s right”) than it is to the traditional story of God.
The general theme of the fifth chapter of On the Mystery is that, with resolute thinking, God’s power cannot be complete and dominating. If that is the case, an interesting question then arises: how is God’s power characterized? Keller answers the question by stating that God’s power is love, and therefore the power is manifested and recognizable as love: it lures and entices toward the so-called good, but it cannot force. The feeling of being lured and enticed to behavior in a particular way is not so much heavenly and godly as is it is a faculty of the human mind. It is a well-researched and accepted theory of psychology that humans at least have the capacity, but not necessarily the predisposition, to develop an internalized sense of right and wrong (cf. Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg). In addition, prominent psychologists such as John Watson and B.F. Skinner have theorized that it is possible to mold a human being’s form in any manner in terms of beliefs. It would not seem very difficult to manipulate Keller’s “divine power” for each individual. One person could be instilled a sense of right and wrong that is completely opposite of Keller’s idea of “good and bad.” If this person were to be lured to the what they feel is good, would that still be a divine lure? It is likely that this would then be classified as an evil lure, but in order to lure as love there must be love, so then evil must love.
The issue with Keller’s argument is that it is completely relativistic. She states that divine power is shown through love and lures God’s creations toward the good, yet what exactly “the good” is is completely unknown. The conception of good varies between cultures, and it is somewhat problematic and a sign of cultural superiority for one culture to claim their practices and beliefs as good and another group's as bad.
“Divine.” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press.
Web. 28 April 2011.
Keller, Catherine. On the Mystery. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment