Aug 27·edited Aug 27Liked by Christopher B. Barnett
Strong medicine, Doc! Medicine patiently and meticulously administered.
"Precisely because God’s governance ordinarily works through finite and temporal causes—what Ott
terms Providentia Mediata—it is a complex, even mysterious process. Sometimes earthly outcomes
are desired; at other times they are merely permitted."
I'd like to select that fine point, of the Providentia Mediata, as a particularly vexing one. I could be wrong, but my diplomatically aimed observation here is to say that there's quite a bit of tension between a (Biblical) personal-historical God of will and intention and a (Philosophical) metaphysical God sustaining all positive being. There is a mixed discourse of metaphysics and personal intention. That there is both a divine providence, a mysterious and complex process, where there are particular contingent outcomes that are in some sense (intentionally?) desired (Joseph and his brother reconciled through the famine), and that there is a general (metaphysical) principle that God does not will natural evil but allows it to happen through the laws of physics and human willfulness (starvation of many Canaanites and Egyptians in the famine) - does it become a bit of a tricky situation where, whether what one attributes to a specific personally intended providence or whether what one attributes to a benign metaphysical permittance, that difference is in the eye of the beholder? The logic of the theology can support either conclusion in a given situation, or the variables are workable to support what one wishes to see. Submitted with respect and admiration for you and respect to Ott and appreciation for your effort to reason with us online armchair theologians.
Ha, no one ever gets past the "armchair theologian" stage. As Thomas Aquinas famously put it, our words are but "straw" in comparison to divine truth. But I do think theology has a duty to wrestle with these issues, eliminating contradictions, clarifying presuppositions, etc. As to your question: no doubt it's a "vexing one." I think a deep dive into Thomas' notion of secondary causality would be fitting here, but that would be a different project altogether. Still, my hunch is that theology works best when it doesn't try to do too much. It should be axiomatic (from a Christian standpoint) that "Governance" (as Kierkegaard liked to put it) is at work in our lives and in the world in general. As for precisely how this happens -- Providence's most profound inner workings -- we can't fully know. But it is a comfort to know that God never wills physical evil per se, nor moral evil per se or per accidens. These are features of our world that always already run contrary to God's intentions for creation. And that is something good (and not vexing) to bear in mind!
Yes, Chris, I appreciate the time you took with the reply! I had taken away from your post more of an impression that you were arguing for in essence, a "God does work through all things" approach, that the negative and evil is all ultimately for the greater good, that every darkness is ordered to bring out by contrast the radiance of redeeming light. That might not be at all what you really intended to convey, but it is what I got, and I think the Joseph story as a biblical example is a tricky one. The sports analogy might also, if read in a certain way, seem to lead in that direction - the losses and the breakdowns and the failures are all redeemable in an upward trajectory of formation. What you said here though in your reply to me is not the same thing as an aesthetic theodicy: "But it is a comfort to know that God never wills physical evil per se, nor moral evil per se or per accidens. These are features of our world that always already run contrary to God's intentions for creation." I didn't want to get too close to the specific recent historical event in question, but I'll just get it out there: what I think is difficult for me, specifically as a Christian, is to accept providence when it lines up with "what wins out" in history, with who wins the war, with who is vanquished and forgotten, etc. Dude - I'm actually channeling Metz here, of Faith in History and Society, of faith in the God "of the living and the dead" and of "dangerous memory," the underside of history and wins and close-calls and successes, the God of the least and the forgotten. This is for another time though -- I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on Metz because now I have a better sense of the breadth and depth of your knowledge of modern Catholic theology....
... ... and again over to Kierkegaard, then, with what "governance" means as well in view of Kierkegaard on the hiddenness and offensiveness of the eternal to all apparent measures of successes in this life
Lots of tough issues in here, for sure. One distinction that I tried to stress, though I don’t think it’s evident in your comment, is that between “physical evil” and “moral evil.” According to Ott, the former is not willed per se, only per accidens—along the lines of the sports metaphor you mentioned. But “moral evil” is willed neither per se nor per accidens. So any moral evil, whether committed on behalf of a government (any government) or for the sake of individual self-indulgence, would not be willed by God in any way. So, in a sense, the “winners/losers” binary is not the real question. The real question is whether or not the actors in question committed moral evil or not—and that is difficult question indeed! [Typing on my phone, so hopefully this makes sense!]
Strong medicine, Doc! Medicine patiently and meticulously administered.
"Precisely because God’s governance ordinarily works through finite and temporal causes—what Ott
terms Providentia Mediata—it is a complex, even mysterious process. Sometimes earthly outcomes
are desired; at other times they are merely permitted."
I'd like to select that fine point, of the Providentia Mediata, as a particularly vexing one. I could be wrong, but my diplomatically aimed observation here is to say that there's quite a bit of tension between a (Biblical) personal-historical God of will and intention and a (Philosophical) metaphysical God sustaining all positive being. There is a mixed discourse of metaphysics and personal intention. That there is both a divine providence, a mysterious and complex process, where there are particular contingent outcomes that are in some sense (intentionally?) desired (Joseph and his brother reconciled through the famine), and that there is a general (metaphysical) principle that God does not will natural evil but allows it to happen through the laws of physics and human willfulness (starvation of many Canaanites and Egyptians in the famine) - does it become a bit of a tricky situation where, whether what one attributes to a specific personally intended providence or whether what one attributes to a benign metaphysical permittance, that difference is in the eye of the beholder? The logic of the theology can support either conclusion in a given situation, or the variables are workable to support what one wishes to see. Submitted with respect and admiration for you and respect to Ott and appreciation for your effort to reason with us online armchair theologians.
Ha, no one ever gets past the "armchair theologian" stage. As Thomas Aquinas famously put it, our words are but "straw" in comparison to divine truth. But I do think theology has a duty to wrestle with these issues, eliminating contradictions, clarifying presuppositions, etc. As to your question: no doubt it's a "vexing one." I think a deep dive into Thomas' notion of secondary causality would be fitting here, but that would be a different project altogether. Still, my hunch is that theology works best when it doesn't try to do too much. It should be axiomatic (from a Christian standpoint) that "Governance" (as Kierkegaard liked to put it) is at work in our lives and in the world in general. As for precisely how this happens -- Providence's most profound inner workings -- we can't fully know. But it is a comfort to know that God never wills physical evil per se, nor moral evil per se or per accidens. These are features of our world that always already run contrary to God's intentions for creation. And that is something good (and not vexing) to bear in mind!
Yes, Chris, I appreciate the time you took with the reply! I had taken away from your post more of an impression that you were arguing for in essence, a "God does work through all things" approach, that the negative and evil is all ultimately for the greater good, that every darkness is ordered to bring out by contrast the radiance of redeeming light. That might not be at all what you really intended to convey, but it is what I got, and I think the Joseph story as a biblical example is a tricky one. The sports analogy might also, if read in a certain way, seem to lead in that direction - the losses and the breakdowns and the failures are all redeemable in an upward trajectory of formation. What you said here though in your reply to me is not the same thing as an aesthetic theodicy: "But it is a comfort to know that God never wills physical evil per se, nor moral evil per se or per accidens. These are features of our world that always already run contrary to God's intentions for creation." I didn't want to get too close to the specific recent historical event in question, but I'll just get it out there: what I think is difficult for me, specifically as a Christian, is to accept providence when it lines up with "what wins out" in history, with who wins the war, with who is vanquished and forgotten, etc. Dude - I'm actually channeling Metz here, of Faith in History and Society, of faith in the God "of the living and the dead" and of "dangerous memory," the underside of history and wins and close-calls and successes, the God of the least and the forgotten. This is for another time though -- I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on Metz because now I have a better sense of the breadth and depth of your knowledge of modern Catholic theology....
... ... and again over to Kierkegaard, then, with what "governance" means as well in view of Kierkegaard on the hiddenness and offensiveness of the eternal to all apparent measures of successes in this life
Lots of tough issues in here, for sure. One distinction that I tried to stress, though I don’t think it’s evident in your comment, is that between “physical evil” and “moral evil.” According to Ott, the former is not willed per se, only per accidens—along the lines of the sports metaphor you mentioned. But “moral evil” is willed neither per se nor per accidens. So any moral evil, whether committed on behalf of a government (any government) or for the sake of individual self-indulgence, would not be willed by God in any way. So, in a sense, the “winners/losers” binary is not the real question. The real question is whether or not the actors in question committed moral evil or not—and that is difficult question indeed! [Typing on my phone, so hopefully this makes sense!]