Maximus the Confessor: Are you not entertained? |
Of Chapter 3’s forty-eight pages, only four pages, give or
take a line or two, are allocated to Jensen’s own position. (In many respects,
this is a commendable example of how to do theology: listen extensively to
other voices before making one’s own contribution.) First, Jensen argues for a
strong understanding of God’s transcendence, meaning that God is the source of created time and space.
Secondly, following Bultmann and Pannenberg, Jensen contends that the
regenerated human will is directed towards God, while the fallen and sinful
human will remains directed towards worldly things and self-love. This means,
thirdly, that the human will is truly free when aligned with God’s will; the
fallen will can only choose arbitrarily between options. Jensen’s worth quoting
here:
Ironically, the very feature which is most important in the modern self-understanding [of the will], namely that the will determines that which is previously undetermined, is the result and sign of human alienation from God.Alexander S. Jensen, Divine Providence and Human Agency: Trinity, Creation and Freedom (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), p. 111
It’s an interesting point, methinks.
Finally, Jensen’s fourth observation is that because
salvation is of the whole person, including the (enslaved) human will,
salvation has to come from the Holy Spirit.
So how does Jensen hold together the concepts of divine
providence and human free will? He is quite sure that the matter cannot be
resolved simply by pointing to its ostensibly paradoxical nature. Instead, he
proposes that any account of human freedom must draw from ‘the foundational
Christian experience of the saving presence of Christ.’ (p. 113). And because
all things come from God, the source of creaturely being and existence, free
human agency, too, must stem from participation in God, and so from God’s own
freedom. True human freedom, Jensen
argues, is the freedom to respond to God. He concludes:
A completely free will would regard every given situation as a gift from God and act in a way that responds to God’s love and discerns God’s will. This is expressed in the life of Jesus Christ as it is described in the gospels, which represents true humanity, including human freedom, at its fullest. (p. 113).
As I noted earlier, I’m finding Divine Providence and Human Agency a compelling read, and Chapter 3
has really made me think through some of my own entrenched positions. However,
questions remain for me. It seems to me that sometimes Jensen indulges in a
theological sleight of hand when talking about the free human will. I accept
that, theologically speaking, the truly free human will aligns itself with
God’s will, and that the fallen, sinful human will seeks the good in anything
but the good who is God. And I accept that the fallen, sinful human will is
more likely, for example, to indulge in sensuous pleasure than engage in
ascetic practices – assuming, of course, that the latter enable one to know God
more deeply and appropriately than the former (and this could be debated, I’m
sure). But is this distinction the only one of note? If I prefer a cheese
sandwich to a ham sandwich, is this a free human action aligned with God’s
will? Or is it an enslaved human action more concerned with satisfying my own
desires and needs? And is there a difference (or what is the connection)
between having a free human will and performing free human actions?
Undoubtedly, I need to think through these issues some more – and no doubt the
remainder of Jensen’s book will continue to help me do this.
No comments:
Post a Comment