Imago Dei As Kenosis: Re-Imagining Humanity in an Ecological Era
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Imago Dei as Kenosis: Re-imagining Humanity in an Ecological Era Author: Román Guridi Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:107298 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2017 Copyright is held by the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0). Boston College School of Theology and Ministry Imago Dei as Kenosis: Re-imagining Humanity in an Ecological Era A Dissertation by ROMÁN GURIDI, SJ Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology December 2016 © copyright by ROMÁN GURIDI 2017 Imago Dei as Kenosis: Re-imagining Humanity in an Ecological Era by Román Guridi, SJ Director: John R. Sachs, SJ. Readers: Mary Ann Hinsdale, I.H.M, and Stephen Pope Abstract This thesis is concerned with ecotheology and theological anthropology, in general, and in particular, with the interpretation of the imago Dei motif as a source of ecological commitment. More specifically, it is an exploration of the theological idea of kenosis as one meaningful, sound, and timely understanding of imago Dei within the context of the current ecological crisis. Although criticized for its alleged anthropocentric overtones, the notion of imago Dei should not be put aside or silenced, but rather reinterpreted. Understood as kenosis, it is a source and not a hindrance for ecological concern and ethical commitment inasmuch as it elicits a fruitful understanding of humanity. Therefore, this dissertation occurs at the intersection between ecotheology and theological anthropology, or in other words it is a theological exploration within the domain of theological anthropology through an ecological lens. Chapter one traces the appearance of ecotheology within contemporary theological reflection, its assessment of the ecological crisis, and the different models or strategies that theologians have explored in order to link ecological challenges and theology. After defining both “ecology” and “ecological crisis”, and identifying some of the manifestations of the latter, the chapter examines the specific rationale of ecotheology and shows how and why it calls into question three main assumptions of classic theological anthropology, namely, the dignity, uniqueness, and role of humanity within creation. It provides a clear understanding of the status of ecotheology, its particular rationale, and its challenge to standard theological anthropology. Chapter two turns to the interpretation of imago Dei. First, it characterizes and assesses three main historical lines of interpretation: essentialist, functionalist, and relational, which can summarize and group the contributions of those who have offered a theological understanding of imago Dei. Then, the chapter proposes the notion of kenosis as one sound, meaningful and timely interpretation of this theological motif. Defined as both making-room or self-limitation and self-giving or self-emptying love, kenosis is portrayed through its biblical and systematic usage. The chapter argues that kenosis discloses something crucial about God’s agency within creation and about Jesus Christ as revelatory of true humanity. Consequently, it can be considered as an inspiring and significant anthropological notion in the context of the current ecological crisis. Kenosis not only connects the three classic interpretations of imago Dei, but it also serves them as a specifier, inasmuch as it provides concrete content and a precise direction for understanding humanity as created in the image of God. The chapter ends dealing with the main critiques which have been addressed to kenosis as a meaningful notion for theological anthropology. Chapter three is a constructive one. It explores the fruitfulness of kenosis and its ability to shed light upon humanity through the three dimensions of ecology: personal, social, and environmental. It shows the inspiring character of kenosis as an anthropological image which helps to shape people’s imagination, and the way believers portray and make practical sense of the Christian depiction of humanity. First, after highlighting the necessity of ecological conversion and a new ethos, the chapter proposes the notions of limit and asceticism as two important anthropological features that kenosis offers to personal ecology, and that may inspire us in searching and discerning new ways of life. Then, the chapter addresses the issue of the images that may help us in our searching for and voicing new ways of social interaction and life. The concept of “civilization of poverty” coined by philosopher Ignacio Ellacuría is particularly examined. Rooted in the social dimension of ecology, this concept is in tune with the twofold movement of kenosis of self-limitation and self-giving love. Finally, the chapter shows how kenosis offers a corrective to the notion of stewardship and enhances what is better in it. Inasmuch as the former in its double meaning of self-limitation and self-giving love entails clear practical consequences, it complements greatly the latter, which has become a sort of default position for many theologians. It is shown how this alliance between these two images heightens what is good in each of them, in order to inspire us in discerning and embodying an ecologically friendly lifestyle. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I I. INTRODUCTION 1 A) Ecological and theological context 2 B) Imago Dei as Kenosis: re-imagining humanity 4 C) Argument and Methodology 7 D) Overview of the chapters 11 II. ECOTHEOLOGY CHALLENGES CLASSIC THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: DIGNITY, UNIQUENESS, AND THE ROLE OF HUMANITY WITHIN CREATION 15 A) The Emergence of Ecotheology: a Theological Assessment of the Ecological Crisis 16 1. The rise of ecotheology 16 2. Ecological crisis: what does it mean? 24 3. Manifestations of the ecological crisis 41 a. Hunger 42 b. Migration 48 c. Water 52 d. Waste 57 B) Models for an Ecological Christian Theology: towards an Ecotheological Rationale 62 1. Mapping the field: some typologies of ecotheology 63 a. John Haught 65 b. Rosemary Radford Ruether 75 c. Willis Jenkins 80 d. The State of Ecotheology 90 2. Three Contentious Spheres: Dignity, Uniqueness, and the Role of Humanity within Creation 96 a. Human Dignity 98 b. Human uniqueness 106 c. The Role of Humanity within Creation 112 III. IMAGO DEI AS KENOSIS: SELF-LIMITATION AND SELF-GIVING LOVE 118 A) Three Approaches to Imago Dei: Substantialist, Functionalist, and Relational 120 1. Biblical usage of the Imago Dei 121 2. Historical Survey of the Interpretation of the Imago Dei 127 3. Three lines of interpretation: substantialist, relational, and functionalist 140 4. Conclusions 144 B) Imago Dei as Kenosis: Biblical and Systematic Perspectives 148 1. The locus classicus of kenosis: Philippians 2:5-11 149 a. Background and form of the passage 152 b. Some key expressions: , , and 155 Form of God: 157 He does not use it for his own advantage: 162 He emptied himself: 165 The second part of the text 172 c. The Adam-Christ parallelism 176 d. Conclusions 182 2. Systematic Perspectives on Kenosis 189 a. Jürgen Moltmann: zimzum, the Sabbath of Creation, and the Spirit of Life 191 b. Denis Edwards: non-interventionist divine agency and self-emptying love 199 c. Conclusions 204 3. Kenosis: Limits and Strengths of an Image 210 a. Feminist criticism of the notion of kenosis 211 b. Conclusions 221 IV. KENOSIS AS AN ECOLOGICAL IMAGE: A THEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION 226 A) Personal Ecology: Ecological conversion 231 1. Ecological Conversion 233 2. Personal Ecology: the Respect of Limits 238 a. Kenotic anthropology: discerning and respecting limits 239 b. Kenotic anthropology: broadening limits 251 c. Kenotic anthropology: asceticism and embodiment 260 B) Social Ecology: the Civilization of Poverty 268 1. The search for notions and images 270 2. The civilization of poverty: Ignacio Ellacuría’s legacy 272 3. Kenosis and the civilization of poverty 285 C) Environmental Ecology: Cosmic Humility 288 1. Imago Dei as stewardship 289 a. The notion of steward within the Catholic magisterium 290 b. The origins and foundation of this notion 296 2. Stewards of creation: ecological and theological criticism 301 3. Revising stewardship: kenosis as an ecological image 306 V. BIBLIOGRAPHY 310 A) Ecology and Ecological Crisis 310 B) Bible 313 C) Ecotheology 315 D) Church Documents 322 E) Philippians 324 F) Imago Dei and Kenosis 325 Acknowledgements I am very grateful to my dissertation director, John R. Sachs, SJ, for his advice, precious comments, and his encouraging, patient guidance, without which this dissertation would not have come to fruition. I am also extremely grateful to my readers, Stephen Pope and Mary Ann Hinsdale, I.H.M, for their helpful observations and constant encouragement. I would also like to thank my colleagues of the STD colloquium at the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, and especially the director of the STD program, James Bretzke, SJ. I would also like to thank many of my fellows Jesuits for their companionship, friendship, and encouragement. I am grateful to Jim Gartland, SJ, for his kind and caring presence over these years. In him I also express my gratitude and debt with all members of the Saint Peter Faber Community, Boston, especially those of Alberto Hurtado house. I also need to acknowledge my especial debt to Simon Smith, SJ, who proofread all chapters and helped me with the subtleties of English language. I am also very grateful to my Jesuits companions and friends with whom I spent these years in the doctoral program: Grégoire Catta, Bambang Irawan, Antuan Ilgit, Francis Alvarez, and Mario Inzulza. They provided me generous support and deep friendship. Finally, I would like to thank Kenneth Hughes, SJ, and Gustavo Morello, SJ, for their wisdom, guidance, and brotherly companionship over these years. My stay in Boston has been enriched by my priestly work at Saint Monica Parish, South Boston. I am very grateful to all parishioners of this lively, supportive, and welcoming community.