THE LAND OF UNLIKENESS

Admirable as it may be, man’s capacity to manufacture and produce useful objects even of the highest quality, such as the machines of our modern technological civilization, is not to be directly associated with human personhood. Perhaps on this point the contrast we have been making here between man as a person, on the one hand, and man as an individual thinking or acting agent, on the other hand, becomes more evident. The ‘creation’ of a machine requires man’s individualization both in terms of his seizing, controlling and dominating reality, that is, turning beings into things, and also in terms of combination of human individuals in a collective effort, that is, of turning himself into a thing, an instrument and a means to an end. Hence, it is only natural that the more collectivistic a society, that is, the more it sacrifices personhood, the better the products it achieves. But when we say that man is capable of creating by being a person, we imply something entirely different, and that has to do with a double possibility which this kind of creation opens up. On the other hand, ‘things’ or the world around acquire a ‘presence’ as an integral and relevant part of the totality of existence, and, on the other hand, man himself becomes ‘present’ as a unique and unrepeatable hypostasis of being and not as an impersonal number in a combined structure. Un other words, in this way of understanding creating, the movement is from thinghood to personhood and not the other way round. That is, for example, what happens int he case of a work of real art as contrasted to a machine. When we look at a painting or listen to music we have in front of us ‘the beginning of a world’, a ‘presence’ in which ‘things’ and substances (cloth, oil, etc.) or qualities (shape, colour, etc.) or sounds becomes part of a personal presence. And this is entirely the achievement of personhood, a distinctly unique capacity of man, which, unlike other technological achievements, is not threatened by the emerging intelligent beings of computer science. The term ‘creativity’ is significantly applied to art par excellence, though we seldom appreciate the real implications of this for theology and anthropology.

John D. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 216

4 people like this post.

Unlike

A friend here in DC directed my attention to this list (of propositions, basically) that the author deems essential for an Anglican dialogue with Rome. Click the link to see the list. Anyway, this list got emailed around and struck a kind of debate not so much about ecumenical dialogue with Rome, but rather a kind of “what do you need to hold to be Anglo-catholic”… that sort of thing.

Aside from my contempt for these kinds of lists – I don’t think any list of propositions can get at the essence of something like Anglicanism… unless you’re talking about the creeds, and they’re not lists! – it got me thinking about what Anglicanism essentially is. Back when Orombi wrote his like op. piece for First Things (which they’ve still not provided a counter piece to, thank you very much!), I wrote about it here, alluded to it here, and argued about it at Per Caritatem. Orombi lodges the essence of Anglicanism in the Scriptures and the Martyrs. I pointed out then that it’s unusual, I think, for him, an Anglican Archbishop, to provide a definition of Anglicanism which omits any reference to common prayer. Moreover, as one Anglican theologian today will say, if you want to know Anglican theology, read Anglican poets. It’s a messy state of affairs, but it’s Anglicanism. Not having a CDF or a Curia is not a dispensable part of who we are. The prayerbook, however, is indispensable.

JADR in a recent manifesto wrote here:

Catholic Anglicanism is the Christendom of the imagination. It’s a utopian project. It’s a church that never was and never really has been. You can’t find it in the phone book or even on the web. And you definitely can’t find it in the newspapers. I read in the UK´s Guardian the other day about the alternative conservatives: GAFCON. It´s a conservative gaffe, all right. Read the signs. It’s time for Anglicans to come clean. We’re the church of the drunks, the homos, the dandys, the dreamers. We pray like Warhol made paintings. Because we like images.

Here at TLOU, it seems it’s becoming our claim that there’s something important about images, art, and prayer that must be reckoned with before you throw up a smoke screen of propositions. So, that said, I think it’s as good a time as any to pick up the question that Cynthia began last year. But I don’t want to ask just what is Anglicanism, but rather what is at the core of Anglicanism? Jump in…

Like

Unlike