Dear Theophilus, 

I would like to continue some of the points that were raised in the last letter. There we have been developing the idea of person and the concept of different types of lives that are accessible to humans.

We seem to exist in a paradox. It is fine to state that we have the option to live biologically or to live communally in the Church. But the ugly reality of death and pain is still there and it is hard not to think about all this talk of eternal life and resurrection as ideas developed to lessen the pain of loss and death.

This is where one of the strengths of the Christian faith arises. What was a myth, what was once a hope came to be and took place in history. A man, condemned to die came to be resurrected and it was the conviction of this historical act that brought certainty and hope and joy.

There is no denying that there is a tension between the two different modes of life open to us and we must somehow link them up. The temptation is there to say that the biological life is unimportant and to retreat into some spiritual realm where we cannot be touched by the pains of this life. No, this will not do, but how do we reconcile the life of biology with the life of true personhood?

Fundamentally, what the life in the Church opens to man is not what he is but what he is to be. There is an important element of the future in this and this all falls under the consideration of eschatology which is the study of the last things. This is one of the surprising things about the Resurrection of Christ. What surprised the disciples was not so much that it happened, because, after all, the resurrection was expected in Jewish circles, but that it happened when it did. The resurrection was expected at the end of time and here it comes in their historic time. It is this mix of already and yet to be that makes it necessary to have faith. We do not accept on sheer knowledge; trust is required of us and anytime trust is involved, there is an element of risk of failure. I remind you of Christ hanging on the cross with the wags shaking their heads and muttering - he saved others, but could not save himself. Or, the cry of Christ from the cross about being abandoned. Faith is costly, but we cannot avoid that cost. It is easy to be considered a fool.

What faith implies, though, is the relationship of trust between two persons. Faith is possible only for persons. There is a lot of misunderstanding that revolves around the term, person . We tend to confuse person with the term individual because for us, these terms have become synonymous.

For Christianity, there is a world of difference between the meaning of the term individual and the term person. A person is something a lot more complex than an individual. A person images the whole of humanity. All the characteristics of what it means to be human must be in you or you would not be human. You could argue this point and say that there are people who are not complete persons - they have something lacking. They may be mentally impaired, or they may be severely physically handicapped or they may have other incapacities. How can one say that they represent human nature? But this is exactly the point that I am trying to make. None of us is a true person, because of the fall. We all fail to measure up to the standard and it is through Christ and through our membership in the Church that we become true persons, with time, not instantaneously.

One of the important aspects of the Church is that she enables a person to acquire a hypostasis, a unique character, without the intrusion of individualism. There is a seemingly harsh statement made: there is no salvation outside the Church. This seems to imply a position of exclusivity and superiority but, that is not the case. What the statement means is that there is no such thing as an individual salvation; we are saved in community and anyone who separates himself from community, that is, the Church, is not saved. This by no means suggests that we know who is damned or who is not. It does not mean that people of other faiths are consigned to hell. What it does is underline the importance of our becoming persons and this can only be done in community, but not in just any community. We must be in communion with our fellow sojourners in this world but, what is more importantly, we must be in communion with Christ or our nature does not get transformed and if our nature does not change, we are not saved.

Our discussion shows the importance of having words with clear meanings and we sometimes fall into error through misuse of language. A couple of illustrations will show what I mean. An atheist claims that God does not exist, and it may come as a surprise, but this is not too far from the position of theists, as well. There have been famous theologians who have made the statement that God does not exist. What we must do is understand the meaning and thought that underlies this statement. To exist, means that you are created and if God is created, then who made Him? You see the absurd situation that we are forced into? A more correct use of language would say that God subsists. By this what we mean is that He is the basis of all that exists, He is, in a manner of speaking, the foundation on which creation rests. So you see, instead of castigating atheists, we can permit them to remind us of something important about God. In the Old Testament, Moses asks God what His name is. And God replies, according to the most common translation: I AM WHO I AM. This is somewhat of a mistranslation because the statement really says nothing. Everything is what it is. If we look at the Hebrew, we see that the more correct translation is I AM WHO AM. This is a clear pronouncement that God is sheer being and not some created entity.

Another point of contention in discussions is the divinity of Christ. Put very bluntly, the question would go along the following lines: how can someone who lived and died 2000 years ago, directly affect my life? He may be a wonderful person, he may give me a meaningful example on how to live, but that is it. It doesn't go any further. And again, it may be surprising to hear agreement here between the Christian and the given person. As long as Christ is seen as an individual, which is the common way of seeing him by those who are non-Christian, it is difficult to grasp how his activity could have an impact on all of humanity that has existed or will exist. Soteriology is the branch of study that deals with salvation and it is Christ's person and not so much his activity, that is crucial to soteriology. It is who Christ is that is of fundamental importance. And the Christian answer is that Christ is the image of what we are to be - the perfect person. But to become a person, in the fullest meaning of the word, is impossible for us. Our nature has to be entered by someone outside us and this means that Christ has to be divine. No Christians in the early Church claimed Godhood for Jesus as an isolated individual - he is divine in the company of the Trinity. Divinity was conferred on him as it became clear that it was through who he is that we are saved and transformed into what we were intended to be.

Through Christ, the unity of humanity becomes clearer to us and once we see this, the question as to how he can act on all of humanity becomes a little focused for us. Each person has the potential to contain within himself all of the characteristics which define what it means to be human. Therefore, each person encapsulates or represents human nature. But, you could say that there are humans who are deficient in some of the characteristics which define humanity. This is true and something important to realize - we are not yet true human persons, we are lacking in some aspect of personhood and therefore, we lack this representative quality of human nature. We need someone who is so human, so personal, that he contains human nature completely. With unfallen humanity, when you destroy one person this is tantamount to committing a crime against all of humanity. This also means that there is a possibility for such a unity in humanity that it is possible to have one person die as a sacrifice for all of humanity. And the Church proclaims loudly and clearly that this person is Christ. Furthermore, a person is never divisible and cannot be reduced or split up. A person is resistant to the application of mere arithmetic and we cannot say one person is worth more than, say a hundred persons. The quantitative logic of arithmetic does not apply to persons and this is hard for us to fathom because we live in a highly individualized existence resulting from the fall.

With this, Theophilus, I bid you adieu.

Yours,

Bar-Abbas

Return to Index