Sárospataki Füzetek 16. (2012)

2012 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Brinkman, Martien E.: Is There a Reciprocal Relation Between Anthropology and Christology?

Is There a Reciprocal Relation...?

pointing finally to the sacrament of penitence as the only road to self-knowledge. So, he speaks about the intervention of grace in the world.29 Coetzee applies this insight to the current political situation in South Africa as well, especially to the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. A Christological issue, in this case forgiveness, is here applied to the humanities, to the world of the social sciences and politics. It is a clear indication that Christological ideas can change existing anthropological concepts.

I am inclined to conclude that a Christological approach of anthropology more than an anthropological approach of Christology is able to account for the transformation that anthropological ideas undergo when applied Christologically. Partly it can even be said that Christology produces its own anthropological categories. It turned out that the risk of imposing existing anthropological categories upon Christology can be avoided because of the transforming power of Jesus’ life, culminating in his cross and resurrection. Of course, every Christological approach has to include existing anthropological categories. Otherwise human communication would be impossible. Salvation in Christ concerns humans (not only) and has, therefore, to be explained in a terminology that touches the central questions of human life. So, as soteriology Christology has to deal with anthropological issues.

These issues are—and that’s here the cmcial point—, however, only partly known to our mind. Their real meaning has to be revealed. It’s the merit of the above-mentioned modern philosophers like Jean-Luc Marion, Paul Ricoeur and Charles Taylor to have shown that human core experiences themselves require a clear(er) insight into the limited role of the self-constitutive character of the human T. Just anthropologically arguing, it can be showed that these issues are longing for a salvific breakthrough. Many modern films like — among many — Babette'’s Feast (1987) and As it is in Heaven (2004) are excellent indications of that desire.30

In sum, I would conclude that a Christological approach of anthropology is in the end more convincing than an anthropological approach of Christology because it leaves more space for the transformative character of God’s presence in Jesus’ life. In order to show that it really concerns relevant anthropology and not just Christology or theology, the link between Christology and anthropology needs to be explicitly object of an intense dialogue between theology and the humanities. Without that dialogue the Christological presuppositions remain just pretensions, untested assertions. I consider the example of J.M. Coetzee’s use of the Christological idea of forgiveness as a good example of such an application of Christological insights to a concrete, political situation. It shows our limited insight in the impact of our own guilt and our inability to overcome serious guilt without help from ‘elsewhere’.

29 Cf. C.M. Coetzee, ‘Confession and Double Thoughts: Tolstoy, Rousseau, Dostoevsky (1985)’ in: D. Attwell (ed.), J.M.Coet^ee — Doubling the Point: Essays and Interviews, Cambridge-London: ELarvard University Press 1992, 251-193, esp. 291. See also in this volume the text of the interview of Attwell with Coetzee about this essay, 243-250, esp. 249.

30 Babette’s Feast is a film of the Danish producer Gabriel Axel, based upon the longish tale ‘Babette’s Feast’ (1950) of the Danish female writer Karen Blixen (Isak Dinesen). Cf. W.M. Wright, ‘ Babette’s Feast A Religious Film’, Journal of Religion and Film 1 /2 (1997), 1 -28. As it is in Heaven is a Swedish film of Kay Poliak. In both films the breakthrough in decades long fixed circumstances comes from elsewhere and is focused upon the transformation of existing values.

2012/1 SÁROSPATAKI FÜZETEK 25