You know I like an author when I make my own category for him..
Anyways I was reading part of his book "Ontology and Pardon" when I came upon this quotation: "In this way a single suffering became also a sovereign suffering, capable of representing all suffering and of forgiving on behalf of all victims."
This is something rather new to me, or at least he presents it in a way that is rather new, for I never considered that the forgiveness that comes from the cross might relate to Christ being a victim of the world. It is weird to talk about Christ this way - our normal language talks about him offering himself which seems very different from being a victim. But perhaps looking at Christ as being a victim - of the cruelty and apathy of the Roman regime, of the second-temple religious establishment, of the violent nationalism of his people and of the cowardice and abandonment of his disciples - can give us a whole new understanding, a whole new way of looking at Sin and Forgiveness.
This new, or at least different, way about looking at Sin is that it a thing, a force, that victimizes. Forgiveness, the alleviation of the guilt and responsibility, can only be offered by a victim. God being supreme could then only offer forgiveness on behalf of the victims if he himself became one. And he did so in the person of Christ on the cross.
I have to say this idea is absolutely stunning. It threw me off. I think the other way of thinking about the Cross, as Christ offering a sacrifice, is still valid. Now though a whole other dimension is added. It really effects our theologies, ways of talking about Christ and the way we do ethics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isaiah,
ReplyDeleteWe would need to talk about this later and at greater length, but this is one of the places where Milbank concerns me: not that Christ's suffering is capable of representing all suffering, and not that this makes Christ capable of forgiving the offence that every sin is to God, but that this makes Christ capable of forgiving on behalf of all victims. I would say that the forgiveness of Christ is certainly a forgiveness of our offence to God but that it is never a forgiveness of our offence to others offered on behalf of these others. Christs' forgiveness of us does not require us to be forgiven by others, even by Christ on their behalf. It only requires that we forgive others outrselves.
Perhaps he is saying that directly but I'm not sure.
ReplyDeleteWhat interests me is that he is saying the only ones who can forgive are victims. Which means that God being God, transcendent or in Milbank's words "sovereign", he is not a victim and does not need to forgivenor can he. Only becoming a victim does he have the right to forgive.
Also he suggests that the Christ, being the "sovereign victim", opens us up to forgive eachother.
I think what interested me was that Milbank seems to suggest "the offence that every sin is to God" as you say is not forgivable because God is not a victim of it.
The idea needs to be fleshed out more, but it is something work looking into.