'Jesus' goes at the top of the cone, the place of highest certainty, and then we work our way down and out into theological and doctrinal issues increasingly less certain. I get it; is useful.
However, let's not forget that the Christian 'Jesus' is more conclusion than premise. It is increasingly difficult even for a Christian to put Jesus atop a cone of certainty and to be sure that everyone within his circle of friends naturally agrees with him about who and what this name 'Jesus' precisely means. As long as we remain artfully vague—using phrases like keep Jesus at the center of your life—then it's easy to imagine that everyone knows what we mean when we place 'Jesus' atop a cone of certainty.
I'm saying the collocation of letters 'Jesus' doesn't automatically signify an absolute meaning. Theological discourse (or theological conversation) is precisely the thing that helps us determine what we mean by 'Jesus'. But in that case, 'Jesus' would be at the bottom of a cone of theological discourse, not the top.
In that case, we'd begin with the most general statements, like, for example, we human beings are not imaginative projections but real creatures, eventually working our way down to more precise statements like Jesus is 'homoousios' with the Father.
Also, it's worth noting what the (Protestant) 'cone of certainty' (as it was described to me) leaves out.
I don't want to misstate the case or put a finger in anyone's eye, so please do assume my errors are innocent, then correct them if and when you see any. I should say too, in fairness, that the 'cone of certainty' wasn't designed to address Catholic concerns, which is perfectly reasonable. I'm not trying to say the cone is worthless or false; I'm just trying to understand it and then respond to it from a Catholic perspective.
As I said, the 'original' cone is useful; I just think it's worth saying (again and again) that presenting 'Jesus' as the certain truth presiding over an increasingly less certain 'understanding' or 'description' of him seems like a kind of fideism to me. It seems like a reverse certainty. It just doesn't make much sense.
Help me understand?
0 comments:
Post a Comment