Objective and Ecstatic

This essay introduces a fundamental concept which illumines what I consider a major fault line in contemporary theology and Christian practice. That concept is the difference between the "ecstatic" and "objective" ways of understanding God. This essay will describe and contrast these two approaches to God. I consider the objective understanding of God to be orthodox, the ecstatic view, heresy.

The objective and ecstatic understandings of God lead to two very different ways of living the Christian life. In my view, one of these ways, the ecstatic one, will destroy the church. The other, the objective way, will lead to the renewal of the church. As it comes to flower, the church will be reformed. It will become a vibrant community, revealing the love and power of the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

The father of the ecstatic perspective is Friedreich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). He has profoundly influenced a number of contemporary theologians such as Macquarrie, Tillich, McFague, Elizabeth Johnson, and many more. The tern "ecstatic" is taken from the theology of Paul Tillich. For Tillich, God is not known objectively, but ecstatically. The ecstatic perspective is widely taught in universities, theological training schools, and seminaries. It is powerfully represented in the life of the Church.

The alternate view, the "objective" perspective, is not as prevalent in the contemporary church. I am convinced it is the orthodox view, recognized by the great theologians of the church. I have yet to study them all, but from all that I have read, the perspective introduced by Schleiermacher was an innovation without precedent. Athanasius and Richard Hooker, for example, held the objective view, and in modern times, Karl Barth and Robert Jenson. The objective perspective is not as easily understood as the ecstatic, nor does it comport well with the spirit of our age. But before going any further, let me provide some background for these two perspectives.

The Objective View of God

According to the objective view, God is objective in revelation. In the ecstatic, he is never objective in revelation. We need to understand what is meant by the phrase "objective in revelation." To do so, let us first look at John's gospel, beginning with the first verse.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word "with" implies that there is some form of togetherness in God. There can only be togetherness if there is a plurality in God, or, to put it another way, if there are distinctions in God. Classically, the three persons of the Trinity were termed "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," and they were distinguished by their unequal relations while sharing a single divine essence. These distinctions do not mean, however, that God is three Gods. God is one, yet only one as differentiated into three Persons related by two issues. The two issues are that the Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed makes these fundamental affirmations.

John 1:14 also says that God the Word became flesh. The term "flesh" emphasizes the bodily aspect of the person Jesus Christ. Flesh is objective. Flesh and be seen and heard. The flesh of Jesus was in one place and not another, at one particular time and not all times. By means of the flesh, Jesus spoke and acted. His words had effects on those who heard him. His actions affected them as well. The Word becoming flesh means that the words and deeds of Jesus were the Word of God. By sight and hearing, one could know the incarnate Word of God who is with God and is God.

Further, theology has never affirmed that "the Word became flesh" meant that God the Word was converted into human flesh. The Council of Chalcedon states that the Word, the divine nature of Jesus Christ, is not the human nature of the man Jesus. God and flesh are two very different things. The divinity of Christ did not covert to humanity like H2O in the form of ice converting into H2O in the form of water. The Word remained God, with all the power and authority of God, even as the Word became flesh.

Nevertheless, Chalcedon affirmed that the divine and human natures were perfectly joined as to become the one person Jesus Christ. The divine nature could only exist in union with the human nature if the divine nature itself was objective. The divine nature had to be in one specific place and time, that is, as the person of Jesus Christ in his place and time. The divine nature spoke and acted as the man Jesus spoke and acted. It is a characteristic of objects that they are located in space and time, and further, they can be observed and understood. Therefore, the divine nature was objectively present as the person of Jesus Christ.

The term communicatio idiomatum is relevant here. This phrase was adopted by the church as an orthodox way of understanding the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ. It means that descriptions applied to either one of Jesus Christ's two natures, whether human or divine, could be applied to the other nature. For example, the man Jesus was born of Mary, therefore God the Word was born of Mary. Like an object, the divine Word was localized at a specific place and time when Jesus was born. As a result, Mary became theotokos, the bearer of God since the Word born of her was God. Or, Jesus spoke specific words, and this implies that God the Word spoke just those words and no other words. Or, Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, and therefore, God bore the suffering of the cross. In each of these examples, God the Son or Word has the properties of objects, here as Jesus but not similarly incarnate in other persons, speaking this specific gospel and not any other message, present in Jesus' suffering in a unique and unrepeatable fashion. Objects are like that, they are here not there, now not then, with certain specific properties which distinguish them from all other objects.

This understanding of God the Word becoming objective is consistent with the entire biblical witness. One can recall, for example, the angel in the burning bush, the Word of the Lord that came to the prophets, the "right hand of the Lord" that delivered the people of Israel from Egypt. In each case, God was understood as being objectively present at some place and time, as an angel in a bush, as a definite Word to the prophets, as acting to deliver in a specific time and place.

When it is said that God the Word became "objective," this does not say that God the Father became flesh. The church has never affirmed such an idea. Rather, it affirms that God the Word, the Son, the second person of the Trinity, became objective, that is, flesh while still remaining God. That is why there is a togetherness in God, a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son is the person of God that becomes objective in contrast to God the Father who remains transcendent. Or, to rephrase the matter, the Father sends while the Son is sent so that Father and Son are distinguished by their relation one to the other. Similar ideas hold for the Spirit in relation to Father and Son.

Furthermore, becoming objective does not mean that the Word ceased being God. God the Word was and is God, doing things that only God can do. God the Word did miracles, above all, God the Word reconciled humanity to God the Father and raised Jesus from the dead, enabling him to live eternally in an incorruptible state. Ordinary objects do not do this, but unless God the Son became objective, that is, having effects as do other objects, he could not transform the person of the man Jesus, body and soul, into an incorruptible state.

The Ecstatic View of God

The fundamental characteristic of the ecstatic view, the way in which it differs from the objective view, is that it affirms that God never becomes objective, not even as Word. In this view, each person of the Trinity is always transcendent. This means that God is utterly different from any created reality and therefore beyond comprehension. For example, Schleiermacher will claim that God is known in feeling, the "feeling of absolute dependence." The "thing" felt, however, is never an object. It is termed "God," but it isn't God objectively present to feeling. Or Tillich will say that God is known in ecstasy, beyond the distinction of subject over against an object. God has to be known beyond the subject/object distinction since God is never objective. Or Macquarrie will describe the encounter with God as an encounter with the holy, a reality that is never objective since God is not a particular objective being, but being itself. Or McFague will say that God can only be understood metaphorically since God never takes an objective form that can be grasped by the mind.

When these theologians consider Jesus Christ, they, like orthodox theologians, receive a word of revelation. But there is a crucial difference. In the ecstatic perspective, the divine nature of Christ is a non-objective "reality" which is mystically felt, and this feeling is then expressed by objective words or acts by those who have the mystical encounter. The objective words or acts only exist on the human or created side of the divine/human divide. There is no objective divine Word in union with the human words. Or, to rephrase the matter, the relevance of the communicatio idiomatum is not recognized. Rather, the person having a mystical non-objective sense of God expresses this feeling in words. The words, however, are not the Word of God, rather, they are the form the mystical feeling takes in a particular human consciousness. In the objective view, the encounter with God the Word takes human form, but that form is in union with the objective Word of God.

Let me rephrase this. When Schleiermacher considers the Chalcedon definition of the two natures of Jesus Christ, there are indeed two realities, the human and the divine, but only one of them is objective. The divine reality is the non-objective, incomprehensible reality of God. When this mystically felt reality is experienced, it is then expressed in human words, and these human words are the only objective part of revelation. There is not, however, a divine objective Word in union with objective human words. By contrast, Barth will claim two objectivities -- God the Word and the human words and deeds of Jesus in union with the God the Word. For the ecstatic, there is only one objectivity, the mystical non-objective sense "reflected" in objective human words and deeds.

Some Fundamental Differences

My next step is to set forth the profound differences that flow from these two perspectives. I will do this in a series of contrasting statements. I cannot emphasize enough the magnitude of these differences. They are worlds apart, utterly at variance with one another. They cannot be harmonized. As I summarize these differences, I shall not adhere slavishly to any one theologian, but rather, spell out the differences as they commonly appear in the theological life of the church. Not every theologian or person in the church takes the same approach, there are varieties within these two families of contrasting theological perspectives. Nevertheless, within broad outlines, there is a liberal perspective and an orthodox one.

E1. In the ecstatic view, God in himself or in revelation as Word is never objective. He is always transcendent.

O1. In the objective view, God is transcendent as Father but God the Word becomes objectively present as the words and deeds of Jesus Christ.

E2. Theological statements use language and literal language refers only to objective realities. Therefore, in the ecstatic view, language applied to God is always symbolic.

O2. In the objective view, theological statements can literally refer to God the Word who became objective. Theological language can also contain symbolic aspects since the Word reveals God the Father who is holy and transcendent.

E3. In the ecstatic view, God is never objective. As a result, Scripture is a history of religious experience given objective content according to the social and historical forms of ancient Israel and the primitive church. Since the Word is never objective, the truth of the Word lies beyond the original historical context. Even so, one must first hear that Word in its original context in order to hear the Word that transcends all historical contexts. Then, once glimpsed, Word within the biblical words is expressed in contemporary categories. The concept of "contemporary categories" allows experience to become a norm alongside Scripture.

O3. In the objective view, the biblical Word has objective content in union with the specific cultural context in which the Word is spoken. Therefore, there is no "Word within the biblical words," but the biblical words including their cultural forms are the Word written. The Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of this original objective Word in other cultural contexts, but never by detaching it from its original cultural context. Experience is not a norm alongside Scripture.

E4. In the ecstatic view, the task of theology is to reinterpret the faith as relevant to new cultural contexts. Faith is evolving since culture evolves.

O4. In the objective view, the task of theology is first and foremost to clarify and preserve the faith once delivered to the saints and to transfer it intact to each succeeding generation. Certain aspects of revelation never evolve.

E5. In the ecstatic view, God is not personal since personhood requires objectivity, a person over against us that we can see, hear, understand, and affect. Since God is never objective, God is never personal.

O5. In the objective view, God is personal, revealing his objective self in the Word, the Son who became incarnate in the man Jesus.

E6. In the ecstatic view, God does no miracles since God cannot objectively affect the world at particular points. Miracle working would make God an object and, as Tillich would claim, this is blasphemy.

O6. In the objective view, God does miracles when God becomes objective in the world of time and space. Every act of God is miraculous, including revelation in which God objectively affects the mind and will.

E7. In the ecstatic view, God never speaks a "Thou Shalt" or "Thou shalt not" since this implies objectivity in God's Word. Therefore, ethics usually concerns a principle, love for example, which receives its concrete realization according to the forms of a given culture. Since cultures evolve, so do ethics.

O7. In the objective view, God speaks and his Word is the ethical command. Certain biblical commands are valid for all time.

E8. In the ecstatic view, doctrines are secondary. Doctrines do not refer to God but to feeling, the depth of reality, the horizon of being. Therefore doctrines can be radically reinterpreted in terms of ecstatic categories.

O8. In the objective view, doctrines reveal God. They can be variously understood, they reveal mysteries, but they cannot be reinterpreted in terms of categories that have no objective reference to God.

E9. In the ecstatic view, the doctrine of the atonement loses its objective meaning since Jesus act on the cross did not objectively changed our relationship to God. Rather than altering our relation to God, Jesus is one who inspires us to encounter the "justifying holy" in our own experience and act accordingly.

O9. In the objective view, Jesus' atonement altered the world's objective relationship to God.

E10. In the ecstatic view, all religions are ultimately one since the faith of each is an expression of the holy or ineffable in the concrete forms of a particular culture.

O10. In the objective view, the particulars of a religion matter, and therefore, the religions are divided by their objective content.

E11. In the ecstatic view, the ascent to God is an ecstatic union beyond the objective boundary of self and God. At this highest level, dialogue, give and take with God, disappears. All is bliss.

O11. In the objective view, spirituality is an encounter with God, mediated by Word and Sacrament, in which God and the person know each other as distinct selves who speak to and affect each other.

E12. In the ecstatic view, the church is constituted by those who affirm a particular piety or religious preference. The ultimate sin is schism, to claim ultimacy for one's own objective beliefs while denying that the beliefs of others are equally expressive of the ineffable.

O12. In the objective view, the church is constituted by those who have been called by an objective Word and conformed to that Word by the Spirit. The ultimate sin is not schism, but heresy, deviation from an objectively revealed tradition.

E13. In the ecstatic view, science and faith can never be in conflict since each belongs to a distinct realm. Science deals with objects that can be observed and analyzed. Faith deals with a reality that isn't an object, something mystically perceived. Since God has no effect on objects, science can and does tell us whether such things as the empty tomb, bodily resurrection, and virgin birth really happened. Furthermore, if science tells us that certain human behaviors are determined by prior causes, then a person is determined to act according to those causes. Or, to put it another way, scientific inquiry is relevant for ethics.

O13. In the objective view, science cannot determine the content of faith, even in objective matters such as the empty tomb or the Virgin Birth. Nor can science specify behavior if it conflicts with revelation.

E14. In the ecstatic view, the mystical sense of God is given objective form by consciousness which in turn is shaped by political, social, and economic factors. Therefore, the Infinite is expressed in various political and social movements of the day. Some of these movements are to be championed as contemporary forms of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus.

O14. In the objective view, the Kingdom of God has objective enduring significance which stands over against all contemporary social and political programs. Frequently, however, so called traditionalists do identify religion with political movements.

The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
January, 2002