![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp.patheos.com\/community\/sites\/7\/2011\/08\/BetrayalofCharity_Shadow.png\")
<\/a>\n
\nEvery once in a while, I find myself saying \u201cyes\u201d to too many people<\/strong> asking me to look at their books, and I amass a rather slap-dash pile of books I feel like I will never plow through. Occasionally I miss a review \u201cdue\u201d date, and I am never happy when that happens.<\/p>\n
I am especially not happy to be late on The Betrayal of Charity; the Sins that Sabotage Divine Love<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, which the Patheos Book Club has been talking about<\/strong><\/a> and excerpting<\/strong><\/a> for over a week, and which I have almost missed, to my overbusy chagrin.<\/p>\n I confess, I got to the book late<\/strong>, and have not finished it. But the chapters I have read I have found tremendously intriguing. Matthew Levering, a rising young theologian and a Professor of Theology at the University of Dayton, is taking on several deconstructive theories offered by other young, rising theologians \u2014 for instance, on the \u201cviolence\u201d of charity propelled by a monotheistic God-model of \u201cempire-theology\u201d, and the negative limitations of Trinitarian theology, to whit:<\/p>\n According to [Laurel] Schneider, when humans attempt to turn a nominal unity into an absolute unity, we end up oppressing others by turning from the \u201ccacophony of embodied existence toward the serenity of unifying concepts in the hope of bringing closure to the world\u2019s unruly shiftiness.\u201d<\/p>\n [Regina] Schwartz favors the strands of the biblical narrative that she thinks \u201coffer glimpses of another kind of deity, a God of plenitude, of generosity, who need not protect his turf because it is infinite.\u201d This could would not be the one God of \u201cexclusive monotheism,\u201d because that one God, according to Schwartz, is construed over against others in terms of a \u201cmetaphysical scarcity\u201d. For Schwartz, the answer is to rewrite the biblical canon in a way that \u201csubverts the dominant vision of violence and scarcity with an ideal of plenitude and it\u2019s corollary ethical imperative of generosity. It would be a Bible embracing multiplicity instead of monotheism.\u201d Whereas monotheism serves jealousy and violence in a world of scarcity, multiplicity allows for \u201cGod\u2019s promiscuous pursuit of lovers \u2014 of the world itself.\u201d On this view monotheism seeks idolatrously to control and reify God, whereas multiplicity embodies a truly kenotic understanding of love.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I propose that Aquinas\u2019 valuation of loving over being loved, his recognition of God\u2019s supreme lovability, and his connection of loving God with loving one\u2019s neighbor result in the repudiation of teh self-seeing violence promoted by \u201cempire-theology.\u201d Despite their commendable goal of promoting generosity toward others, Schwartz and Schneider are mistaken about Christian theology of love It occurs to me, while reading these first three or four chapters,<\/strong> that this book is very timely<\/em>, as it really is a discussion of the meaning of our human conceits vs humility. That we humans are conceited is inarguable; our self-love and self-interest has been our downfall since Eden. I would argue, in fact, that it is less an empire-theology than our own conceit that has littered history with movements intent on controlling societies and behaviors to destructive, oppressive or even violent ends \u2014 Hitler\u2019s solution of the \u201cJewish problem,\u201d Stalin\u2019s Worker\u2019s \u201cParadise\u201d. We see the whispery hints of that same conceit in our own day \u2013from a human conceit that our lightbulbs and candles will destroy the planet leads to the suggestion that some points of view must be suppressed<\/strong><\/a>, for the good of others, so we might \u201csave\u201d what we have neither created nor set in motion. We see it in news stories illustrating that we have championed self-esteem at the expense of self-respect<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n To subject God\u2019s own self-revelation to deconstruction in order to make his infinity fit into the finite trends of our own reasonings seem to me to be the very height of human conceit.<\/p>\n I love this: <\/strong><\/p>\n Faced with evils or defects in goodness, the charitable person\u2019s response is mercy. God has mercy upon us by bountifully healing our defects through his causal love, and in light of our defects we have mercy on each other by seeking to do good to each other. As regards outward acts, this manifests itself as beneficence-the bestowal of gifts-and the works of mercy, among which Aquinas numbers \u201cto feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to harbor the harborless, to visit the sick, to ransom the captive, to bury the dead,\u201d as well as \u201cto instruct the ignorant, to counsel the doubtful, to comfort the sorrowful, to reprove the sinner, to forgive injuries, to bear with those who trouble and annoy us, and to pray for all.\u201d[iii] The works of mercy also include fraternal correction, to which Aquinas gives special place because of its difficult but necessary role in sustaining the communion of the people of God.<\/p>\n In all these ways, we say to the beloved, whether God or our neighbor: \u201cIt\u2019s good that you are; how wonderful that you exist!\u201d We say this not merely on the natural level, but in light of God\u2019s gift of a participation in his own Trinitarian life, eternal life with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. With the Father, Son, and Spirit we proclaim, \u201cIt\u2019s good that you are; how wonderful that you exist!\u201d In this proclamation is the joy and peace of charity. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n It sounds downright Ratzingerian<\/a><\/strong>, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n An excerpt from Colbert demonstrates in another way, the timeliness of the book. Check the link here<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Pick up The Betrayal of Charity<\/em><\/strong><\/a>; you\u2019ll like it!<\/p>\n Also writing:
\nLevering has a good time analyzing all of this<\/strong> and arguing his dissent \u2014 bringing the Angelic Doctor along for the ride:<\/p>\n
\n[. . .]
\nSince love of God is rooted in knowledge of God, however, can the one who loves God avoid dividing the world into people who share one\u2019s faith and people who do not? As regards loving both friends and enemies, Aquinas takes and eschatological perspective, calling to mind Paul\u2019s statement about the apostolic ministry that \u201ceach shall receive his wages according to his labors.\u201d Only God, who calls each person to an ultimate destiny of eternal communion in Trinitarian life, can give these eternal \u201cwages.\u201d Thus one cannot divide one\u2019s neighbors into sheep and goats because one cannot know how God is acting of will act in people\u2019s lives. Instead, one simply recognizes that in each person, called to eternal communion in love, is precious.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nMarcel LeJeune<\/a>
\nBrant Pitre<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n