The Symbolic Theology of Roger Haight

The Thomist 65 (2001): 121-36 THE SYMBOLIC THEOLOGY OF ROGER HAIGHT THOMAS WEINANDY, 0.F.M.CAP. Greyfriars Oxford, England Roger Haight, S.J., of the Weston Jesuit School ofTheology, in his approximately 500-page book,Jesus Symbol ofGod, 1 follows closely the conclusions first offered in his article "The Case for Spirit Christology."2 He has not substantially advanced his arguments, but he has expanded them and so has attempted to substantiate further his theological and Christological position. For this reason his book deserves a careful reading and a judicious assessment.3 I. IN SEARCH OF AHERMENEUTIC Within each successive chapter of his book Haight cyclically advances a herrneneutical principle located in his understanding ofthe symbolic nature of religious knowledge and language. This, he argues, is not only in accord with postmodernity with its 1 New York: Orbis Books, 1999. 2 Theological Studies 53 (1992): 257-87. 3 I responded to Haight's article in "The Case for Spirit Christology: Some Reflections," The Thomist 59 (1995): 173-88. There I critically addressed his historical and systematic arguments and doctrinal conclusions. Because Haight has not substantially changed his thinking (nor taken account of my criticism), I will, for the most part, not address these same issues here. Thus, this present review article should be read in conjunction with my previous article. Here I will focus my analysis on Haight's understanding of symbolic religious knowledge and language and its ramifications, since these form the basis ofhis theological and Christological stance. It should also be noted that Haight has not addressed or even noted in his book J. Wright's critical but insightful article, "Roger Haight's Spirit Christology," Theological Studies 53 (1992): 729-35. 121 122 THOMAS WEINANDY, O.F.M.CAP. rightful emphasis on historical consciousness, but also the only means for making Christianity credible today.4 God's transcendence necessitates, for Haight, that theological language besymbolic. Astranscendent God is beyond the confines of this world and its history, and therefore he cannot be an object that is directly experienced and known. Human beings can only directly experience, know, and express as objectively factual that which exists within the this-worldly historical order. However, symbols and symbolic language provide an opening, Haight maintains, to the transcendent God, for "a symbol mediates awareness of something else" (8). More specifically "religious symbols . . . point to and mediate transcendent realities in response to religious questioning." ForHaightthe knowledge that is obtained through religious symbols "is not an attenuated form of cognition, but an extension ofthe range of human awareness," that is, it is not a different way of knowing from that of normal human knowing, but rather "symbols may be called engaged participatory knowledge. This means that it is the product of becoming conscious existentially and experientially of that which is mediated by the symbol." Haight draws two very critical "axioms" from this understanding of religious symbols, "which interact dialectically." The first is negative: "because theology is symbolic, its assertions are not direct statements of information about God. Information here connotes a kind of objectified datum that is asserted about God the way information about other things of this world are known." This is in accordance with 4 For Haight's understanding of postrnodernity see pp. 24-26 and 330-34. Historical consciousness, for Haight, is that contemporary intellectual mindset that founds scholarly assessment solely upon historical and factual data; thus he places all Christology under the normative eye and the final arbitration of contemporary "Jesus research" (see pp. 30-40). It also represents the intellectual posture that all scholarly analysis of past beliefs must be measured from within their relative historical and cultural settings and judged in the light of their current existingintellectual, educated, historical, and cultural surroundings. Moreover, all new theological proposals must harmonize with these same criteria. This accounts for Haight's uncritical partiality to what postmodernity, with its historical consciousness, will or will not tolerate and permit concerning Christian doctrine and religious belief. See pp. 21, 26, 39, 48-51, 120, 126, 217, 221-22, 237, 242, 249, 273-74, 278, 280-81, 290-97, 319, 331-35, 339, 342-45, 348-52, 364, 369, 384, 396, 404-5...