-
1--Is Charity Violent?
- Baylor University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
15 CHAPTER 1 Is Charity Violent? For a growing number of contemporary scholars, charity itself—at least as it has been understood by most Christians over the centuries —is a sin against love. This chapter sets forth these concerns as found in the works of Regina Schwartz and Laurel Schneider, who argue that Trinitarian monotheism imbeds a violent principle of exclusion within human communities. Schwartz and Schneider seek to develop an alternative understanding of charity based on conceptualizing “God” in terms of nonexclusive multiplicity.1 In light of these concerns, I examine Thomas Aquinas’ theology of the act of charity. Does Aquinas’ portrait of charity as unitive require the exclusion of those who do not possess charity? Or does charity enable us to love persons who would otherwise be excluded? I conclude by reflecting briefly on the church as the communion of charity. Trinitarian Monotheism and Empire: Contrasting Views According to Rémi Brague, it was significant that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by the leading disciple of Arius, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Brague argues that Arius’ “nontrinitarian monotheism was well suited to the empire.”2 Yet Bishop Eusebius 16 — The Betrayal of Charity of Nicomedia and his followers failed in their effort to adopt a theology that would have been especially conducive to empire. Agreeing with Brague about the church in the fourth century,3 Robert Louis Wilken sketches the implications of Trinitarian monotheism for the theology of divine and human love. Wilken points out that both Augustine and Basil the Great emphasize that the Holy Spirit is “love” in the Trinity. He cites especially Basil’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 2:10:“But the greatest proof that the Spirit is one with the Father and the Son is that He is said to have the same relationship to God as the spirit within us has to us.”4 The key for Wilken is that despite the efforts of some, “after the coming of Christ it was not possible to think of God as a solitary monad.”5 God is Trinitarian love who creates and redeems us out of love. As Wilken concludes, “If God is not solitary and exists always in relation, there can be no talk of God that does not involve love. Love unites Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, love brings God into relation with the world, and by love human beings cleave to God.”6 From the perspective of comparative religion, Guy Stroumsa notes that early Christians denied that the person is “an independent monad, alone responsible—and responsible only—for care of itself.”7 But early Christians enlarged rather than limited the status of the individual self, because the imitation of Christ calls for a renewal that “is no longer reserved for intellectual elites, but is open to every man and every woman, and open to love of the other, by which the love of God now passes.”8 Stroumsa observes that even after Constantine, Christians retained a “deep ambivalence vis-à-vis the political sphere,” and he adds that “the opposition between a tolerant paganism and an intolerant Christianity is now recognized for what it is: an idealized and stereotyped image.”9 By contrast, Regina Schwartz influentially identifies monotheism as a primary cause of violence.10 Schwartz argues that God’s election of one person or one people over others makes the Bible, and cultures influenced by the Bible, deeply violent. She remarks that “over and over the Bible tells the story of a people who inherit at someone else’s expense.”11 She begins with the story of Cain and Abel, who compete not for the love of their parents,Adam and Eve, but for God’s love. The pattern repeats itself in Jacob and Esau, [3.147.27.172] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 22:53 GMT) Is Charity Violent? — 17 who are “the eponymous ancestors of peoples” that compete for scarce blessings.12 The identity of these peoples is formed in violent opposition to the “Other.” Schwartz finds that throughout the biblical narrative, cultural identity is formed in this way, thus making the Bible a conduit of personal and communal violence.13 While she grants that the Bible construes cultural identity in more positive ways as well—and indeed she ultimately blames not the Bible itself but later interpreters who “violated the editors’ preference for multiplicity ”14 —she nonetheless decries the “myth of monotheism” for fueling intolerance toward those outside the circle of “the Truth.”15 Echoing this viewpoint, Laurel...