Agapae between “discourse of the maximum” and “discourse of the minimum” in Theology

Abstract

The following reflections are within the disciplinary boundaries of religious philosophy. Their goal is to reveal those latent discursive possibilities of Christian philosophy that are outside the theological mainstream. These discursive possibilities are directly related to the theme of the conference – agape. The theological mainstream in question can be tentatively referred to as “theology of maximum” or “theology of power”. The discourse of the theology of the maximum has as its starting point omnipotence as one of the main attributes of God. This attribute is speculatively derived from the concept of perfection and is consistent with the (more complex and contradictory) understanding of God given in Revelation. This attribute gives rise to difficult theological problems, both ethical and logical. Besides, omnipotence (of whatever) is not given to us in our experience. That is, we cannot attribute the property of omnipotence to anything in the empirically accessible world. Then the question arises as to the advisability of introducing this attribute. The most likely and developed answer lies in the realm of political philosophy and political history. It is easy to show that such a “theology of power” is weakly consistent (if not completely contradictory) with the content of the gospel texts. However, it was adopted by Christian theology. At the same time, it should be recognized that the “theology of power” in itself in the Christian context cannot be recognized as self-sufficient. From an apophatic position, it is correct to assert that God is not only “powerful”, but also “not-powerful”. This means that the discourse of divine power is in no way preferable to the discourse of divine weakness (allusions to which are not difficult to find in the gospel literature). Philosophically, this equivalence can be represented using the concept of coincidentia oppositorum. The discourse of power as the discourse of the maximum, being expanded to its limit, leads to the coincidence of the maximum and the minimum. This means that God is as powerful as he is weak. If there is no mistake in equating the “theology of maximum” with the “theology of minimum”, then Christology also needs to be replenished. The concept of kenosis can be completed by the concept of plerosis; that is, we can think of the incarnation of God not only as self-emptying, self-belittling of God, but also as His filling with the properties of human nature, as His strengthening to the level of human dimension. However, with regard to the “theology of minimum” one can ask the same question as in relation to the “theology of maximum”: what is the expediency of the discourse of divine infirmity, what does this discourse have to do with human experience? It seems that the experience adequate to the “theology of minimum” is the experience of love (while the experience adequate to the “theology of maximum” is the experience of power). The condition of love is not brutality, but delicacy. The love of God does not compel, but liberates. God delicately freezes before the categorical “no” of a person in response to a declaration of love and the expectation of reciprocity – God shows his weakness.