touch of transcendence

Theology has often sought to define who and what God is. In this ongoing process of defining and redefining we find an array of classifications and delineations based on the various fundamental approaches applied to the study. Unfortunately, too often we can find in these explanations, however distinctive they may appear, a common thread constantly embedded, both perhaps intentionally and unknowingly. It is in this observation we may conceivably and justly conclude we have not found the complete idea of God. Certainly that is an argument Rivera’s project A Touch of Transcendence seeks to explore.

Specific to Rivera’s work, this thread that has permeated common theological discourses centers on hierarchal viewpoints. While an understanding of the divine, considering the complexity of the concept of the Other, would have to entail a complex description Rivera would argue many of our ideas have been skewed by our inability to see past certain basic societal structures. We have inhibited our quest to discover the dynamic relationship we may have with God. Out of these structures we promote unrelenting oppression from many different angles. These hierarchal perceptions continually develop the need for a particular group to be at the top and others to be well below them. This difference has established its influence on our conceptions of our relationships with others and with God.

Unfolding a parallel between radical orthodoxy, liberation theology, feminism, philosophy and postcolonialism Rivera presents a remodeled vision of transcendence. It is necessary for Rivera to first begin to analyze the term transcendence. By so doing, we uncover discrepancies in our most common assumptions of what that concept is. With this new conception we follow an attempt to reconcile differences between God and His creation, and intrinsically between members of that creation. This is at the heart of what the term transcendence implies.
While the intent and aim may appear dissimilar, there are common elements in the particular discourses previously stated. However, in comparing their efforts and struggles we find there are more similarities than at first glance. All share in their work to dismantle, or at the very least confront, power structures that impede the actualization of a more common ground between certain groups. For example, the feminist viewpoint demonstrates the long suffering of women in their relationship with men. The gender difference has sustained an almost universal understanding of male dominance. Also, Latin American liberation theology expresses a desire to remove the strains of oppression induced by a dominant culture. Understanding our tendency to classify others based on some type of hierarchal structure we can identify where it would be possible to cloud our vision of who and what God is and is not.

By deconstructing the difference among us “without the difference destroying this relation and with the relation destroying this difference” (p. 125), we allow for the ever present transcendence of God to be realized in our relationships with others. That is how we can discover more truthfully the nature of the transcendent God. We find that this God is not at a distance, but rather in all things, in all peoples and, though beyond our complete understanding, within the touch of creation.

I have come to realize my interpretation of liberation theology’s focal point has been somewhat mistaken. Many of the assumptions I had regarding it stemmed from common (probably) misconceptions. These were expressed to me from various individuals in church leadership. I don’t discount their understandings, but I’m not quite sure they may have had a full understanding of the intent of the liberation discourse. For example, it had been my impression that the liberationist mindset is solely concentrated on social justice. Indeed, that is a primary objective. However, it is not merely an attempt to revolt against social ills. There is a foundation that considers the impact of the life and death of Jesus on societal constructs. I am unsure still though where the act of salvation and remission of sin from Christ stands as a base for the liberationist.

Another issue brought forward in Rivera’s work is the idea of radical orthodoxy. I would agree with her assessment that a complete return to a pre-modern philosophy of society would not abolish those oppressions spoken of earlier. In fact, while there may be some benefit to establishing new ideas centering on pre-modern thought, the influenced of the hierarchal structures we have mentioned would still be evident.

Finally, I appreciate Rivera’s concern in reminding us our lack of ability to fully understand the transcendence of God. It seems many people have the right answer concerning God. The confidence in their own assessment of the wholly Other concerns me. I find it difficult to limit who God is, our relationship with Him, and how He works in our world and the lives of others by mandating my own interpretations of the divine. While I’m not sure how much I completely understand or agree with all Rivera’s ideas, I am appreciative of her work as it has given me a new impression and outline of our ability to understand the presence of God in a more truthful way.