No abstract

[While respecting the freedom of expression inherent in Sally McFague's notion of “metaphorical theology,” the author argues that the choice of a single governing image or set of interrelated images (e.g., the notion of God as a community of divine persons) is much more suitable for expansion into a systematic theology adequately representing the God-world relationship. At the same time, he recognizes that systematic theologies are only models or symbolic representations of a reality that is in itself humanly incomprehensible.]

Genuine objectivity, says Bernard Lonergan, is the fruit of authentic subjectivity. Certainly, the two are closely linked. In this essay, I propose that authentic subjectivity consists, not in overcoming the particularities of one's subjective standpoint in order to embrace a hypothetical universal viewpoint shared in common with other individuals, but in getting more deeply in touch with the unique particularity of one's own perspective in order better to appreciate both the similarities with and the differences from the standpoints of other individuals. Genuine objectivity, then, consists in recognizing that there neither is nor ever will be a universal standpoint. All standpoints by definition are particular. This is not to deny, of course, that at any given moment there is an objective state of affairs, quite apart from any one's subjective perception of it, but only to affirm that no one (not even God) has a totally objective grasp of that same state of affairs.

BOOK REVIEWS 175 but also as a fresh way of doing Christian theology. His approach is biblical in its insistence on the covenant and appeal to biblical evidence, historical in that it acknowledges the sad legacy of the Church over against Israel that issued in the Holocaust, and practical in that it calls for a new relationship between Christians and Jews today.Perhaps the most controversial theological aspect of the book is its dialogue with the early conciliar creeds about Christ. Although some will accuse V. of subordinationism and being "soft" on Christ's divinity, he is correct in stressing that the conciliar statements took creation as their context rather than the covenant and focused on Jesus' humanity (and divinity) rather than his Jewishness. These choices had and still have consequences. Others will ask how he defines "Israel" and which Jews belong to it. Still others may object to the almost "messianic" significance that he attributes to the State of Israel (though this is qualified somewhat [126]). On the whole, however, V.'s Christology is a remarkably creative recovery of the biblical tradition and a timely challenge to the theological community today. It deserves careful study and serious discussion.

Traditional Christian belief in the existence of human life after death within a transformed material universe should be capable of rational justification if one chooses carefully the philosophical scheme underlying those claims. One should not have to appeal simply to the power of a loving God to justify one's beliefs. A revision of Whitehead's metaphysical scheme is proposed that allows one to render these classical Christian beliefs at least plausible to a broad range of contemporary thinkers as a consequence of a cosmology based on the principle of universal intersubjectivity and the need for a common ground between opposing subjectivities.