Interesting summary by Joan Lockwoord O'Donovan of John Wyclife's view of evangelical poverty:
As we are possessed by Christ and receive ourselves from him, the central act of our willing is one of conforming to his will, of surrendering and going out of ourselves. The self-transcending of our wills in obedience to Christ is preeminently our encounter with the Supreme Good as absolute claim on us, but also, in many cases, our encounter with lesser, created goods as existing prior to and independently of our willing. In encountering created goods we first 'possess' them in their essential being, through knowledge illumined by the love of Christ, before answering the demand or claim that they present. Of all creatures, but especially of human individuals, this ethic affirms that they are claims, not that they possess rights: as objects of God's self-communication in Christ persons are claims upon the wills of one another. Each, in conforming his/her will to Christ's, recognizes and responds to the claim that the other is. Each, in obedience to Christ's law of love, fulfills the demands of justice, but not the demands of one another.
I still need to truly unpack this idea, but if I understand her right, she claims that Wyclife places between us and all goods obedience to Christ. That obedience is how we are to encounter the claims of others upon us, not as demands based on rights, but as ones that arise out of justice as Christ's law of love.
Any thoughts on this? Might it account for a Christian recognition of the "pull" of other individuals upon ourselves?
In a word - No! This is not sufficient to account for other's 'pull' on us (the 'pull' is just a non-offensive way of saying that others could lay claim on our lives or property without our consent, in some cases, right?)
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the thought provoking quotes. They are certainly challenging me to bulwark or surrender my thought on individual rights.
The reason that the answer is 'No' is very simple. If we accept O'Donovan's premise that between us and all goods obedience to Christ is placed, then it is still a personal(!) obedience. It may be that according to her I am disloyal, or perhaps not even free, when I disobey Christ, and, say, covet for other person's money. However, this fact in itself gives no one, save God himself, from dispossessing me of my life or my property.
The fact that my response seems oversimplified probably reveals my fundamental misunderstanding of the claims above. Is there some obvious flaw here?
I confess I, too, would worry about abandoning the language of rights, though I think she's trying to find a way to account for the way "rights" can be seen as obligations without givng into a simple contractual model, and yes, of course, it's personal--that was why I included it! :-D
ReplyDeleteThe part that intrigued me, though, was the last part. She seems to suggest it is possible to hold property as a steward of God without claiming it to be my own nor allowing human others by force to take it either. After all, if you are a steward then you have to defend what you are charged with. At the same time, if you are a steward, then, you own wants (or maybe even needs) are no longer the measure by how you personally use that property.
Does that make any sense? I'm still not sure I see the implications or dangers of all that she is exploring from Wyclife here.