I offer this podcast as a doctrinal complement to the previous post on the historical events that took place at Berkeley, CA in 1964 before spreading throughout the country thereafter.
Trinity, the Relational Person, As Context of WWW.
I take a phrase from Tim Berners-Lee’s article from the previous post on what is the Web, it suggests a daunting vision of what may be coming:
“A radically open, egalitarian and decentralised platform, it is changing the world, and we are still only scratching the surface of what it can do. Anyone with an interest in the web’s future — and that’s everyone, everywhere — has a role in ensuring it achieves all it can….” Berners-Lee remarks: “Looking back for a moment, what is the web we celebrate this year? It is not the wires connecting our computers, tablets and televisions. Rather, it is the largest repository for information and knowledge the world has yet seen, and our most powerful communications tool.”
Blogger: what may be interesting is to look for the context of the Web itself to understand where it may be going, (if we go it).
The Second Vatican Council inverted the pyramid of theological explanation. Instead of going from the bottom up, it went from the top down. It began with the Trinity of Divine Person to the understanding of Christ, the God-man, as the absolute defining and creating center and purpose of all that is, and on to man, who now can only be understood in terms of Christ as prototype of all men. And now from there to the understanding of marriage and sexuality – and society political and economic in terms of man. Man, now from there, cannot be understood as the Greeks observed him as a rational animal but “Person” destined to live the Divine Life of Christ here and after death. The task of the human person is to become Christ and, by work, transform the entire material creation into the relationality that would be the ikon of the Trinity.
The reality of the www as staggering and limitless for relation, connectedness with persons and relations becomes intelligibile in the context of the Person of Jesus Christ as God-man, prototype of all finite existence. Robert Barron is not innocent of this vision when he writes that “Jesus is not only the one in whom things were created but also the one in whom they presently exist and through whom they inhere in one another. And if we are inclined to view the future as a dimension of creation untouched by Christ, we are set straight [by Colossians 1, 15-19]: ‘through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in hevaen by making peace through the blood of his cross (v. 20), Individuals, societies, cultures, animals, plants, planets and the stars – all will be drawn into an eschatological harmony through him. Mind you, Jesus is not merely the symbol of an intelligiblity, coherence, and reconciliation that can exist apart from him; rather, he is the active and indispensable means by which these realities come to be. This Jesus, in short, is the all-embracing, all-including, all-reconciling Lord of whatever is to be found in the dimensions of time and space” [ Barron “The Priority of Christ – Toward A Postliberal Catholicism,” Brazos (2007) 134-135.].
And as a result of this centrality of Christ, there is what Barron calls, not merely relationality of all things, but a “co-inherence.” Barron writes: “Through the incarnation, the coinherence of the Father and the Logos seeks to provoke a coinherence of creation with God and of creatures with one another. In light of the entire Gospel, we kow that the momentum of this enflleshment is toward the total self-gift of the Cross: ‘Whan I am llifted up rom the earth, I will draw all people [things] to myself’ (Jn. 12, 32)… Consistently therefore, Christian revelation insists that the most radical sort of being-for-the-other – self-donation – is the nature of the Logos that has marked all created reality. Invoking (Bruce)Marshall’s negative formulation of the epistemic priority of Christ, we must say then that any philosophy, science, or worldview that does not see relationality, being-for-the-other, as ontologically fundamental must be false. To state it more positively, we can assert that what the mind correctly seeks as it goes out to meet the intelligibieilyt of the real is always a form ofcoinherence” (Ibid. p. 155).
Enter Berner-Lee’s World Wide Web!