“The insistence of God means that God calls for a response or, since God is not somebody who “does” things like call, it means that calling takes place in the middle voice, in and under the name of God,” (pg. 39). Caputo’s argument of the insistence of God as a call for a response in the middle voice refers back to his prior argument in chapter two of God praying. As he makes mention in the above quote, God is not somebody that calls or prays, because he is not a physical entity as human beings. God’s call is more like a force that pulls us to Him that invites us to rely on him or for His intervention. This call as Caputo puts it is an unexpected and persistent knocking at our door. God persistence is wrapped up in His nonexistence, and in
…show more content…
Recall the example of that person who persistently knocks at the door, because he/she wants to be more than simply a knock and more of a person. Caputo argues that this way of insistence is what makes God – the “other” exist. He states that we accept this call by saying “Yes” twice to both the visitation (yes you exist), and to whatever trouble comes with it (yes to the unknown). This is the idea of hospitality, “To say “come” to what we cannot see coming, to what may or may not (“perhaps”) be welcome, to welcome the unwelcome,” (pg. 40). Responding in this way is to accept the saying “comes what may,” stating that hospitality has to be unconditional. It is on this basis that Caputo makes reference to Eckhart who refers to the insistence of God as an advent. He tells us to think of God as a divine stranger whose insistence is a call for our assistance and hospitality of his birth. He (Eckhart) says, “The advent of God in the soul is the birth of the Son in the soul and the rebirth of the soul in the Son, with the result that if we block this event, we kill God, by cutting off God’s birth, and we kill the soul, by cutting off its rebirth,” (pg. 44). Eckhart’s argument is that our hospitality or response to the call allow God’s birth or existence, while the opposite is to acknowledge His insistence, but …show more content…
Isn’t He considered the “Is, was, and always will be?” Therefore, it is clear that he exist, and he has existed without our very presence. However, Caputo’s motive for writing in the way he does, is not to present himself as an atheist, but to allow us to think in the way of the unforeseeable. By Acknowledging this approach, I can agree that yes God’s insistence can be seen as a constant calling of reliance. I do not agree however that this call presents itself as trouble, because it goes beyond the true nature or virtue of God which is to be good. I cannot see this insistence as troublesome as I am constantly calling upon God to intervene in my life. One reason for this is I have come to recognized that my very existence in this world is not by chance, and I did not will this for myself, neither did my parents. Everything about my human personhood is inscribed in my design, and I believe this is what Caputo makes of Martha’s response inscribed in acknowledging human dignity. As insightful as I believe the incorporation of the story of Martha and Mary presents more of the theology of the perhaps (relates to the unforeseeable in a radical way), rather than the insistence of
Recall the example of that person who persistently knocks at the door, because he/she wants to be more than simply a knock and more of a person. Caputo argues that this way of insistence is what makes God – the “other” exist. He states that we accept this call by saying “Yes” twice to both the visitation (yes you exist), and to whatever trouble comes with it (yes to the unknown). This is the idea of hospitality, “To say “come” to what we cannot see coming, to what may or may not (“perhaps”) be welcome, to welcome the unwelcome,” (pg. 40). Responding in this way is to accept the saying “comes what may,” stating that hospitality has to be unconditional. It is on this basis that Caputo makes reference to Eckhart who refers to the insistence of God as an advent. He tells us to think of God as a divine stranger whose insistence is a call for our assistance and hospitality of his birth. He (Eckhart) says, “The advent of God in the soul is the birth of the Son in the soul and the rebirth of the soul in the Son, with the result that if we block this event, we kill God, by cutting off God’s birth, and we kill the soul, by cutting off its rebirth,” (pg. 44). Eckhart’s argument is that our hospitality or response to the call allow God’s birth or existence, while the opposite is to acknowledge His insistence, but …show more content…
Isn’t He considered the “Is, was, and always will be?” Therefore, it is clear that he exist, and he has existed without our very presence. However, Caputo’s motive for writing in the way he does, is not to present himself as an atheist, but to allow us to think in the way of the unforeseeable. By Acknowledging this approach, I can agree that yes God’s insistence can be seen as a constant calling of reliance. I do not agree however that this call presents itself as trouble, because it goes beyond the true nature or virtue of God which is to be good. I cannot see this insistence as troublesome as I am constantly calling upon God to intervene in my life. One reason for this is I have come to recognized that my very existence in this world is not by chance, and I did not will this for myself, neither did my parents. Everything about my human personhood is inscribed in my design, and I believe this is what Caputo makes of Martha’s response inscribed in acknowledging human dignity. As insightful as I believe the incorporation of the story of Martha and Mary presents more of the theology of the perhaps (relates to the unforeseeable in a radical way), rather than the insistence of