Polyphonic self

In the course of examining various approaches to religious pluralism in Ways of Meeting and the Theology of Religions , David Cheetham cites Colin Gunton’s criticisms of Augustine’s Trinitarian theology. While he agrees with Gunton that human beings are “dialogic” he suggests that Gunton misses one of the key points of Augustine’s theology: “Augustine’s insight is that he sees the inner self as somehow containing within itself relational possibilities, albeit fulfilled in relationship with God” (109). Augustine emphasizes the “dynamism of the inner self” and thus underscores the fact that human beings are “capable of many types of relationships.”

Trinitarian theology thus gives “a warrant for a relational self that itself can enjoy multiple types or modes of relations. The freedom of the Trinity to relate in different modes of being is mirrored in the imago dei and gives the human individual a theological justification for the vocation of an ‘encyclopedia’ relational entity.” Human beings, after all, “may relate in formal, informal, personal, impersonal, familiar, unfamiliar, tragic, comedic, ethical, religious or aesthetic modes” (110).

He invokes Dietrich Bonoeffer’s notion “of the cantus firmus in the midst of a polyphonic life.” There must be a cantus firmus “to prevent an overly aesthetic and promiscuous abandonment to the polyphonic life.” For Bonhoeffer, that baseline is love for God, but that isn’t intended to cancel other loves. As Bonhoeffer himself puts it, “God wants us to love him with our whole hearts – not in such a way as to injure or weaken our earthly love, but to provide a kind of cantus firmus to which the other melodies of live provide the counterpoint” (111).