The central tenets of Tanner’s theology are one, a “non-competitive relation between creatures and God”, and two, a “radical interpretation of divine transcendence” (2). She sees god the LORD as a gift-giver to creation and the cosmic saga as God giving greater gifts - creation, covenant, salvation in Christ - to humans that often refuse or try to horde from others such gifts. What Tanner seeks to demonstrate by these tenets here is a resolution of “Christological conundrums [“Jesus as truly divine and truly human”] and puzzles” (6).
Tanner’s Christology attempts to avoid kenoticism, historicizing God, and a co-mingling of divine and human natures making a third kind of nature (10, 11, 23). She argues that each of these views tend to assume some kind of competition between or exchange of divine and human attributes, resulting in Jesus having diminished human or divine natures. Instead, for her, God has a “radical transcendence” and inhabits another “plane of reality” altogether than creatures do (11, 17). It is because of this transcendence that there is no give-and-take making Jesus less divine the more human we envision him, or vice-versa (11). Being wholly different in kind from humans, God can therefore take on humanity without losing any god-ness or human-ness.
Tanner argues these natures exist together in such a way that Jesus’ divinity is inferred rather than clearly seen. Jesus is, and appears, completely human but his “person and acts are nevertheless so out-of-the-ordinary as to be called divine, because they have a character and consequences exceeding any mere creature’s capacities” (18). Therefore, for example, “Jesus acts as if he is omniscient… despite the fact that as a human being he clearly is not” (19). In this way, Tanner’s Jesus can have a full humanity and a full divinity.
Tanner closes the chapter saying that it is through the incarnation rather than specifically the crucifixion that humanity is saved (28-29). Jesus saves humanity by taking it on, living it, and in so doing reconciling it to God. The crucifixion was the natural, inevitable end for such a life but not salvific in an atoning sense (30).
The simple, common-sense principles underlying Tanner’s Christology make it attractive: God as a gift-giver (for which there is good biblical support) and Tanner’s illustration of God as on another plane of existence than humanity (which echoes Sokolowski’s god distinct from creation). However, I am puzzled with how she would treat scriptural texts describing the crucifixion as an atonement of blood. I also am puzzled by how she views her sense of sin as the refusal of gifts from God with texts describing sin as rebellion and an inherent, corruptive human force. Lastly I wonder whether Tanner could give a fuller picture of what these gifts she mentions are: I take them to be “creation, covenant and salvation in Christ” but I want to know if this is all she means by “gift” (2).
--
In her second chapter, Tanner attempts to show that “The Theological Structure of Things” is a divine “effort to repeat the perfection of God’s own triune life” (36). To paint with broad strokes, in the Trinity, God communicates to and with Godself; in creation, God communicates created versions “of God’s own goodness” - the world itself, life, truth, beauty, goodness - to the world (43); in covenant-like fellowship, God communicates Godself to humanity at a distance; in the Incarnation, God communicates Godself directly to humanity at no distance in the person of Jesus; and in sanctification, while God in Jesus communicates Godself to humans, humans can communicate “saving effects” (perhaps more versions of God’s goodness) to others (48). Tanner states that as this theological “structure variously permutated becomes visible” it enhances its meaning, presumably that God desires to eventually fill the world with God’s perfection and goodness, i.e. Godself (38).
Tanner’s portrayal of God as gift-giver comes through quite strongly in this structure. At each level we see gifts bestowed in one way or another. Noteworthy is those gifts’ receptions and reciprocations. Giving, receiving and reciprocating are epitomized and even interchangeable in the Trinity where the Father gives to the Son and, in so doing, the Son co-inhering the Father gives to the Father, and the Son, and so forth. However as these gifts are expressed to what is not divine, distances creep between the giving, reception and reciprocation. Ultimately the fundamental distance between gift and its receipt is overcome in Jesus where divinity and humanity seem to kiss, but humans might continue to refuse gifts or keep them from others to the extent those humans are not in Christ. This refusal or disruption of God’s giving is sin. Furthermore, whereas Jesus can give back equally, so to speak, to the Father in “a human life of praise and service”, humans cannot give back in any way equivalently to Jesus (58). However the hope for humans lies not in our ability to give back but in our ability, brought through by Jesus, to receive.
Tanner’s “radical transcendence” meaning the Trinity’s operation on a completely different plane than the human plane comes through in this chapter as well. We have looked at how the gift-act is a repetition of God’s perfection. It seems we can think of the immanent Trinity’s gift-acts occurring on one divine plane whereas Jesus’ gift-acts occur on two planes, one human and one divine. In turn, humans-in-Christ’s gift-acts occur on two planes, one human and one “elevated” or “graced” (57). As with the repetition of gift-giving, Tanner’s theological structure is contingent on notions of radical transcendence between divine and human actions.
Revisiting some of my questions since our earlier reading, I am still curious how Tanner would deal with scriptural texts describing sin as rebellion and an inherent, corruptive human force, though I have better understanding of her view of sin as the refusal/obstruction of gifts. I believe she has now given a fuller picture of what the gifts she mentions are: creation, divine fellowship or covenants (this is still fuzzy for me), salvation in Christ, and also light, life, love, goodness, beauty and truth.
--
In the final chapters of Tanner’s book, she produces this statement: "The cross simply does not save us from our debts to God by paying them" (88). I will organize my summary of these chapters around this short quotation.
Tanner holds that sin is real and people suffer from it, but we do not have sin-debts to God because God is so transcendent we cannot violate God. It is wrong to think of God like a human: God is on a different plane, beneficent and bountiful in ways we can't approximate, and, except for the incarnation, somewhat removed from human life. We are saved because in the incarnation, Jesus brought humanity and divinity together, and reconciles all who have human nature to Him who has the divine nature, without pre-conditions or requirements. The cross was not an atonement but the final moment in Jesus' earthly life of faithfulness, enabled by His divinity, to God. Salvation for Tanner comes through the incarnation, is universal, needs no faith confession, and is a process of deification.