Table Of ContentFrom the Phenomenon of Wonder to the Praxis of Generosity:
Wonder as a Theological Principle for Theological Anthropology, Liturgy, and Liberation
by
José Francisco Morales Torres
A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of
Claremont School of Theology (Claremont, California)
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Religion
Concentration: Comparative Theology and Philosophy
Under the Supervision of Dissertation Committee:
Professor Philip Clayton, Claremont School of Theology (Chair);
Professor Anselm Kyongsuk Min, Claremont Graduate University; and,
Professor Özgür Koca, Bayan Claremont/Claremont School of Theology
Claremont, California
March 14, 2018
ii
Para Mami y Papi, con mucho amor
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements iv
Introduction 1
Chapter 1—A Phenomenology of Wonder 25
Chapter 2—Metaphysics of Participation
as the Ontological Grounding for Wonder 60
Excursus on Generosity: A Trinitarian Reflection
on the Holy Spirit as “Giver of Life” 152
Chapter 3—The Implications of Wonder for Theological Anthropology 160
Chapter 4— Christian Praxis as Praxis of Generosity: Some Wondrous
Reflections on the Christian Life, Liturgy and Liberation 190
Conclusion 215
Works Cited 230
iv
Acknowledgements
The acknowledgement section is always a tricky thing to pull off, for one is bound to leave
something, and even worse, someone, out. Nevertheless, the exercise of gratitude as such (a
prominent theme in the second half of this present work) is “good for the soul.”
Indeed, I have much for which I am grateful. I recognize that all work of sustained reflection
(like a dissertation) is done, as the Hispanic theological world is oft to say, en conjunto.
Although I am the one who spent hours over a laptop, slowly placing letter after letter, I did so,
and persevered, with the support, wisdom, insight, and even loving admonitions from so many.
Of course, I must begin with those who most closely worked with me to form, develop, and
complete this work: my dissertation committee. My chair Dr. Philip Clayton’s support for me
began when I was a prospective student. From our first meeting in passing, even before I had
started the application, he instilled in me the fire and desire for the doctoral journey. And
throughout the sojourn, he was ever ready to rekindle that flame. Dr. Anselm K. Min and Dr.
Özgür Koca, my other two readers, profoundly redirected not only my final project, but my
philosophical commitments and theological vision. I am grateful to the three for their pouring
into me a small portion of their inexhaustible wisdom.
In Southern California there were three institutions that supported me throughout my doctoral
students. One was my home congregations, Downey Memorial Christian Church. Their
prayerful support surrounded. Claremont School of Theology provided a supportive environment
for me to be both a student and a human being. I am deeply grateful to Disciples Seminary
Foundation (DSF), which supported me as a scholarship recipient and as an employee. I am
especially thankful for the President of DSF, Dr. Jon Berquist, for all that he did to get me to and
through the program. Words cannot express my gratitude to him and to the entire DSF family.
During my tenure as student, both the Forum for Theological Exploration (FTE) and the
Hispanic Theological Initiative (HTI) supported me in so many ways. They poured life into me
and reminded me that I do not stand alone in this endeavor. As a Latino scholar, they both were
oases in the at-times hostile terrain of academia. As a Dissertation scholar, HTI provided me
with Ulrike (“Uli”) Guthrie, an amazing editor and “writing coach,” and an even more amazing
human being. (Thanks, Uli!)
Many of my fellow colleagues and recent graduates offered amazing support, wishing the best
for me instead of succumbing to the (unfortunately prevalent) cutthroat environment in
academia. While writing, two colleagues deserved to be named for their “above-and-beyond”
support: Dr. Jon Ivan Gill and fellow PHD candidate, now Dr. Rafael Reyes III. They read
mangled excerpts, asked fecund questions, and offered clarifying criticism. Thank you!
Mi familia have been my bedrock since the beginning. Both my parents, neither of whom have
college degrees, instilled in me a deep love for learning and a sense that said learning is to be
leveraged in service of God, the church, and the world. They worked and toiled, at or around the
poverty line for much of their working lives, so that my sisters and I would not have to. ¡Mami y
Papi, los amo! My four sisters have been avid supporters of my “nerdy” eccentricities since day
v
one. Their tough love “grew me up” and prepared me for whatever life and school threw my
way. Magnolia, Flor de Lis, Rosa, and Yazmín, I love you!
I tried my best to be a good father and a husband, while trying to be a good student. At times,
the former had to take back seats so that I can execute the latter. Amidst this juggling act, I was
surrounded and loved by a daughter, Daphne Magnolia, who embodied the joyous wonder I
attempt to explore in the following pages. Her very presence motivated my work.
And there is my wife, Daphne Marie Gascot Arias. When I think of all that she had to sacrifice,
the things she put on hold, the extra “heavy lifting” in our relationship, the patience with which
she handled my setbacks and frustrations, the love she poured on me and Magnolia while I
poured over books, when I think of all these, I am rendered speechless (usually an impossibility).
Words fail to capture my growing love for her. Daphne, I recognize that I cannot pay you back in
full. What all you did to walk with me through this thing was a lavish gift of love that cannot be
calculated. All I can do is honor you by seeking to live life as you do—a life that is brimming
for joyous expectation, committed to authentic friendship, guided by mercy and compassion,
oriented toward justice, and unswervingly faithful to the God of life. ¡Te amo, mi cielo!
1
INTRODUCTION
Some asked for success. I asked for wonder. And You gave it to me.
—Abraham Joshua Heschel1
Those who wonder discover that this in itself is wonder.
— M. C. Escher2
There is grandeur in this view of life… from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are
being, evolved.
—Charles Darwin3
This study emerges from the premise that the experience of wonder is deeply
foundational to the human being. Wonder is the basis (Latin: “foundation”; Greek: “step” or
“pedestal”) on which the human “stands”4 epistemically open before all reality. Therefore, if
theology is to transform, it must engage and speak to the human person at that “basic” level of
wonder. Thus, the aim of this treatise is to unearth the deep recesses of wonder that open the
human to the world, the self, and God, so that that this portrait of the human can then shape the
mode and manner in which theology should speak. In short, this study is an exploration in
theological anthropology.
All theology is a dialectic between two entities: God and humanity. God is the proper
subject of theology, without which the discipline of theology would be superfluous. To do
theology is to speak about God and all things sub ratione Dei.5 Yet, one can speak of God only
to the extent in which God reveals Herself to humanity. God is the subject of theology, and not
1 Abraham Joshua Heschel, I Asked for Wonder: A Spiritual Anthology, ed. Samuel H. Dresner (New York:
Crossroad, 1983), 12.
2 In Robert C. Fuller, Wonder: From Emotion to Spirituality (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press, 2006), 80.
3 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races
in the Struggle for Life (New York: Bantam Books, 1999), 400.
4 “Basis (n.),” Online Etymology Dictionary, https://www.etymonline.com/word/basis#etymonline_v_5288,
accessed December 29, 2018.
5 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Westminster, MD:
Christian Classics, 1981), I.1.7.
2
object, for the precise reason that theology deals with the God who speaks, acts, and reveals
Herself.
This brings up the second entity of theology: humanity. To speak of God (i.e. theo
[‘God’] + logos [‘speech’ or ‘word’]) is, inescapably, to speak to God as revealed to humans.
Therefore, all theology implies a theological anthropology. As Paul Tillich states, “God speaks
to the human condition, against it, and for it.”6 Karl Rahner’s image of the key and keyhole
illustrates this point: to say something about the key implies something about the keyhole.7
Theology is self-involving. That is to say, a confessional declaration says something both
of the content of the confession and of the confessor. Ingolf Dalferth demonstrates this by
pointing to the Gospel narratives of the Petrine confession.8 Jesus does not asks Peter, “Who am
I?” but rather, “Who do you say that I am?” Confessions of faith are self-involving.9 To do
theology necessarily involves doing theological anthropology. In doing Christian theology, this
is all the more the case because of the doctrine of the Incarnation.10 Since theology is self-
involving, it requires faith, i.e. commitment to be self-involved. Non-confessional explorations
(say, sociology of religion) can serve some corrective, tempering or elucidating purposes. Yet
theology, as confession, is a discipline of, by, and for the people of faith.
6 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol II: Existence and the Christ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1957), 13.
7 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity (New York:
Crossroad, 1982), 19, 24.
8 Matthew16:15; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20.
9 Ingolf Dalferth, Crucified and Resurrected: Restructuring the Grammar of Christology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2015), 12 ff.; idem., “Introduction,” lecture, Problems in Christology course, Claremont Graduate
University, Claremont, CA, January 19, 2016.
10 Walter Kasper praises Karl Rahner on the latter’s way of bringing Christology and anthropology together.
Kasper categorizes Rahner’s method as “Christology with an anthropological emphasis.” Rahner’s “Christology
from below,” says Kasper, “has opened a new road to Christian belief for a great number of people.” In Walter
Kasper, Jesus the Christ. New Edition (London: T & T Clark International, 2011), 36 ff.
3
Wonder, like theology, is self-involving—and viscerally so. Like theology, one can only
go so far with a detached exploration. Brain studies might reveal wave patterns in the brain
connected to the experience of wonder;11 but these patterns are not the same as the actual
experiencing of wonder, with all the emotions that accompany it. As interesting as brain scans
are, this investigation is not based on them. Rather, it is interested, as its starting point, in the
self-involving, experiential aspect of wonder, that is, in the “lifeworld” (Lebenswelt) wherein one
is “basically” available to wonder. It does not end here at the phenomenal world, but it begins
here, and thus includes the self-involving, experiential quality and dimension of wonder.
Why Wonder?
The experience of wonder is a universal human phenomenon. Regardless of geography
and history, belief and worldview, the experience of wonder has been described and portrayed in
poetry and prose, in music and the arts. From the ancients to today, the senses of wonder and
awe have marked human experience and expression. Philosophies, both of East and West, have
noted the centrality, primacy, or at least uniqueness of wonder among the passions.12 Wonder has
played a crucial, defining role in conversations about beauty, aesthetics, and the arts, and many
times is credited as the source of inspiration or creativity. (The writings of some of these thinkers
will be discussed, mentioned, or used in chapter 1.)
The progress of science came with the fear that increasing scientific knowledge would
rob humanity of its sense of wonder. But in fact, the opposite has occurred. Scientists have
11 Cf. Andreas Weber, The Biology of Wonder: Aliveness, Feeling, and the Metamorphosis of Science
(Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society, 2016), 111 ff.; Fuller, Wonder: From Emotion to Spirituality.
12 For example, see: René Descartes, “On the Passions of the Soul,” in The Philosophical Works of Descartes,
vol. 1, trans. Elizabeth Sanderson Haldane (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 358, 362 ff.;
Michelle Voss Roberts, Tastes of the Divine: Hindu and Christian Theologies of Emotion, Comparative Theology:
Thinking Across Traditions (New York: Fordham University Press, 2014), 181 ff.
4
acknowledged the role of wonder’s presence in initial questioning, the process of
experimentation, and the new discoveries after experimentation. The greatest astrophysicist of
the present generation, the incomparable Stephen Hawking, admitted that at times a hypothesis is
proposed for “aesthetic” reasons alone.13 What Socrates said of philosophy can be said of science
as well: it begins with wonder.14 About the process of experimentation, Hawkings states that it is
“not only a discipline of reason but, also, one of romance and passion,”15 intimating wonder as
an impetus in science. At the end of scientific research, one is again confronted by wonder.
Charles Darwin himself was in awe of the evolved and evolving world his theory revealed. The
last sentence of his monumental The Origin of Species is simply beautiful, “There is grandeur in
this view of life… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being, evolved.”16 Scientific knowledge has not stifled wonder; it has
stimulated it. Explaining need not lead to explaining away, as “explanatory reductionism”
unfortunately assumes.17
The scope of this study is not the totality of the wondrous in all its idiosyncrasies,
manifestations, and expressions. Rather, its end is theological. It examines the phenomenon of
wonder as an organizing and elucidating principle for theological anthropology. Without fully
developing it, it works towards a theological anthropology of wonder informed by wonder, with
the goal that this developing theological anthropology can consequently inform the doing of
theology. Hence, I first bracket the experience of wonder in order to get “to the thing itself,” i.e.
13 Stephen W. Hawking, The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe, New Edition
(Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books, 2007), 92.
14 Plato, “Theatetus,” line 155d, in Plato, The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters, ed. Edith
Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series, 71 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982) 860.
15 In Fanuel Muindi and Jessica W. Tsai, Journeys in Science: Inspiring the Next Generation (London:
Academic Press, 2017), vii.
16 Darwin, The Origin of Species, 400.
17 Philip Clayton, Religion and Science: The Basics (New York: Routledge, 2012), 34–39.
5
the eidos of wonder. Then I explore being as such, i.e. metaphysical reality, to find an
ontological ground or basis for wonder. Next, I work toward a theological anthropology of
wonder, informed by the human experience of wonder and the metaphysical vision of wonder.
Lastly, I investigate the lived theological anthropology of wonder as expressed and experienced
in liturgy and liberation.
Problems
There are certain problems which this study on wonder seeks to confront. One such
problem has to do with what I call the deforming and “flattening” of human life in our
contemporary, neoliberal capitalist age. The second deals with how this flattened, deforming
anthropology has negatively affected the expression and discourse of faith (i.e. theology). Let us
look at each in turn.
The first is the modern predicament of life distorted by the negative impacts of an
increasingly globalizing and market-driven areligion with its atheology, which values human life
solely for its utility and productivity. This globalizing “ritual” of the unholy Market18 has had
disastrous effects on creational flourishing, for this idol “enframes”19 creation, “ordering” and
“revealing” it as mere “raw material” for its production and profitability.
This “ritual” of production and profit of the “cult” of the global market is an enacting
form of an underlying atheology. It is its “idoliturgy.” This idol-speak places value and worth in
(i.e. deems “good”) that which can produce for the insatiable market system. This includes
human subjects: migrant farm workers, sweatshop laborers, girls sold into sex trafficking, and
18 Juan José Tamayo Acosta, Otra teología es posible: Pluralismo religioso, interculturalidad y feminismo,
Biblioteca Herder (Barcelona: Herder, 2012); idem., Invitación a la utopía: Estudio histórico para tiempos de crisis
(Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 2013).
19 Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology,” in The Question Concerning Technology, and
Other Essays. trans. William Lovitt (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), 19–20.
