My understanding of early Church history is incredibly shallow, particularly as it relates to salavation theology. (I tended to fall asleep in the lectures on Augustine.) So it's more than possible that I'm in error.
Davidson says of charis and gods: "[p38] Charis bounces around in multople exchanges over time of gifts, gifts of sacrifice, statues, plays, dances, hymns etc. It looks both ways, both in return for and in anticipation of divine favours, thus establishing a meaningful and consequential relationship with gods in the present, which is simply a metaphysical version of the whole interplay of relationships of kindness and faith you establish with other people. The Christian architecture of time which leaves the present as a humble zone between two grand precipices, an original Fall from Charis and and Final Settling of [p39] Accounts, finds no room for a meaningful ongoing relationship of faith in God in the here-and-now.... It is precisely because ancient charis is never finally to be accounted for, that it is done for no specific return, and because no one know what will happen in the future, that it can be described as 'the engine of morality', i.e., the foundation of free ethical responsibility."
His Christian theology's a little dodgy, but I think the point he's making about the difference between Greek and later (probably at this point post-Augustinian) Christian charis is that the Greek version carries a far more immediate sense, more of 'I'll do you a favour (charis), and we'll see if you do (or keep doing) me a favour' - except favour is also both charm (i.e. charisma) and grace as well.
Since charis comes into human intimate relations as well, it's a fair fascinating discussion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-06-18 08:34 pm (UTC)Davidson says of charis and gods: "[p38] Charis bounces around in multople exchanges over time of gifts, gifts of sacrifice, statues, plays, dances, hymns etc. It looks both ways, both in return for and in anticipation of divine favours, thus establishing a meaningful and consequential relationship with gods in the present, which is simply a metaphysical version of the whole interplay of relationships of kindness and faith you establish with other people. The Christian architecture of time which leaves the present as a humble zone between two grand precipices, an original Fall from Charis and and Final Settling of [p39] Accounts, finds no room for a meaningful ongoing relationship of faith in God in the here-and-now.... It is precisely because ancient charis is never finally to be accounted for, that it is done for no specific return, and because no one know what will happen in the future, that it can be described as 'the engine of morality', i.e., the foundation of free ethical responsibility."
His Christian theology's a little dodgy, but I think the point he's making about the difference between Greek and later (probably at this point post-Augustinian) Christian charis is that the Greek version carries a far more immediate sense, more of 'I'll do you a favour (charis), and we'll see if you do (or keep doing) me a favour' - except favour is also both charm (i.e. charisma) and grace as well.
Since charis comes into human intimate relations as well, it's a fair fascinating discussion.