The gift and the understanding of God: Iconic theology of J. L. Marion

The question of God in the West is mainly discussed in terms of ontological discourses based on dualistic worldview. It was Heidegger who problematized ontological discourse vis a vis the phenomena of beings. He articulated the possibility of beings as a way of overcoming onto-theology by the discourse of “es gibt (it gives).” His way of overcoming onto-theology would be critically engaged in Derrida and Marion who radicalize his “es gibt.” Derrida invents the movement of différance in his criticism of Heidegger's principle of difference. He connects différance to es gibt and arrives at “impossibility of gift.” Marion seeks extending the phenomenology to the limit where he finds a new horizon of givenness in relation to the es gibt. Confronting Milbank's criticism, Derrida focuses on the impossibility of the phenomenon of gift as a bottomless withdrawal and Marion by contrast develops the dimension of “unknowing” highlighting the withdrawal of the giver in givenness. In relation to negative theology, Derrida expresses the divine as desert-like space of the impossibility of gift: Khora and “avoiding speaking of God” close to negative theology. Marion tries to go beyond Derrida's desert religion to secure the possibility of negative theology by suggesting “de-nomination” as a practical way of speaking of God in the act of praising and prayer. The possibility comes from divine side comprising an “iconic” theology. Iconicity is secured by the “distance,” which describes the gap between humans and the divine. However, this gap also permits communication between humans and the divine. Marion's theology signifies that the name of God is “given” from God: “the Good” as the source of the gift and “Love” who enacts the giving of the gift. Marion's iconic theology is culminated in his reformulation of dogmatic Roman Catholic theology: hierarchy (the order of the sacred) and Eucharist. While his theology withstands Milbank's criticism, it is not unproblematic. By way of Eckhart's concept of “detachment” and a certain Protestant twist on Marion's sacramentalism, and the hint of a Daoist perspective this dissertation finally point toward a new theological possibility. It promotes the unity of an apparent paradoxical—between the saturated phenomenon and human detachment—that may form the basis of a future Asian Christian iconic theology.