Theological Character of Debt from Hollis Phelps

I'm far from any kind of theologian but holding a focus in the interdisciplinary study of religion, the theological perspectives are interesting:


"the theological articulation of the human beings as indebted resonates with neoliberalism’s own marking of individuals as indebted subjects. The term “resonate” (which I borrow loosely from the work of William Connolly) is important here. I’m not interested in making a causal argument, which I don’t think is possible for numerous reasons but, rather, interrogating the way in which overlapping discourses contribute to fashion and discipline subjects as indebted.

The paper itself focuses on how Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement contributes to this sense of indebtedeness. Readers of the blog and the journal will certainly be familiar with that theory. In sum it says that through sin human beings have violated God’s honor, which Christ satisfies on our behalf through his obedience and death. Anselm understands the notion of sin at work in terms of debt; sin is a violation of what we owe to God. Indeed, it’s mounting debt to the point of infinity that necessitates divine intervention.

What interests me more about Anselm’s understanding of atonement, however, is that he understands the human condition itself in terms of indebtedness. Debt isn’t simply a byproduct, the result of sin, but worked into the very fabric of creation. According to Anselm, the reason human beings get into trouble in the first place is their failure to make good on the original debt of obedience they owe to God. Even after their redemption via Christ’s satisfaction, human beings continue to owe God their obedience, along with an additional debt of gratitude."


read the rest here