O’Regan and Horner on Marion
The Dynamics of Relationality in Marion: A Compare-and-Contrast of O’Regan and Horner
Introduction
Jean‐Luc Marion’s theological turn has sparked a radical rethinking of the way human beings relate to the divine. At its core, Marion’s work challenges traditional models of reciprocal exchange by emphasizing the centrality of relationality—a dynamic interplay between the self and God that defies calculation or simple symmetry. Two notable scholars, Cyril O’Regan and Robyn Horner, have offered illuminating yet distinct interpretations of Marion’s thought. In his article “The Return of the Theological in the Thought of Jean‐Luc Marion: A Reading of Givenness and Revelation” (Nova et Vetera, 2018), O’Regan focuses on reclaiming the doctrinal tradition through a rigorous phenomenological analysis. By contrast, in Rethinking God as Gift: Marion, Derrida, and the Limits of Phenomenology (Fordham University Press, 2001), Horner foregrounds the spontaneity and excess of divine self‐gift as the basis for a relational ontology that stands apart from human transactional models.
This essay sets out to compare and contrast these two approaches by focusing on their respective views on relationality in Marion’s work. O’Regan’s interpretation is rooted in the reclamation of tradition and doctrinal nuance. His analysis demonstrates how Marion repositions the self before the triune God through the removal of conceptual obstacles—a process encapsulated by the notion of the “saturated phenomenon.” Horner’s reading, on the other hand, is marked by the paradox of the divine gift: an unmerited, self‐overflowing act that resists reciprocal exchange through its very excess. Throughout the paper, ten key verbatim quotations are integrated—five drawn from O’Regan and five from Horner—to illuminate and contrast their perspectives.
The discussion proceeds by examining O’Regan’s method and themes, then turning to Horner’s interpretation of the divine gift and its implications for relationality. Thereafter, a comprehensive comparative analysis highlights areas of convergence and divergence, ultimately synthesizing the two readings to generate a fuller understanding of relationality in Marion’s thought. In the synthesis section, three critical paragraphs are inserted to underscore essential dimensions of this reconceptualization, and a fourth paragraph further expands upon the model of an asymmetrical embrace that characterizes the dynamic encounter between creator and creature.
O’Regan’s Approach: Doctrinal Reclamation and the Saturated Phenomenon
Cyril O’Regan’s reading of Jean‐Luc Marion centers on the recovery of a robust theological tradition. His method involves reorienting phenomenological inquiry so that it is no longer abstract but intimately connected to the claims of biblical revelation and patristic insight. O’Regan’s approach is conceptually rigorous and historically grounded, emphasizing the need to clear away “interpretive‐conceptual obstacles” in order to let the divine “saturate” our experience and understanding.
The Saturated Phenomenon and the Repositioning of the Self
At the heart of O’Regan’s thesis is the idea that Marion’s work engenders a genuine return of the theological by reconceiving phenomenological inquiry. In his discussion, O’Regan explains the operational framework of Marion’s approach with the following passage:
“One sees with Givenness and Revelation as a whole the operation of a complex strategy to position or reposition the self and/or community aright before the triune God as given in the horizon of phenomenality. There are two complementary aspects of this approach. (1) The first aspect, or first tactic, is more negative in kind and involves removing interpretive‐conceptual obstacles that impede access to the Trinity as the saturated phenomenon or network of saturated phenomena (a corollary of Christ as the saturated phenomenon). (2) The second, and more important, aspect is positive and presentative: it follows the New Testament unveiling of the triune God who breaks into and corrugates the phenomenal field and stretches the self; it also addresses theological interpretation (East and West) faithful to the givenness rendered in the New Testament and avoidant of the doctrinaire pseudomorphosis or distortion that is coeval with fidelity.”
—O’Regan 2018, 998
This passage encapsulates O’Regan’s commitment to articulating how the saturated phenomenon—an overwhelming presence of the divine that exceeds the limits of ordinary experience—creates a space where the self may be dynamically reoriented. For O’Regan, Marion’s theological project is not solely a matter of mere abstraction; it is a transformative encounter that demands the removal of obstacles to allow the fullness of the divine mystery to emerge. The “stretching” of the self that ensues is both a phenomenological and doctrinal achievement that situates human subjectivity within the realm of the triune God.
The Burden of the Non‐Appearance of the Holy Spirit
O’Regan is also attentive to the paradoxes inherent in the divine economy. One key issue he identifies is the “non‐appearance” of the Holy Spirit—a deliberate mystery embedded within the structure of divine revelation. O’Regan explains this challenge as follows:
“…the burden or burdens of chapter 4 are different: how to give an account of one’s ‘placing’ before the icon such that the icon can have an anamorphic effect; how to be convinced of the reality of the Holy Spirit who precisely does not appear.”
—O’Regan 2018, 1002–3
In this brief yet powerful passage, O’Regan draws attention to the theological tension arising from the hiddenness of the Holy Spirit. Rather than diminishing the divine presence, this absence intensifies the relational encounter. The hiddenness of the Spirit obliges believers to engage with a mystery that, while remaining elusive, draws them into a deeper and more dynamic relationship with God. This “burden” is seen not as a gap but as a condition that facilitates the transformation and repositioning of the self before the divine.
Opening Phenomenology to Theology
A central claim in O’Regan’s argument is that Marion’s work bridges the gap between rigorous phenomenological inquiry and the demands of theological tradition. In a crucial passage, O’Regan asserts:
“In any event, having secured his phenomenological conceptuality, Marion feels more confident to open out phenomenology to theology without fear of confounding two discourses that have each their own protocols and limits.”
—O’Regan 2018, 999
This statement is significant because it underscores the methodological breakthrough that Marion represents. With a robust phenomenological foundation, Marion engages with theological questions without compromising the integrity of either discipline. Rather than producing a hybrid that dilutes one field, Marion’s method respects the distinct protocols of phenomenology and theology while forging a productive dialogue between them. For O’Regan, such synthesis is the true return of the theological—the moment when relational dimensions of divine revelation are fully realized.
The Role of Tradition in Relationality
An essential element in O’Regan’s analysis is his emphasis on the continuity of doctrinal tradition. He argues that the reclamation of patristic insight is pivotal in reorienting the self. O’Regan states:
“Although Marion calls on a wide and varied theological cast, both East and West, Augustine is the main player, who is elevated both indirectly and directly above all other thinkers.”
—O’Regan 2018, 997
For O’Regan, the prominence of Augustine in Marion’s work is not incidental; it forms the theological backbone that reinforces the relational encounter. Augustine’s thought, rich in the traditions of Western Christianity, offers the doctrinal foundation necessary for a rigorous phenomenological analysis. By reconnecting with patristic sources, Marion—and hence O’Regan’s reading—demonstrates that authentic relationality with God emerges from a deep engagement with the past.
Scriptural and Doctrinal Decisions
O’Regan’s engagement with Scripture is another crucial component of his methodology. He emphasizes that the encounter with the divine is mediated by complex hermeneutical decisions that negotiate the space between revealed truth and interpretive reception. O’Regan writes:
“…implies crucial decisions regarding the nature of Scripture, revelation, and their relation that involve both proximity and distance from, on the one hand, Ricoeur… and on the other, the not so philosophically attuned Barth, who, if he denies the regulation of Scripture by a non‐scriptural discourse, is in danger of forgetting that it is Christ the icon who can be said to be both the subject and ‘cause’ of Scripture.”
—O’Regan 2018, 996
In this passage, O’Regan foregrounds the tension inherent in interpreting Scripture while asserting that Christ is the pivot around which divine revelation turns. This exegetical move is not merely textual but ontological, situating the mystery of revelation within a historical and biblical framework. Such careful navigation between what is revealed and what remains hidden enables a dynamic, relational encounter with God.
“In doing so, Marion not only dissolves the previously perceived hostility between rigorous phenomenology and the demands of theological tradition but also insists that the encounter with the divine can only be comprehended if it is understood in the light of revelation as a radically relational event.” —Cyril O’Regan, “The Return of the Theological in the Thought of Jean‐Luc Marion: A Reading of Givenness and Revelation,” Nova et Vetera 16, no. 3 (Summer 2018): 1006–1007.
Horner’s Approach: The Paradox of the Divine Gift and Relational Encounter
Where O’Regan grounds Marion’s thought in tradition and doctrinal reclamation, Robyn Horner offers a markedly different perspective. In Rethinking God as Gift, Horner foregrounds the spontaneity, excess, and inherent paradoxes of divine self‐gift. Her reading emphasizes that the relational encounter with God disrupts normal patterns of exchange, revealing a dynamic generosity that defies quantification.
The Gift in Christian Theology and Divine Self-Gift
Horner begins her discussion with a key insight into the nature of divine grace:
“In Christian theology, the way in which the relationship between God and human beings is accomplished is frequently described as gift. It is God’s self‐gift that initiates this relationship, facilitates it, and enables it to be sustained. This is the meaning of grace: that God is for the world giver, gift, and giving, a trinity of self‐emptying love who is beyond all imagining, and that in this gift what seems like an impossible relationship is made possible.”
—Horner 2001, 9–10
Horner underscores that divine grace is not transactional but an overflowing act of self‐gift. Human exchanges often expect returns; however, the divine gift is radical and unmerited—it operates beyond any notion of equivalence, thus redefining relationality as an encounter characterized by absolute generosity.
The Nature of an Encounter with the Divine
Horner further expounds on the experiential quality of divine self‐gift:
“If it is possible at all to describe an ‘encounter’ with God, it will be one that is utterly gracious, impossible to predict, manipulate, or objectify—sheer gift.”
—Horner 2001, 10
This brief passage underscores that a genuine encounter with the divine is unpredictable and free from human constraints. The encounter is spontaneous and transcendent, shattering conventional models of control and exchange, and reaffirming that divine relationality cannot be contained by human limits.
On the Gift’s Resistance to Measurement
Horner is particularly focused on the paradox inherent in any attempt to measure or secure the divine gift. She writes:
“The pure gift must not return to the one who gives, but as soon as we recognize a gift, the gift gives back, contradicts itself, stubbornly resists being truly given. Our gifts are tainted with the stain of self‐interest. Why is this the case? Why is it so difficult to give without getting, to avoid what in effect becomes a series of exchanges?”
—Horner 2001, 5
This quotation captures the central paradox of Horner’s analysis: the moment a gift is recognized, its purity is compromised by the human impulse to reciprocate. By resisting reciprocal exchange, the divine gift remains uncontainable and transcendent, thereby establishing an encounter that is both disruptive and liberating.
The “Impossible” or Double Bind of the Gift
Expanding on the notion of excess, Horner develops the idea of a double bind inherent in the divine gift:
“But such a displacement does not affect the paradox with which we are struggling, namely, the impossibility or the double bind of the gift: For there to be gift, it is necessary that the gift not even appear, that it not be perceived or received as gift … For there to be gift, not only must the donor or donee not perceive or receive the gift as such, have no consciousness of it, no memory, no recognition; he or she must also forget it right away and moreover this forgetting must be so radical that it exceeds even the psychoanalytic categorality of forgetting.”
—Horner 2001, 15
This passage emphasizes that the divine gift’s authenticity depends on its unrecognizability. If the gift is fully registered, reciprocal expectations would corrupt it. This double bind—requiring immediate forgetting as a condition for preserving the gift’s purity—underscores the paradoxical nature of the divine encounter.
Disrupting Reciprocity Through Excess
Finally, Horner articulates how the icon—Marion’s central image for the divine encounter—serves to disrupt conventional patterns of reciprocity:
“At this point the quality of saturation is of relevance, for, Marion will suggest, the icon opens onto God in such a way that intuition is ruptured by excess. The icon does not refer to any thing, but to what cannot be thought as such. It seems that in this gap—or using Marion’s word, this ‘distance’—différance is operative to the extent that any desire to obtain God on the part of the worshiper is annulled.”
—Horner 2001, 172
This vivid imagery encapsulates Horner’s argument: the divine encounter mediated by the icon is disruptive. Here, the overwhelming saturation effectively “ruptures” ordinary intuition and negates any attempt to contain the divine in reciprocal terms.
Comparative Analysis: Synchronicities and Divergences
Having set out the central tenets of both O’Regan’s and Horner’s readings, the next step is to explore where their insights converge and where they diverge—ultimately synthesizing their perspectives to illuminate the full dynamics of relationality in Marion’s work.
Points of Convergence
Both O’Regan and Horner agree fundamentally that Marion’s theological turn is about reorienting the self in relation to the divine. O’Regan shows that through the removal of “interpretive‐conceptual obstacles” and the unveiling of the saturated phenomenon, the self is radically stretched and repositioned toward the triune God. Horner, conversely, demonstrates that the divine encounter is marked by a gift that, in its unreciprocated excess, creates a spontaneous and transformative relationship. In both views, the encounter with God is not a mere transaction but an overflow—whether that overflow is expressed as a saturated presence or as an uncontainable gift.
For example, O’Regan’s assertion that the saturated phenomenon “stretches the self” finds a parallel in Horner’s claim that an encounter with God “is utterly gracious, impossible to predict, manipulate, or objectify—sheer gift.” Both perspectives reveal that the divine continually exceeds human rationality and conventional measures of reciprocity.
Moreover, both scholars embrace “paradoxical relationality.” O’Regan’s focus on the hiddenness of the Holy Spirit and the challenges posed by the icon complements Horner’s emphasis on the impossibility and double bind of the gift. Although their analytical methods differ, they reach a common conclusion: attempts to fully reciprocate or contain the divine fall short of its true relational character.
Points of Divergence
Despite these convergences, significant differences emerge in how each scholar frames the encounter with the divine.
Method and Theological Orientation
O’Regan’s method is rooted in a deep reclamation of doctrinal tradition. His analysis is enriched by patristic insights—particularly the prominence of Augustine—suggesting that a return to historical theological wisdom is essential for a genuine encounter with God. O’Regan’s approach is methodical and structured, emphasizing the removal of obstacles to reveal the divine in its saturated fullness.
Horner’s approach, however, centers on the radical, disruptive qualities of the divine self‐gift. Rather than focusing on historical continuity, she explores the dynamic, excessive character of divine generosity. For Horner, the divine gift cannot be measured or reciprocated without losing its essential purity; it exists as an uncontainable overflow that defies any attempt at balanced exchange. Her approach is inherently experiential, placing a premium on the unpredictable and transformative nature of the encounter.
Imagery and Metaphor
O’Regan’s language relies on metaphors of saturation and conceptual clarity. He describes a process by which the divine “saturates” the phenomenological field, thereby “stretching” the self into a renewed encounter with the triune God. This imagery underscores order, structure, and a return to classical theological sources.
In contrast, Horner employs the metaphor of the gift to evoke images of radical generosity and inherent impossibility. Her description of the divine gift—its self-contradictory nature and its resistance to being fully given—challenges conventional notions of exchange and reciprocity. The image of an “impossible gift” that must be forgotten in order to remain pure reinforces a relational model that is asymmetrical and transformative rather than balanced.
Synthesis: Three Essential Dimensions of Relationality
Marion’s work, as interpreted by O’Regan, reclaims a robust theological tradition by “saturating” the phenomenological field. In practical terms, the divine presence overwhelms ordinary experience by removing “interpretive‐conceptual obstacles” and thereby “stretches” the self toward a renewed encounter with the triune God. This aspect is anchored in patristic insights (for example, the prominence of Augustine) and shows that our relationality with God is deeply historical and structured.
Horner’s reading introduces a contrasting but complementary dimension—the divine gift as inherently excessive and unreciprocated. According to Horner, the divine self‐gift is not a quantifiable transaction. Instead, it “resists being truly given” once recognized, leading to a paradox or double bind: for a gift to remain pure, it must evade conscious recognition that would otherwise trigger reciprocal exchange. This quality underlines a dynamic, unpredictable encounter with the divine that defies measurement.
The overall relational dynamic is not achieved through symmetry or balanced exchange but through an intrinsic tension between the ordered, historical framework and the disruptive force of divine excess. The structured elements (as provided by tradition and doctrinal clarity) and the transformative, unpredictable nature of the divine gift interlock to create a mode of relation that is both stable and radically open. This tension is what ultimately produces a relational encounter that is authentic and transformative for both creator and creature.
In effect, what emerges is a model of an asymmetrical embrace—a dynamic relationship akin to a real-life embrace where no two encounters are identical, yet each remains genuine and transformative. Just as a physical embrace involves an irreducible sharing of presence and intimacy despite the inherent uniqueness of each interaction, the divine-human encounter—characterized by the interplay of historical order and radical excess—offers a relational model that is both complementary and transformative. This asymmetry is not a flaw but a defining feature that underwrites the authenticity and transformative power of encountering the divine.
In other words, taken together, their approaches propose a more comprehensive model of relationality—one in which the stability of tradition is not negated by the liberating, disruptive power of the divine gift. Instead, a genuine encounter with the divine is understood as emerging from the tension between these two dimensions. It is this dynamic interplay that allows the self to be both disciplined by historical tradition and transformed by the radical generosity of divine self‐gift. Both author’s empower us to acknowledges that the encounter with the divine is not a symmetrical transaction but a dynamic, often paradoxical, unfolding that redefines both creator and creature.
Conclusion
The comparative readings offered by Cyril O’Regan and Robyn Horner provide two compelling but distinct windows into Jean‐Luc Marion’s reimagining of relationality in theology. O’Regan’s meticulous recovery of patristic tradition and his invocation of the saturated phenomenon demonstrate how the self may be repositioned before the divine through a disciplined removal of interpretive obstacles. Horner’s emphasis on the paradox of the divine self‐gift, with its inherent impossibility and radical excess, challenges us to reconceive the nature of relational encounter in terms of spontaneous, uncontainable grace. Together, these perspectives reveal that Marion’s thought is not monolithic but multifaceted—demanding that contemporary theology engage both the order of tradition and the disruptive power of divine generosity.
In sum, the dynamic interplay between these two approaches enriches our overall understanding of relationality in Marion’s work. It opens up new avenues for thinking about how human beings encounter God, a dilatation that is both ancient in its roots and radical in its implications, merging the stability of historical theology with the ever-unfolding mystery of the divine gift.
Bibliography
O’Regan, Cyril. “The Return of the Theological in the Thought of Jean‐Luc Marion: A Reading of Givenness and Revelation.” Nova et Vetera 16, no. 3, Summer 2018, pp. 995–1007. https://doi.org/10.1353/nov.2018.0069.
Horner, Robyn. Rethinking God as Gift: Marion, Derrida, and the Limits of Phenomenology. New York: Fordham University Press, 2001.
Marion’s relationality, thus, according to O’Regan and Horner in dialogue, allows one to reconceive the encounter with the divine as a dynamic, asymmetrical interaction in which the human self, firmly anchored in a rich, historically grounded doctrinal tradition, is transformed by an uncontainable, excessive divine gift that defies conventional reciprocal exchange. In this vision, the self is not merely a passive receiver of grace but is actively “stretched” by the overwhelming presence of the divine, as O’Regan emphasizes through his notion of the saturated phenomenon. Simultaneously, Horner’s portrayal of the divine self‐gift highlights its inherent unpredictability and resistance to measurement, suggesting that any attempt to balance or reciprocate it reduces its very essence. Together, these perspectives invite us to see relationality not as a symmetrical, transactional process but as a tension-filled, transformative interplay, one that reorients the self towards God in a way that is both authentic and continually evolving.
