Off and on for the last several years, I have searched and searched in Plato for a quote, culminating in pretty much an all day search today as I'm dotting the jots and crossing the tittles of my philosophy book before publication.
At the beginning of the chapter on Socrates in Sophie's World, Gaarder says that Socrates said, "He who knows what good is will do good." The heading of the section is, "The Right Insight Leads to the Right Action." Of course it's a bunch of bunk--humans are irrational animals far more than rational, in my estimation. But it's a key perspective and an idea a college graduate should have heard of so that they can later forget it.
Well I've done numerous Google searches. I can find these quotes on the web (especially in online study notes over Sophie's World). I even did a Google search in German thinking that some meticulous German would reference the quote. I did indeed find, "Wer weiss, was richtig ist, wird auch das Richtige tun." What I didn't find was a reference.
I did a number of Google searches on the complete works of Plato (who of course is the source for such Socrates quotes). "know good do good" "knowledge" "good" "virtue" "ignorance" ... I looked through the index of my own hardback collection of Plato's complete works.
Indeed, I found several stressed out students (both in English and German) trying to track down this quote, which is the main reason I am making this post... for posterity and the future desperate. And of course inviting thereby some elusive spirit from the ether who might disprove my conclusion.
My conclusion is that Socrates didn't give us a nice quote. These are all fair expressions of what he thought, but he wasn't particularly good at sound bites on this occasion. Here are some statements that come close:
1. "The man who has learned anything becomes in each case such as his knowledge makes him" (Gorgias 460b).
2. "No one voluntarily does wrong, but all who do wrong do so against their own will" (Gorgias 509e, but this is a question-the idea is that if a person truly knows what good is, he or she does it)
3. "Virtue is knowledge" (Meno 87c). This is what I'm going with. The title of my post is a paraphrase, "To know the good is to do the good." The problem is that at this point in the Meno, it is still a matter of debate and it isn't really Socrates' main point. Socrates does believe that knowledge is a guide to right action, but he doesn't believe it is the only guide. His final point is that virtue is ultimately a matter of divine inspiration--the gods give the knowledge or even right opinion that results in virtue.
4. "I never wrong anyone intentionally" (Apology 37a). Again, what is hiding behind this statement is Socrates' belief that all wrongdoing is based on ignorance because knowledge can only lead to right action.
So there you have it. Unless someone corrects me from the ether, there is no silver bullet on a quote here. Yes, this was Socrates' perspective. But he did not give us a nice, crisp quote to tweet.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Good Questions: Jesus have a sin nature?
A friend sent me this question:
QUESTION: "I believe that Christ did not have a sinful nature. I believe he could not have sinned and would not have sinned. I believe he was tempted by Satan as an example to us. Christ would not have been tempted by the things satan had to offer. Those things were all earlthy pleasures and the things man would be tempted with. He only did it for our benefit and to teach us how to withstand temptation... We have several in our church that believe Jesus had a sin nature and that he could have sinned and that he simply chose not to. I think this would be contrary to His nature of Holiness. Christ gave up everything to come to earth except His holiness. Love to hear your thoughts or be pointed to some good material on this topic."
THOUGHTS: I'll start by putting on my Bounds' hat (the imaginary miter I where when I am trying to channel Dr. Chris Bounds and give the "orthodox" answer to a question). I've heard Bounds that Jesus could in theory have sinned but that the very structure of the universe would have fallen apart if he had.
As for my thoughts, I think the problem with the issue is that we have come to think of a sinful nature as something inside of us, something that is removed when we are entirely sanctified. We think of a sinful nature as something that makes us sin. Obviously if this is what a sinful nature is, then Jesus could not have had one.
But there are a couple reasons why this is not a good way of thinking about our "sin nature." First, Paul doesn't actually use any term like "sinful nature" and much to my delight the NIV2011 has gone back to the word that Paul did actually use, namely, "flesh." What we call the "sinful nature" is really human flesh under the power of Sin. To "have a sinful nature" is thus a metaphorical way of saying that a person's flesh is under the power of Sin (which is of course another metaphor but one that is more helpful).
To get even more literal, my human body is susceptible to any number of temptations, which are when something that is "good" on one level becomes a temptation to do "bad" in a specific context. So my temptation to have sex is good in itself, but it would be bad in the context of someone other than my wife.
Did Jesus have a sinful nature? The more accurate question is whether Jesus in his humanness was tempted to act out his desires in inappropriate contexts. That is of course what temptation is and since Jesus was tempted, the answer is yes. How did Adam sin when he didn't have a "sin nature"? He acted out his good desire to excel, grow, to "be all he could be" in relation to an inappropriate object.
So my answer would be, "Yes, Jesus could in theory have sinned, because temptation does not require a sinful nature" and "No, Jesus did not have a sinful nature, because his flesh was not under the power of sin."
QUESTION: "I believe that Christ did not have a sinful nature. I believe he could not have sinned and would not have sinned. I believe he was tempted by Satan as an example to us. Christ would not have been tempted by the things satan had to offer. Those things were all earlthy pleasures and the things man would be tempted with. He only did it for our benefit and to teach us how to withstand temptation... We have several in our church that believe Jesus had a sin nature and that he could have sinned and that he simply chose not to. I think this would be contrary to His nature of Holiness. Christ gave up everything to come to earth except His holiness. Love to hear your thoughts or be pointed to some good material on this topic."
THOUGHTS: I'll start by putting on my Bounds' hat (the imaginary miter I where when I am trying to channel Dr. Chris Bounds and give the "orthodox" answer to a question). I've heard Bounds that Jesus could in theory have sinned but that the very structure of the universe would have fallen apart if he had.
As for my thoughts, I think the problem with the issue is that we have come to think of a sinful nature as something inside of us, something that is removed when we are entirely sanctified. We think of a sinful nature as something that makes us sin. Obviously if this is what a sinful nature is, then Jesus could not have had one.
But there are a couple reasons why this is not a good way of thinking about our "sin nature." First, Paul doesn't actually use any term like "sinful nature" and much to my delight the NIV2011 has gone back to the word that Paul did actually use, namely, "flesh." What we call the "sinful nature" is really human flesh under the power of Sin. To "have a sinful nature" is thus a metaphorical way of saying that a person's flesh is under the power of Sin (which is of course another metaphor but one that is more helpful).
To get even more literal, my human body is susceptible to any number of temptations, which are when something that is "good" on one level becomes a temptation to do "bad" in a specific context. So my temptation to have sex is good in itself, but it would be bad in the context of someone other than my wife.
Did Jesus have a sinful nature? The more accurate question is whether Jesus in his humanness was tempted to act out his desires in inappropriate contexts. That is of course what temptation is and since Jesus was tempted, the answer is yes. How did Adam sin when he didn't have a "sin nature"? He acted out his good desire to excel, grow, to "be all he could be" in relation to an inappropriate object.
So my answer would be, "Yes, Jesus could in theory have sinned, because temptation does not require a sinful nature" and "No, Jesus did not have a sinful nature, because his flesh was not under the power of sin."
Philosophical Paraphrases 1: Socrates
I'm tidying up some paraphrases of philosophers. Here's the first from Plato's Apology, 37-38:
__________
Someone might say, “Surely if you leave the city, Socrates, you can spend the rest of your life in peace, minding your own business.”
It is really hard to make some of you understand my answer to this. If I tell you it would be disobedience to the god to do as you say, and therefore that I cannot mind my own business, you will not believe that I am serious. But if on the other hand I tell you to that the best thing you can do is to discuss virtue daily, along with the other subjects about which you hear me examining myself and others, if I tell you that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are even less likely to believe me.
Yet what I say is true, even if it is not easy to convince you.
__________
Someone might say, “Surely if you leave the city, Socrates, you can spend the rest of your life in peace, minding your own business.”
It is really hard to make some of you understand my answer to this. If I tell you it would be disobedience to the god to do as you say, and therefore that I cannot mind my own business, you will not believe that I am serious. But if on the other hand I tell you to that the best thing you can do is to discuss virtue daily, along with the other subjects about which you hear me examining myself and others, if I tell you that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are even less likely to believe me.
Yet what I say is true, even if it is not easy to convince you.
Restoration (Wes Theo Series)
This weekend I want to finish my sketch of what my outline/overview of a Wesleyan theology looks like. This is not the Wesleyan theology, but one that I think is forward looking. Here's ground that I have covered so far:
1. Faith (Introduction)
2. God
3. Creation and Alienation
4. Revelation
5. Reconciliation
In this second to last post, I look at Restoration.
7.1 Christ's Resurrection
The physical resurrection of Jesus points to the beginning of the end and to the restoration of humanity. In his full humanness, the resurrection body of Jesus points to the what humanity will be in the final resurrection. However, we do not have to wait for the resurrection to see the restoration process begin. Sanctification in its common sense refers to the work that the Spirit is already doing to restore us now, in this age and in this life. We are being transformed from glory to glory now (2 Cor. 3:18).
The resurrection indicates the power of Christ over death and demonic forces in this age, begun in Jesus' own exorcist ministry on earth. "We do not yet see everything under his feet," but the day is coming and the day is begun.
7.2 Second Coming
Christians have continued to believe throughout the centuries that Jesus will still literally return to earth at some point to save those who are his own and to judge the rest of the world. The notion of a rapture, that Christians will be removed from the earth to go to heaven, leaving everyone else behind, is a more recent twist. Biblically, it is more likely that eternity will be on a restored earth and that Christians will participate in the final judgment in some way (cf. 1 Cor. 6:2-3). We meet Jesus in the air to come back down for the final judgment (1 Thess. 4:17). Nevertheless, Wesley believed we would spend eternity in heaven.
7.3 Final Salvation
The salvation of the world is not historically limited to humanity but includes the created realm as well. For humanity, salvation means in the first instance an escape from the judgment coming on the rest of those on earth. Full salvation means the transformed body of the resurrection. For the creation, salvation means restoration from the forces of decay and corruption brought on by the Fall. If one accepts evolution, perhaps one might still look to some transformation of natural law in these areas at this time.
7.4 Final Judgment
Christians have historically believed in some sort of eternal punishment for those who are not in Christ. Traditionally, we have pictured an eternal burning. However, various Christians have seen some of these images as pictures rather than literal understanding. A significant strand sees hell as an eternal place without the presence of God and does not venture to say exactly what that looks like. Another looks to some sort of final annihilation of those who by their own decisions are not redeemable. Finally, some look to universal salvation or hold out the possibility that those in hell might switch destinations even there if they truly repent.
1. Faith (Introduction)
2. God
3. Creation and Alienation
4. Revelation
5. Reconciliation
In this second to last post, I look at Restoration.
7.1 Christ's Resurrection
The physical resurrection of Jesus points to the beginning of the end and to the restoration of humanity. In his full humanness, the resurrection body of Jesus points to the what humanity will be in the final resurrection. However, we do not have to wait for the resurrection to see the restoration process begin. Sanctification in its common sense refers to the work that the Spirit is already doing to restore us now, in this age and in this life. We are being transformed from glory to glory now (2 Cor. 3:18).
The resurrection indicates the power of Christ over death and demonic forces in this age, begun in Jesus' own exorcist ministry on earth. "We do not yet see everything under his feet," but the day is coming and the day is begun.
7.2 Second Coming
Christians have continued to believe throughout the centuries that Jesus will still literally return to earth at some point to save those who are his own and to judge the rest of the world. The notion of a rapture, that Christians will be removed from the earth to go to heaven, leaving everyone else behind, is a more recent twist. Biblically, it is more likely that eternity will be on a restored earth and that Christians will participate in the final judgment in some way (cf. 1 Cor. 6:2-3). We meet Jesus in the air to come back down for the final judgment (1 Thess. 4:17). Nevertheless, Wesley believed we would spend eternity in heaven.
7.3 Final Salvation
The salvation of the world is not historically limited to humanity but includes the created realm as well. For humanity, salvation means in the first instance an escape from the judgment coming on the rest of those on earth. Full salvation means the transformed body of the resurrection. For the creation, salvation means restoration from the forces of decay and corruption brought on by the Fall. If one accepts evolution, perhaps one might still look to some transformation of natural law in these areas at this time.
7.4 Final Judgment
Christians have historically believed in some sort of eternal punishment for those who are not in Christ. Traditionally, we have pictured an eternal burning. However, various Christians have seen some of these images as pictures rather than literal understanding. A significant strand sees hell as an eternal place without the presence of God and does not venture to say exactly what that looks like. Another looks to some sort of final annihilation of those who by their own decisions are not redeemable. Finally, some look to universal salvation or hold out the possibility that those in hell might switch destinations even there if they truly repent.
Wesley Seminary: FAQ
Wesley Seminary at IWU is about to graduate its first cohort of MDIV students. A lot has happened in these first three years. I'm drafting a quick FAQ sheet not so much for potential students--you have your own set of questions--but for other seminaries. Here are some questions I think some other institutions might be asking.
1. What is unique about your program?
In this first stage of our existence as a seminary, we are offering two degrees. The first is an MA in Ministry that we have offered for several decades, with concentrations in Leadership and Youth Ministry. The second is of course the MDIV.
Following the trend of several seminaries, Wesley's MDIV is a 75 hour degree with the possibility of doing two-thirds of the degree online. The curriculum has been carefully and collaboratively designed down to the level of every week to avoid accidental repetition and to ensure that all the desired outcomes of the degree are achieved. Students proceed through the degree together in a cohort and take a (1 credit hour) spiritual formation course every semester alongside a (6 credit hour) course on a key area of ministry. Meanwhile, they take core courses in Bible, theology, and church history, as well as many electives, in an intensive, one week format.
2. What kind of student are you attracting?
While we also attract the usual gamut of typical seminary students, our passion is to bring theological education to the silent majority of ministers in the world who will never darken the door of the traditional seminary. When you consider the tens of thousands of Christian denominations in the world, not to mention the rising dominance of two-thirds world Christianity, it is clear that the traditional model of seminary education is only serving the smallest portion of ministers in the world. In addition, since most denominations do not require seminary education, there are numerous ministers in North America who want to get into ministry immediately and, while not opposed to seminary education, will never move somewhere to study for three years.
Wesley is attracting this silent majority of Christian ministers. We come alongside them in their ministry setting and "learn by doing." On most weeks they do assignments that involve both research on their local ministry setting and strategies for improving their ministries there. Each "praxis" course on a key topic in ministry culminates with an "Application Paper" in which the students set out a multi-year strategy for their ministry in that area, and in the Capstone course they evaluate how well they are doing up to that point.
3. Where's the Bible, theology, church history in your curriculum?
Approximately 24 credit hours of the core requirements, about a third of the MDIV degree, is dedicated to the "foundational" disciplines of Bible, theology, and church history. This fact is often missed because we have woven half of these hours into the 6 large (6 credit hour) ministry courses in mission, leadership, worship, proclamation, congregational formation, and congregational relationships. However, these courses are team taught with a practitioner and an expert in one of the foundational disciplines (Bible, theology, church history). A third of the course (2 credit hours) is devoted to foundational assignments that in some way relate to the ministerial topic of the course.
With the degree now fully designed, it is satisfying to see how these assignments engage students across the whole canon, the whole gamut of systematic theology, and the whole of Christian history. Another key assignment in each of these six courses is what we call the "Integration Paper." In this sequence of assignments throughout the course, students pick a relevant pastoral issue and examine it from the standpoint of biblical theology, theological sources, and church historical precedents. The culmination of the project is a position paper in which they formulate a pastoral response to that issue.
4. Can you do spiritual formation online?
There is a prevailing intuition that spiritual formation cannot be done online. However, these intuitions often are based on a certain picture of online education that would not be true of our program. For example, the cohort model means that students get to know each other over the course of three years incredibly well. Because they start and end their program together onsite--and also come together once a year for two weeks of intensive classes--these cohorts develop close-knit community and take their face-to-face experience of each other with them into the intervening time online.
The courses themselves are sequenced in such a way as to lead students both individually and corporately through a process of change and development. Every other week involves an act of worship of some sort, so that they are growing affectively and spiritually in addition to the usual cognitive fare. If student testimony is any indication, spiritual formation can take place online.
5. How does Asbury feel about you?
The Wesleyan Church has and continues to enjoy a close relationship with Asbury Theological Seminary, which prior to the founding of Wesley was the primary place for Wesleyan ministers to get a seminary education. Asbury continues to serve Wesleyan students faithfully and indeed has a number of Wesleyan professors among its faculty. We anticipate that Asbury will continue to be the favorite seminary for Wesleyan students looking for a strongly residential program in the traditional model.
Accordingly, both Asbury and Wesley have come to recognize that we each focus on a different segment of the ministerial population. Wesley focuses primarily on those who are already in ministry or who want to learn how to do ministry "on the job." Asbury's program targets those who want to prepare for ministry in a setting where they can focus entirely on that preparation in a residential community.
Asbury also favors those who want to approach the foundational disciplines of Bible, theology, and church history for their own sake. While Wesley hopes to serve this group as well, our MDIV favors those who primarily want to study these disciplines with a view to their relevance for ministry. The two institutions thus serve complimentary roles for Wesleyan ministerial students.
1. What is unique about your program?
In this first stage of our existence as a seminary, we are offering two degrees. The first is an MA in Ministry that we have offered for several decades, with concentrations in Leadership and Youth Ministry. The second is of course the MDIV.
Following the trend of several seminaries, Wesley's MDIV is a 75 hour degree with the possibility of doing two-thirds of the degree online. The curriculum has been carefully and collaboratively designed down to the level of every week to avoid accidental repetition and to ensure that all the desired outcomes of the degree are achieved. Students proceed through the degree together in a cohort and take a (1 credit hour) spiritual formation course every semester alongside a (6 credit hour) course on a key area of ministry. Meanwhile, they take core courses in Bible, theology, and church history, as well as many electives, in an intensive, one week format.
2. What kind of student are you attracting?
While we also attract the usual gamut of typical seminary students, our passion is to bring theological education to the silent majority of ministers in the world who will never darken the door of the traditional seminary. When you consider the tens of thousands of Christian denominations in the world, not to mention the rising dominance of two-thirds world Christianity, it is clear that the traditional model of seminary education is only serving the smallest portion of ministers in the world. In addition, since most denominations do not require seminary education, there are numerous ministers in North America who want to get into ministry immediately and, while not opposed to seminary education, will never move somewhere to study for three years.
Wesley is attracting this silent majority of Christian ministers. We come alongside them in their ministry setting and "learn by doing." On most weeks they do assignments that involve both research on their local ministry setting and strategies for improving their ministries there. Each "praxis" course on a key topic in ministry culminates with an "Application Paper" in which the students set out a multi-year strategy for their ministry in that area, and in the Capstone course they evaluate how well they are doing up to that point.
3. Where's the Bible, theology, church history in your curriculum?
Approximately 24 credit hours of the core requirements, about a third of the MDIV degree, is dedicated to the "foundational" disciplines of Bible, theology, and church history. This fact is often missed because we have woven half of these hours into the 6 large (6 credit hour) ministry courses in mission, leadership, worship, proclamation, congregational formation, and congregational relationships. However, these courses are team taught with a practitioner and an expert in one of the foundational disciplines (Bible, theology, church history). A third of the course (2 credit hours) is devoted to foundational assignments that in some way relate to the ministerial topic of the course.
With the degree now fully designed, it is satisfying to see how these assignments engage students across the whole canon, the whole gamut of systematic theology, and the whole of Christian history. Another key assignment in each of these six courses is what we call the "Integration Paper." In this sequence of assignments throughout the course, students pick a relevant pastoral issue and examine it from the standpoint of biblical theology, theological sources, and church historical precedents. The culmination of the project is a position paper in which they formulate a pastoral response to that issue.
4. Can you do spiritual formation online?
There is a prevailing intuition that spiritual formation cannot be done online. However, these intuitions often are based on a certain picture of online education that would not be true of our program. For example, the cohort model means that students get to know each other over the course of three years incredibly well. Because they start and end their program together onsite--and also come together once a year for two weeks of intensive classes--these cohorts develop close-knit community and take their face-to-face experience of each other with them into the intervening time online.
The courses themselves are sequenced in such a way as to lead students both individually and corporately through a process of change and development. Every other week involves an act of worship of some sort, so that they are growing affectively and spiritually in addition to the usual cognitive fare. If student testimony is any indication, spiritual formation can take place online.
5. How does Asbury feel about you?
The Wesleyan Church has and continues to enjoy a close relationship with Asbury Theological Seminary, which prior to the founding of Wesley was the primary place for Wesleyan ministers to get a seminary education. Asbury continues to serve Wesleyan students faithfully and indeed has a number of Wesleyan professors among its faculty. We anticipate that Asbury will continue to be the favorite seminary for Wesleyan students looking for a strongly residential program in the traditional model.
Accordingly, both Asbury and Wesley have come to recognize that we each focus on a different segment of the ministerial population. Wesley focuses primarily on those who are already in ministry or who want to learn how to do ministry "on the job." Asbury's program targets those who want to prepare for ministry in a setting where they can focus entirely on that preparation in a residential community.
Asbury also favors those who want to approach the foundational disciplines of Bible, theology, and church history for their own sake. While Wesley hopes to serve this group as well, our MDIV favors those who primarily want to study these disciplines with a view to their relevance for ministry. The two institutions thus serve complimentary roles for Wesleyan ministerial students.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Christian Purpose of Judgment
Very busy week and no time for a full post. But I thought I would share the outline I'm currently using on how God's love and justice properly fit together. Here's my list.
1. First, God's justice is a function of his love. This is important because the two are usually seen in tension with each other, with justice being the primary. So someone might in effect say, "God finds a way to be loving within the framework of his justice." I disagree. "Mercy triumphs judgment."
2. Many biblical models people latch on to here are "not fully cooked." For example, the high point of Scripture on collective judgment is Ezekiel 18--"The person who sins is the one who will die"... not the people or group of the one who sins. That is not to negate corporate consequences or corporate correction. It is to say, however, that OT thinking that sees an entire people as defiled and worthy of direct punishment because of the sins of a few is incomplete biblical thinking. Any biblical theology of judgment must start with Ezekiel 18 and Jesus as the center point, "clear" scriptures.
Which leads me to the function of judgment as I see it:
1. To redeem the individual so judged.
That is to say, justice and judgment from a Christian standpoint is often intended to form and redirect the individual so judged. It is not for punishment but for training and discipline (Hebrews 12).
2. To protect or redeem a broader group of which an individual is a part.
I thought here of the man in 1 Corinthians 5 who is removed from the Corinthian church for two reasons: to try to drive him to repentance (number 1 above) and to protect the church from his corrupting influence. That is this second function of judgment.
3. As a final act of removal, when a person is not redeemable, with the accompanying terror of complete removal from God's presence.
This is what we call hell.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Psalm 7 Translation
[Shiggayon (attributed) to David, which he sang to YHWH concerning the words of Cush of Benjamin]
7:1 YHWH, my God, in you I have fled;
rescue me from all those pursuing me and deliver me.
2 Lest he tear my soul like a lion,
ripping, and there is no deliverer.
3 YHWH, my God, if I did this,
if there is evil in my hands,
4 If I repaid evil to the one at peace with me
and turned [this person] over to my enemy without cause,
5 [Then] let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake [it],
and trample my life to the ground
and bring my honor down to the dust.
Music
6 Arise, YHWH in your nose [anger];
rise up at the arrogance of my enemies;
and stir up for me the justice you commanded.
7 And [then] the congregation of the peoples will surround you;
and for it, return to the height.
8 YHWH will render judgment [over] peoples;
judge me, YHWH, according to my righteousness,
and according to my innocence over me.
9 Let the evil of the wicked end
and establish the righteous one,
For God, the righteous one,
examines the hearts and bowels.
10 My shield is with God,
who saves the right of heart.
11 God is a righteous judge,
and God is angry every day.
12 If he does not turn,
[God] will sharpen his sword;
[God] has bent his bow and aimed it.
13 And for him he prepared instruments of death;
his arrows he has prepared against those who are burning.
14 Look, [the evil person] has birth pains with evil;
he conceived heavy trouble;
he gave birth to falsehood.
15 He lay open a pit and dug it
and fell into the grave hole he made.
16 His trouble making will return on his [own] head,
and on his [own] scalp his violence will come down.
17 I will praise YHWH according to his righteousness,
and I will sing the name of YHWH most high.
7:1 YHWH, my God, in you I have fled;
rescue me from all those pursuing me and deliver me.
2 Lest he tear my soul like a lion,
ripping, and there is no deliverer.
3 YHWH, my God, if I did this,
if there is evil in my hands,
4 If I repaid evil to the one at peace with me
and turned [this person] over to my enemy without cause,
5 [Then] let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake [it],
and trample my life to the ground
and bring my honor down to the dust.
Music
6 Arise, YHWH in your nose [anger];
rise up at the arrogance of my enemies;
and stir up for me the justice you commanded.
7 And [then] the congregation of the peoples will surround you;
and for it, return to the height.
8 YHWH will render judgment [over] peoples;
judge me, YHWH, according to my righteousness,
and according to my innocence over me.
9 Let the evil of the wicked end
and establish the righteous one,
For God, the righteous one,
examines the hearts and bowels.
10 My shield is with God,
who saves the right of heart.
11 God is a righteous judge,
and God is angry every day.
12 If he does not turn,
[God] will sharpen his sword;
[God] has bent his bow and aimed it.
13 And for him he prepared instruments of death;
his arrows he has prepared against those who are burning.
14 Look, [the evil person] has birth pains with evil;
he conceived heavy trouble;
he gave birth to falsehood.
15 He lay open a pit and dug it
and fell into the grave hole he made.
16 His trouble making will return on his [own] head,
and on his [own] scalp his violence will come down.
17 I will praise YHWH according to his righteousness,
and I will sing the name of YHWH most high.
5.6 Disciples Today
continued from yesterday
_________________
The Great Commission is directed at the eleven disciples. Did Jesus in Matthew mean it to apply to more than just these eleven? After all, Jesus specifically directs his instructions to the eleven in Matthew 28. He does not direct it to the other Jews who followed him around, listening to his teaching. He does not direct it to those who will later believe in him like you and me.
I think there is good reason to think that Matthew wanted his audience to see themselves as part of the Great Commission as well. For one, I suspect that most of the disciples were already dead by the time Matthew was written. If Matthew dates to the time after Jerusalem's destruction, as most experts think, then Peter and James were certainly dead already. Yet Matthew 28:20 says that Jesus will be with the disciples to the end of the age. The implication is that Jesus was still with the audience of Matthew, even if the disciples were passing.
The way that Matthew seems to blur the time before Jesus' death and after his resurrection gives us another reason to believe that Matthew was not written simply to record what Jesus did while he was on earth. It is not simply a history book written out of antiquarian interest but was meant to speak directly to an audience some forty to fifty years later. [1]The "mission sermon" of Matthew 10 seems to address not only the mission of the disciples while Jesus was on earth but the one they would conduct after his death. The way the Pharisees are treated probably speaks not only to Jesus' own interaction with them but to the period in the 70s when they were the primary authority left within Israel.
So if Matthew spoke so strongly to the Jewish Christians of its day, then presumably its climactic mission was also for them as well. Perhaps Matthew still has traces of the expectation that the end would come very soon (e.g., 10:23; 24:34). But it draws an arrow that points beyond the first mission to an ongoing mission that continues today, because it already points beyond the lives of the first disciples.
On the one hand, we have good reason to think that some early Christians saw the mission to all the nations largely finished in the first century. Sometimes Christians have pushed for taking the gospel to unreached people of the earth because of verses like Matthew 24:14: "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." The problem is that we are defining "whole world" on our terms rather than those when Matthew was written. Colossians 1:23 says that the gospel had already been preached "to every creature under heaven" way back in the first century. The "whole world" of that day was largely restricted to the lands surrounding the Mediterranean. [2]
Yet surely the spirit of these statements continues on, not least because the Christians of the first few centuries understood Matthew to be Christian Scripture. When the early Christians came to see Matthew as part of a new canon, a "New Testament," the church was saying through the continued inspiration of the Spirit that these words were not just words for the first century. They were not just words for the time when Jesus was on earth. They were not just historical record. But these words in some way continued to speak to Christians one hundred, two hundred, now two thousand years later.
So without even thinking about it, most of us today understand that we are included in that commission to the eleven disciples. We understand that the Spirit of Christ and the heavenly authority of Christ continue with us today. We understand that we are also in the business today of making disciples of all the nations and teaching them Christ's commandments. [3] We still baptize.
Our world is much bigger than theirs was. We are aware of many more nations to reach with the good news. So while Matthew and Paul may not have had New Guinea in mind, the way we have come to read these passages about the mission fits perfectly with the Spirit of their mission.
What was the good news of the kingdom again? ...
[1] This is an ironic by-product of viewing Matthew in modern historical terms. If we insist on viewing Matthew's primary goal as telling us only about what Jesus did and said for three years while he was on earth, then we have to justify applying it to the church that came afterwards. On the other hand, if Matthew writes a version of Jesus' life that "translates" him for Matthew's audience, then Jesus' words in Matthew transcended his earthly situation from the very start and applied directly to the church that followed.
[2] We are often rather unsophisticated in our ability to handle figurative language in our reading of the Bible. Human language is full of figures of speech, metaphors, hyperbole, and all sorts of idiomatic expressions. What a phrase like "every creature" means depends on how the person using the phrase means it, not on how it strikes me in my "dictionary."
[3] The phrase, "all nations" could also be translated as "all Gentiles." While it is hard to believe that Matthew 28 only has a Gentile mission in mind (surely the eleven were also meant to continue their mission to the Jews), the Great Commission probably did originally have a strong connotation of the mission to Gentiles after Jesus' earthly focus on the Jews.
_________________
The Great Commission is directed at the eleven disciples. Did Jesus in Matthew mean it to apply to more than just these eleven? After all, Jesus specifically directs his instructions to the eleven in Matthew 28. He does not direct it to the other Jews who followed him around, listening to his teaching. He does not direct it to those who will later believe in him like you and me.
I think there is good reason to think that Matthew wanted his audience to see themselves as part of the Great Commission as well. For one, I suspect that most of the disciples were already dead by the time Matthew was written. If Matthew dates to the time after Jerusalem's destruction, as most experts think, then Peter and James were certainly dead already. Yet Matthew 28:20 says that Jesus will be with the disciples to the end of the age. The implication is that Jesus was still with the audience of Matthew, even if the disciples were passing.
The way that Matthew seems to blur the time before Jesus' death and after his resurrection gives us another reason to believe that Matthew was not written simply to record what Jesus did while he was on earth. It is not simply a history book written out of antiquarian interest but was meant to speak directly to an audience some forty to fifty years later. [1]The "mission sermon" of Matthew 10 seems to address not only the mission of the disciples while Jesus was on earth but the one they would conduct after his death. The way the Pharisees are treated probably speaks not only to Jesus' own interaction with them but to the period in the 70s when they were the primary authority left within Israel.
So if Matthew spoke so strongly to the Jewish Christians of its day, then presumably its climactic mission was also for them as well. Perhaps Matthew still has traces of the expectation that the end would come very soon (e.g., 10:23; 24:34). But it draws an arrow that points beyond the first mission to an ongoing mission that continues today, because it already points beyond the lives of the first disciples.
On the one hand, we have good reason to think that some early Christians saw the mission to all the nations largely finished in the first century. Sometimes Christians have pushed for taking the gospel to unreached people of the earth because of verses like Matthew 24:14: "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." The problem is that we are defining "whole world" on our terms rather than those when Matthew was written. Colossians 1:23 says that the gospel had already been preached "to every creature under heaven" way back in the first century. The "whole world" of that day was largely restricted to the lands surrounding the Mediterranean. [2]
Yet surely the spirit of these statements continues on, not least because the Christians of the first few centuries understood Matthew to be Christian Scripture. When the early Christians came to see Matthew as part of a new canon, a "New Testament," the church was saying through the continued inspiration of the Spirit that these words were not just words for the first century. They were not just words for the time when Jesus was on earth. They were not just historical record. But these words in some way continued to speak to Christians one hundred, two hundred, now two thousand years later.
So without even thinking about it, most of us today understand that we are included in that commission to the eleven disciples. We understand that the Spirit of Christ and the heavenly authority of Christ continue with us today. We understand that we are also in the business today of making disciples of all the nations and teaching them Christ's commandments. [3] We still baptize.
Our world is much bigger than theirs was. We are aware of many more nations to reach with the good news. So while Matthew and Paul may not have had New Guinea in mind, the way we have come to read these passages about the mission fits perfectly with the Spirit of their mission.
What was the good news of the kingdom again? ...
[1] This is an ironic by-product of viewing Matthew in modern historical terms. If we insist on viewing Matthew's primary goal as telling us only about what Jesus did and said for three years while he was on earth, then we have to justify applying it to the church that came afterwards. On the other hand, if Matthew writes a version of Jesus' life that "translates" him for Matthew's audience, then Jesus' words in Matthew transcended his earthly situation from the very start and applied directly to the church that followed.
[2] We are often rather unsophisticated in our ability to handle figurative language in our reading of the Bible. Human language is full of figures of speech, metaphors, hyperbole, and all sorts of idiomatic expressions. What a phrase like "every creature" means depends on how the person using the phrase means it, not on how it strikes me in my "dictionary."
[3] The phrase, "all nations" could also be translated as "all Gentiles." While it is hard to believe that Matthew 28 only has a Gentile mission in mind (surely the eleven were also meant to continue their mission to the Jews), the Great Commission probably did originally have a strong connotation of the mission to Gentiles after Jesus' earthly focus on the Jews.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
5.5 The Great Commission
continued from last week
__________
... Unfortunately, the final memory of the mission in Galilee is one in which these villages ultimately rejected Jesus as king.
The ultimate mission for the disciples in Matthew comes of course in the Great Commission in Matthew 28. This is the climax of Matthew's presentation and it points to the continuation of Jesus' mission after he has departed from the earth after his resurrection. We call it a commission because the eleven remaining disciples are sent into all the nations to continue what Jesus has started while he was on earth.
Sometimes you hear people point out that the word "go" is actually a participle in the original Greek: "Having gone" (Matt. 28:19). The emphasis is thus not on going but on making disciples, which is the main verb. Some then argue that going is an assumption rather than a command--in other words, there is no question that they would go. Probably, we shouldn't try make any major point from the word at all. Matthew uses a similar construction elsewhere where there is no emphasis on going (e.g., Matt. 11:4). [1]
So the focus here is not on going but on the eleven "making disciples." The eleven go under the authority of Jesus (28:18). Jesus certainly had authority before his resurrection (e.g., 9:6), but quite possibly Matthew thinks of Jesus now gaining all authority and not only on earth but in heaven now as well. He has been enthroned as cosmic king and thus all must now "bow the knee" and worship him (28:16). They carry his authority with them in part because he will be with them to the end of the age (28:20).
How are they to make further disciples? First, they are to baptize wherever they go. This is presumably a baptism associated with repentance, a physical cleansing that represented the spiritual cleansing and forgiveness of sins. Interestingly, Matthew speaks of baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This may reflect the extent to which Christian understanding had developed by the time of Matthew's writing, probably after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. [2] Acts (e.g., 2:38) and probably Paul (1 Cor. 1:13) baptized in the name of Jesus and probably reflect the earliest sense of baptism.
The second element of discipling that the Great Commission mentions is teaching future Jesus followers to do the things that Jesus commanded. Jesus' love commandment in Matthew 22:37-40 is of course the very heart of what Jesus commanded while he was on earth. He boiled all his teaching down to love of God and love of neighbor. In the next chapter, we'll also look at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, arguably the central presentation of Jesus' teaching in Matthew.
The Great Commission is directed at the eleven disciples. Did Jesus in Matthew mean it to apply to more than just these eleven? ...
[1] Probably, "go and make disciples" is the best translation, since a participle can be used as a light command when associated with another central command.
[2] The reason Matthew probably dates to the time after the destruction of Jerusalem is at least two-fold. First, there is the likelihood that Matthew used Mark, which would place it later. But more centrally, there is the way Matthew may have edited the parable about a banquet. Compare Matthew 22:7 with Luke 14:15-23.
__________
... Unfortunately, the final memory of the mission in Galilee is one in which these villages ultimately rejected Jesus as king.
The ultimate mission for the disciples in Matthew comes of course in the Great Commission in Matthew 28. This is the climax of Matthew's presentation and it points to the continuation of Jesus' mission after he has departed from the earth after his resurrection. We call it a commission because the eleven remaining disciples are sent into all the nations to continue what Jesus has started while he was on earth.
Sometimes you hear people point out that the word "go" is actually a participle in the original Greek: "Having gone" (Matt. 28:19). The emphasis is thus not on going but on making disciples, which is the main verb. Some then argue that going is an assumption rather than a command--in other words, there is no question that they would go. Probably, we shouldn't try make any major point from the word at all. Matthew uses a similar construction elsewhere where there is no emphasis on going (e.g., Matt. 11:4). [1]
So the focus here is not on going but on the eleven "making disciples." The eleven go under the authority of Jesus (28:18). Jesus certainly had authority before his resurrection (e.g., 9:6), but quite possibly Matthew thinks of Jesus now gaining all authority and not only on earth but in heaven now as well. He has been enthroned as cosmic king and thus all must now "bow the knee" and worship him (28:16). They carry his authority with them in part because he will be with them to the end of the age (28:20).
How are they to make further disciples? First, they are to baptize wherever they go. This is presumably a baptism associated with repentance, a physical cleansing that represented the spiritual cleansing and forgiveness of sins. Interestingly, Matthew speaks of baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This may reflect the extent to which Christian understanding had developed by the time of Matthew's writing, probably after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. [2] Acts (e.g., 2:38) and probably Paul (1 Cor. 1:13) baptized in the name of Jesus and probably reflect the earliest sense of baptism.
The second element of discipling that the Great Commission mentions is teaching future Jesus followers to do the things that Jesus commanded. Jesus' love commandment in Matthew 22:37-40 is of course the very heart of what Jesus commanded while he was on earth. He boiled all his teaching down to love of God and love of neighbor. In the next chapter, we'll also look at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, arguably the central presentation of Jesus' teaching in Matthew.
The Great Commission is directed at the eleven disciples. Did Jesus in Matthew mean it to apply to more than just these eleven? ...
[1] Probably, "go and make disciples" is the best translation, since a participle can be used as a light command when associated with another central command.
[2] The reason Matthew probably dates to the time after the destruction of Jerusalem is at least two-fold. First, there is the likelihood that Matthew used Mark, which would place it later. But more centrally, there is the way Matthew may have edited the parable about a banquet. Compare Matthew 22:7 with Luke 14:15-23.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Reconciliation (Wes Theo Series)
Outline/overview of Wesleyan theology. More detailed posts:
1. Faith (Introduction)
2. God
3. Creation and Alienation
4. Revelation
5.1 Incarnation
Christians have long viewed Christ taking on flesh as the first step in the reconciliation of the world. God becomes one of us. He not only comes to us. He identifies with us. He assumes our situation and our problem, to some extent. He is tempted as us. His earthly life is part of the reconciliation.
5.2 Christ's Death
Christians of the ages have used a number of pictures to describe how Christ's death serves as a mechanism for our reconciliation. Christ's death satisfies God's anger toward sin or satisfies the need for justice and order in the world. It is an atoning sacrifice. Christ takes our punishment and substitutes for us. Christ shows us God's love and thus woos us back to him. Christ redeems us from slavery or defeats the power of Satan over us.
These are all pictures of atonement and Wesleyans can ascribe to all of them. The Wesleyan emphasis on God as love, however, sometimes shifts the focus. So Wesleyans often resist rigid views of penal substitution, where some mathematical sense of punishment had to be assumed for it to work. A Wesleyan may lean toward seeing Christ's death ultimately as a matter of God's choice in reconciliation rather than some inevitable path he would have to take. Would not God have the authority to forgive us outright if he wanted?
A Wesleyan might see the picture of God's wrath as one of the least literal of the pictures, though one with which we may most identify. Anger involves emotion and emotion involves new stimulus, but God knows all things equally from all eternity. A fuller picture is of God's love in action. We understand and identify with sacrifice for us. There is a certain order to things that Christ's death embodies. We are enslaved and we understand the defeat of our enslaver.
5.3 The Spirit and the Church
Christ's presence in the world continues through the Spirit and the Church. The Spirit inside us marks us as God's possession and empowers us to live reconciled lives. We are a new creation. We are an island of heaven in a fallen world.
God also uses his Church as a means of reconciliation. The invisible Church consists of all those with the Spirit in all times and all places, despite what visible Church they may attend. But the Church is also physical, visible entity that gathers together to proclaim God's word and participate in means of grace. Baptism is the image of entrance into the Church, although the Spirit is the more important threshold. Communion is the image of atonement, reminding and catalyzing our continued reconciliation with God.
5.4 Justification and Sanctification
Protestants think of justification as our legal acquittal of the charges against us for our past sins. Through Christ, all charges are dropped against us. Sanctification then positively empowers us to do what is right. Wesley largely adopted Luther's understanding of (initial) justification. A difference comes in his sense of final justification.
For Wesley, final justification is dependent on a continued relationship with God that manifests itself in right living. Lutherans fear such talk, because it seems to give too much importance to "works" in the equation of justification. Calvinists agree with Wesley that works must follow, but see no element of human will involved in the process and affirm the persistence of the elect from beginning to end.
Wesleyans do not believe in "eternal security" but see right relationship with God as breakable. A person must continue in faithfulness to that relationship after initial justification.
Calvinists and Wesleyans also disagree on the extent to which God makes us righteous in this life. Wesley even taught a crisis experience where one was freed from the power of sin, to be able to love God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength. Wesleyans do not believe that the fight against sin in this life must always be a struggle, and especially not a losing struggle.
5.5 Society
Wesleyans have historically been activists for change in society where possible. An emphasis on helping those in need has been core to Wesleyan identity since Wesley himself. Many in the Wesleyan tradition were strong supporters of abolition and women's rights. Today, the best Wesleyan voices speak out against those who would intentionally or unintentionally oppress the disempowered of society. Even when someone has done wrong, the best Wesleyan attitude is one that looks to redemption and insists on love as the primary value.
5.6 Creation
A view of reconciliation that does not include the entire cosmos is an incomplete view. The best Wesleyan voices will be conscious of God's creation and strive to be good stewards of it. Paul says that the creation too is enslaved to sin and slated for redemption. It is the Wesleyan way to be optimistic about how much redemption we can see now on every level, without waiting for Christ's return.
1. Faith (Introduction)
2. God
3. Creation and Alienation
4. Revelation
5.1 Incarnation
Christians have long viewed Christ taking on flesh as the first step in the reconciliation of the world. God becomes one of us. He not only comes to us. He identifies with us. He assumes our situation and our problem, to some extent. He is tempted as us. His earthly life is part of the reconciliation.
5.2 Christ's Death
Christians of the ages have used a number of pictures to describe how Christ's death serves as a mechanism for our reconciliation. Christ's death satisfies God's anger toward sin or satisfies the need for justice and order in the world. It is an atoning sacrifice. Christ takes our punishment and substitutes for us. Christ shows us God's love and thus woos us back to him. Christ redeems us from slavery or defeats the power of Satan over us.
These are all pictures of atonement and Wesleyans can ascribe to all of them. The Wesleyan emphasis on God as love, however, sometimes shifts the focus. So Wesleyans often resist rigid views of penal substitution, where some mathematical sense of punishment had to be assumed for it to work. A Wesleyan may lean toward seeing Christ's death ultimately as a matter of God's choice in reconciliation rather than some inevitable path he would have to take. Would not God have the authority to forgive us outright if he wanted?
A Wesleyan might see the picture of God's wrath as one of the least literal of the pictures, though one with which we may most identify. Anger involves emotion and emotion involves new stimulus, but God knows all things equally from all eternity. A fuller picture is of God's love in action. We understand and identify with sacrifice for us. There is a certain order to things that Christ's death embodies. We are enslaved and we understand the defeat of our enslaver.
5.3 The Spirit and the Church
Christ's presence in the world continues through the Spirit and the Church. The Spirit inside us marks us as God's possession and empowers us to live reconciled lives. We are a new creation. We are an island of heaven in a fallen world.
God also uses his Church as a means of reconciliation. The invisible Church consists of all those with the Spirit in all times and all places, despite what visible Church they may attend. But the Church is also physical, visible entity that gathers together to proclaim God's word and participate in means of grace. Baptism is the image of entrance into the Church, although the Spirit is the more important threshold. Communion is the image of atonement, reminding and catalyzing our continued reconciliation with God.
5.4 Justification and Sanctification
Protestants think of justification as our legal acquittal of the charges against us for our past sins. Through Christ, all charges are dropped against us. Sanctification then positively empowers us to do what is right. Wesley largely adopted Luther's understanding of (initial) justification. A difference comes in his sense of final justification.
For Wesley, final justification is dependent on a continued relationship with God that manifests itself in right living. Lutherans fear such talk, because it seems to give too much importance to "works" in the equation of justification. Calvinists agree with Wesley that works must follow, but see no element of human will involved in the process and affirm the persistence of the elect from beginning to end.
Wesleyans do not believe in "eternal security" but see right relationship with God as breakable. A person must continue in faithfulness to that relationship after initial justification.
Calvinists and Wesleyans also disagree on the extent to which God makes us righteous in this life. Wesley even taught a crisis experience where one was freed from the power of sin, to be able to love God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength. Wesleyans do not believe that the fight against sin in this life must always be a struggle, and especially not a losing struggle.
5.5 Society
Wesleyans have historically been activists for change in society where possible. An emphasis on helping those in need has been core to Wesleyan identity since Wesley himself. Many in the Wesleyan tradition were strong supporters of abolition and women's rights. Today, the best Wesleyan voices speak out against those who would intentionally or unintentionally oppress the disempowered of society. Even when someone has done wrong, the best Wesleyan attitude is one that looks to redemption and insists on love as the primary value.
5.6 Creation
A view of reconciliation that does not include the entire cosmos is an incomplete view. The best Wesleyan voices will be conscious of God's creation and strive to be good stewards of it. Paul says that the creation too is enslaved to sin and slated for redemption. It is the Wesleyan way to be optimistic about how much redemption we can see now on every level, without waiting for Christ's return.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Revelation (Wes. Theo. series)
For the last few weekends, I've been spinning out what kinds of things I might write if I did a small book overviewing Wesleyan theology. The brainstorms I've done include:
Faith (Introduction)
God
Creation and Alienation
There is so much of me in these posts that it really should be called a Wesleyan theology rather than anything like an overview from a historical perspective. It seems to me the last two hundred years push us to broaden our consideration, not least because we now have a better understanding of how to read the biblical texts on their own terms. A re-presentation seems necessary to speak with full power to today, and a mere repetition of historical categories seems two dimensional to me.
Today's overview is Revelation.
4.1 Natural Grace
John Calvin had a sense of grace built into nature, and I personally believe it is healthy for us to believe that there is a great deal of goodness in nature still that remains an embodiment of God's love for us. The Stoics spoke of "logos seeds" in all of us, which some parts of the New Testament call "the implanted word" (e.g., James 1:21). These are bits of the truth of God's will in all of us. Perhaps we want to call this "natural revelation," elements of the creation that point to God.
Dare we believe that God reaches out to the non-human parts of his creation as well, both in salvation and in goodness?
4.2 Prevenient Grace
Wesley and Wesleyans have traditionally gone one step forward to speak of God's prevenient grace, his "lightening" of everyone who comes into the world (cf. John 1:9). In my opinion, the most coherent Wesleyan theology today will believe that God reaches out to everyone who ever lives in this world. This is a reaching out not with the head, since clearly most of those who have lived on the earth have never heard of Christ. It is a reaching out with the heart.
Similarly, the response God is looking for is surely not a response with the head, some hollow assent to certain beliefs, but an assent with the heart. But that is for tomorrow.
4.3 Israel
Christians believe that God reached out to humanity through a people. Surely he must have been reaching out to humanity long before Abraham. Egyptian culture had flourished for well over a 1000 years before then. Even by Bishop Ussher's standards, humanity had lived for over 2000 years before then, and science would say a massively greater time than this. From Abraham to the Christian age, the overwhelming majority of the world knew nothing of Israel's faith.
So once more we must either believe that God cared nothing for these poor souls or that he was reaching out to their hearts long before he came with matters of the head. Christians believe that his coming to Israel was the beginning of a coming with the head. But even here, he reveals by building a relationship with a people. He meets them where they are at.
It is not a full revelation of himself. He meets them with their understanding. A fuller truth is "concealed" or, better, it is partial. He lets them do things that are not his perfect will. Jesus includes divorce in this category. I would include the attempted annihilation of whole peoples in Canaan.
4.4 Scripture
The texts that we now call Scripture accumulated over a 1000 year period or so. So we once again see that God's revelation is vastly larger than these written texts. But these written texts are the fullest witness of the head to God and his relationship with his creation. They give us the story of God's focal reaching out to the world through Israel and then ultimately, through Christ. They are the playing field on which Christians wrestle together to find God's will, to work out our salvation together with fear and trembling.
4.5 Christ as Revelation
The Word of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:14). No other word compares to the fullness of God's reaching out to reveal himself, and any confusion on that matter bespeaks a tendency to idolatry. It is in Jesus Christ that God has most fully revealed himself, once again showing that reaching out in relationship and not knowledge is the center of revelation.
4.6 The Spirit and the Church
God has not stopped revealing himself. New issues arise. Further, the Christians of the first centuries systematized their understanding of Scripture in the time after Christ. If we are to believe the historic doctrines of Christian faith and accept the canon of Christian Scripture, we must believe that God continued to reveal himself to them even after the time of the New Testament.
The tension between the pneumatic and the traditional in knowing and doing God's will remains present with us today. Surely God still speaks to individuals through the Spirit. Yet much individual revelation is none of the sort, and traditional structures help sift through such matters. This tension is already present within the witness of the New Testament in the contrast between the prophets of the early church and structures that included overseers and deacons.
Faith (Introduction)
God
Creation and Alienation
There is so much of me in these posts that it really should be called a Wesleyan theology rather than anything like an overview from a historical perspective. It seems to me the last two hundred years push us to broaden our consideration, not least because we now have a better understanding of how to read the biblical texts on their own terms. A re-presentation seems necessary to speak with full power to today, and a mere repetition of historical categories seems two dimensional to me.
Today's overview is Revelation.
4.1 Natural Grace
John Calvin had a sense of grace built into nature, and I personally believe it is healthy for us to believe that there is a great deal of goodness in nature still that remains an embodiment of God's love for us. The Stoics spoke of "logos seeds" in all of us, which some parts of the New Testament call "the implanted word" (e.g., James 1:21). These are bits of the truth of God's will in all of us. Perhaps we want to call this "natural revelation," elements of the creation that point to God.
Dare we believe that God reaches out to the non-human parts of his creation as well, both in salvation and in goodness?
4.2 Prevenient Grace
Wesley and Wesleyans have traditionally gone one step forward to speak of God's prevenient grace, his "lightening" of everyone who comes into the world (cf. John 1:9). In my opinion, the most coherent Wesleyan theology today will believe that God reaches out to everyone who ever lives in this world. This is a reaching out not with the head, since clearly most of those who have lived on the earth have never heard of Christ. It is a reaching out with the heart.
Similarly, the response God is looking for is surely not a response with the head, some hollow assent to certain beliefs, but an assent with the heart. But that is for tomorrow.
4.3 Israel
Christians believe that God reached out to humanity through a people. Surely he must have been reaching out to humanity long before Abraham. Egyptian culture had flourished for well over a 1000 years before then. Even by Bishop Ussher's standards, humanity had lived for over 2000 years before then, and science would say a massively greater time than this. From Abraham to the Christian age, the overwhelming majority of the world knew nothing of Israel's faith.
So once more we must either believe that God cared nothing for these poor souls or that he was reaching out to their hearts long before he came with matters of the head. Christians believe that his coming to Israel was the beginning of a coming with the head. But even here, he reveals by building a relationship with a people. He meets them where they are at.
It is not a full revelation of himself. He meets them with their understanding. A fuller truth is "concealed" or, better, it is partial. He lets them do things that are not his perfect will. Jesus includes divorce in this category. I would include the attempted annihilation of whole peoples in Canaan.
4.4 Scripture
The texts that we now call Scripture accumulated over a 1000 year period or so. So we once again see that God's revelation is vastly larger than these written texts. But these written texts are the fullest witness of the head to God and his relationship with his creation. They give us the story of God's focal reaching out to the world through Israel and then ultimately, through Christ. They are the playing field on which Christians wrestle together to find God's will, to work out our salvation together with fear and trembling.
4.5 Christ as Revelation
The Word of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:14). No other word compares to the fullness of God's reaching out to reveal himself, and any confusion on that matter bespeaks a tendency to idolatry. It is in Jesus Christ that God has most fully revealed himself, once again showing that reaching out in relationship and not knowledge is the center of revelation.
4.6 The Spirit and the Church
God has not stopped revealing himself. New issues arise. Further, the Christians of the first centuries systematized their understanding of Scripture in the time after Christ. If we are to believe the historic doctrines of Christian faith and accept the canon of Christian Scripture, we must believe that God continued to reveal himself to them even after the time of the New Testament.
The tension between the pneumatic and the traditional in knowing and doing God's will remains present with us today. Surely God still speaks to individuals through the Spirit. Yet much individual revelation is none of the sort, and traditional structures help sift through such matters. This tension is already present within the witness of the New Testament in the contrast between the prophets of the early church and structures that included overseers and deacons.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Manuscripts and rumors of manuscripts...
I haven't had much to say about the buzz around the bibliosphere about rumored fragments. The two most rumored are:
1. A fragment of Romans, reputed to be from the second century, which would make it the oldest fragment of Romans yet. It's initial dating may have been done by Scott Carroll who is with the Green collection. The Green collection has connections with Baylor, IWU, and others.
2. A fragment of Mark, alleged to date to the first century. The source of this rumor is some comments by Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary. Dan has said:
There's nothing impossible about finding second century manuscripts of Paul or Hebrews. It's also not impossible that someone would find a first century fragment of Mark, although I'll wait to see on that one. Whatever date ends up being ascribed--and manuscripts from this period can only be dated to within a 50 year window--I doubt anyone will be forced to change their dating of Mark.
So it's exciting because these fragments would be so early and so close to the time of writing. Let's just enjoy them, whatever they turn out to be in a year or so, early or late, authentic or hype.
1. A fragment of Romans, reputed to be from the second century, which would make it the oldest fragment of Romans yet. It's initial dating may have been done by Scott Carroll who is with the Green collection. The Green collection has connections with Baylor, IWU, and others.
2. A fragment of Mark, alleged to date to the first century. The source of this rumor is some comments by Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary. Dan has said:
- A top paleographer is working on the dating of the Mark fragment.
- The collection includes 1) small fragment of Mark, 2) something from Luke, 3) three from Paul, 4) an early sermon on Hebrews 11. The Paul and Hebrews one are apparently being dated to the second century.
There's nothing impossible about finding second century manuscripts of Paul or Hebrews. It's also not impossible that someone would find a first century fragment of Mark, although I'll wait to see on that one. Whatever date ends up being ascribed--and manuscripts from this period can only be dated to within a 50 year window--I doubt anyone will be forced to change their dating of Mark.
So it's exciting because these fragments would be so early and so close to the time of writing. Let's just enjoy them, whatever they turn out to be in a year or so, early or late, authentic or hype.
Roger Olsen on Piper as usual...
I think most are probably glad that I've become tired of responding to things like Piper's recent post on the tornadoes in Kentucky and southern Indiana. Pretty much everyone knows what I think, and I've said it all before.
But here's what Roger Olsen has to say:
My response to John Piper’s Recent Statements about God and Tornadoes
But here's what Roger Olsen has to say:
My response to John Piper’s Recent Statements about God and Tornadoes
An Evangelical and Critical Approach to the Gospels (by Michael Bird)
Might Mike Bird's approach be a step toward maturation for my circles? Here is yet another example of, in my opinion, how evangelical biblical scholarship overseas is more mature than what we find in ETS in America.
An Evangelical and Critical Approach to the Gospels
An Evangelical and Critical Approach to the Gospels
Scripture necessary for sermons?
It occurred to me that Paul uses no Scripture in the Acts 17 sermon to the Athenians. He does, however, quote a Stoic poet. Similarly, 1 Thessalonians, which probably was read as a sermon, quotes no Scripture either.
What are some possible reactions to these instances?
1. Paul and the author of Acts were inspired, you're not.
Fair enough. You can probably hammer a nail with a crowbar, but why not use a hammer?
2. This shows that the word of God is more than just the written text.
I don't see how anyone can even question this. The truths contained in Scripture can surely be presented in a different form than they appear in the biblical text.
3. It's dangerous to preach too much from what you think the truth is without referencing Scripture.
In other words, is repeated "topical" preaching without recourse to Scripture just begging for trouble at some point? Do you almost doom yourself at some point to substitute your thoughts for God's? Of course, I would say we substitute our own thoughts for God's even when we're using the text.
But what are your thoughts?
What are some possible reactions to these instances?
1. Paul and the author of Acts were inspired, you're not.
Fair enough. You can probably hammer a nail with a crowbar, but why not use a hammer?
2. This shows that the word of God is more than just the written text.
I don't see how anyone can even question this. The truths contained in Scripture can surely be presented in a different form than they appear in the biblical text.
3. It's dangerous to preach too much from what you think the truth is without referencing Scripture.
In other words, is repeated "topical" preaching without recourse to Scripture just begging for trouble at some point? Do you almost doom yourself at some point to substitute your thoughts for God's? Of course, I would say we substitute our own thoughts for God's even when we're using the text.
But what are your thoughts?
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
5.4 Mission within a Mission
... continued from Monday
____________
From these observations in Mark, probably the earliest gospel, we conclude that the bulk of Jesus' message and proclamation of the good news was not about him. It was about what God the Father was doing. It was about the kingdom of God, as I argued back in chapter 2.
At one point, Jesus seems to have sent his core disciples out to spread the word as well. In Mark 6:12-13, they go out preaching that people needed to repent, as well as healing and casting out demons. In other words, their ministry mirrored that of Jesus. They were spreading the word that God was soon coming in judgment of the world and the faithless within Israel. God was reclaiming the earth from demonic powers. God was restoring the lost sheep among his people.
Jesus instructs them not to take food or a bag for begging (6:8-9). The villages to which they preach are to support them but they are to take nothing extra away. They take sandals to protect their feet and a staff for protection, but not an extra shirt. Their visit to a village was a test of that village's faith. It was the duty of the village to welcome and support the disciple and, if it would not, the disciples were to "shake the dust off" their feet and move on (6:11).
Matthew's version does not actually tell of them going out and arguably blurs the mission the disciples went on during Jesus' earthly mission with the mission after Jesus rose from the dead. On the one hand, they are only to go to the cities of Israel. They are not to go either to Samaria or the Gentiles (10:5). They are going only to the "lost sheep of Israel" (10:5). Because the Great Commission clearly involves all the nations (28:19), these instructions surely relate to the time while Jesus was still on earth.
Other parts of the instruction seem to relate to the time after Jesus' resurrection. It does not seem likely that any of the disciples were handed over to local councils or synagogues while Jesus was on earth (10:17). And they did not appear before Roman governors and kings until decades later (10:18). The coming of the Son of Man before the end of their mission is puzzling (10:23), but reminds us of statements we find in Mark 9:1, 13:30 and elsewhere that speak of the kingdom coming in some way before the disciples' death.
The statement of taking up their cross also would have been quite puzzling before Jesus' death but would have been deeply appropriate afterwards. Matthew 10 thus seems to combine instructions both appropriate to the initial mission of the disciples during Jesus' earthly ministry and instructions that apply to the decades after Jesus' rising from the dead.
Luke remembers the mission of the disciples having some success. Luke 10:1-24 tells of a slightly different mission, a mission involving 72. The number 72 was probably symbolic of the nations and so hints of the mission to the whole world that would take place after Jesus' resurrection. But during Jesus' life, the disciples are amazed that the demons even have to obey them (10:17). Jesus tells them that this fact points to the demise of Satan's power over this world. He was falling from the sky like lightning (10:18).
Mark remembers the disciples having some failures. They are unable to cast out one demon in particular in Mark 9:18. Jesus indicts them for a lack of faith.
If the mission instructions of Jesus in Matthew 10 seem to blur the mission both before and after Jesus' resurrection, it is possible that the gospels also blur the rejection of the cities where that mission was carried out. The tone of Jesus' approach to Jerusalem is victorious. He enters Jerusalem to a crowd that celebrates him as king.
But the memory of the cities around Galilee is one of rejection. "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes" (Matt. 11:21). Similarly, Jesus says of Capernaum, "Will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades" (11:23). Unfortunately, the final memory of the mission in Galilee is one in which these villages ultimately rejected Jesus as king.
____________
From these observations in Mark, probably the earliest gospel, we conclude that the bulk of Jesus' message and proclamation of the good news was not about him. It was about what God the Father was doing. It was about the kingdom of God, as I argued back in chapter 2.
At one point, Jesus seems to have sent his core disciples out to spread the word as well. In Mark 6:12-13, they go out preaching that people needed to repent, as well as healing and casting out demons. In other words, their ministry mirrored that of Jesus. They were spreading the word that God was soon coming in judgment of the world and the faithless within Israel. God was reclaiming the earth from demonic powers. God was restoring the lost sheep among his people.
Jesus instructs them not to take food or a bag for begging (6:8-9). The villages to which they preach are to support them but they are to take nothing extra away. They take sandals to protect their feet and a staff for protection, but not an extra shirt. Their visit to a village was a test of that village's faith. It was the duty of the village to welcome and support the disciple and, if it would not, the disciples were to "shake the dust off" their feet and move on (6:11).
Matthew's version does not actually tell of them going out and arguably blurs the mission the disciples went on during Jesus' earthly mission with the mission after Jesus rose from the dead. On the one hand, they are only to go to the cities of Israel. They are not to go either to Samaria or the Gentiles (10:5). They are going only to the "lost sheep of Israel" (10:5). Because the Great Commission clearly involves all the nations (28:19), these instructions surely relate to the time while Jesus was still on earth.
Other parts of the instruction seem to relate to the time after Jesus' resurrection. It does not seem likely that any of the disciples were handed over to local councils or synagogues while Jesus was on earth (10:17). And they did not appear before Roman governors and kings until decades later (10:18). The coming of the Son of Man before the end of their mission is puzzling (10:23), but reminds us of statements we find in Mark 9:1, 13:30 and elsewhere that speak of the kingdom coming in some way before the disciples' death.
The statement of taking up their cross also would have been quite puzzling before Jesus' death but would have been deeply appropriate afterwards. Matthew 10 thus seems to combine instructions both appropriate to the initial mission of the disciples during Jesus' earthly ministry and instructions that apply to the decades after Jesus' rising from the dead.
Luke remembers the mission of the disciples having some success. Luke 10:1-24 tells of a slightly different mission, a mission involving 72. The number 72 was probably symbolic of the nations and so hints of the mission to the whole world that would take place after Jesus' resurrection. But during Jesus' life, the disciples are amazed that the demons even have to obey them (10:17). Jesus tells them that this fact points to the demise of Satan's power over this world. He was falling from the sky like lightning (10:18).
Mark remembers the disciples having some failures. They are unable to cast out one demon in particular in Mark 9:18. Jesus indicts them for a lack of faith.
If the mission instructions of Jesus in Matthew 10 seem to blur the mission both before and after Jesus' resurrection, it is possible that the gospels also blur the rejection of the cities where that mission was carried out. The tone of Jesus' approach to Jerusalem is victorious. He enters Jerusalem to a crowd that celebrates him as king.
But the memory of the cities around Galilee is one of rejection. "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes" (Matt. 11:21). Similarly, Jesus says of Capernaum, "Will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades" (11:23). Unfortunately, the final memory of the mission in Galilee is one in which these villages ultimately rejected Jesus as king.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Yoder's Politics of Jesus
I skipped through Yoder's famous book today and have been discussing it in broad strokes in a couple classes. Many who come across this post may know much more about Yoder's thinking than I so I welcome refinement and correction.
I would summarize Yoder as follows. God is the one who fights for us; followers of Jesus do not fight for themselves, especially not through violence. Violence is never appropriate for a Jesus-follower. The structures of the world, the powers of the world, are usually full of evil. Our task as Christians is not to fight against the worldly powers but to give a witness by our voluntary submission to the hierarchies of a fallen world.
Yoder answers a number of objections to using the model of Jesus as a model for us to follow. He of course also argues for a certain model of Jesus (thus Jesus didn't use his whip against the money changers but to drive the animals out of the temple).
But what do you think?
I would summarize Yoder as follows. God is the one who fights for us; followers of Jesus do not fight for themselves, especially not through violence. Violence is never appropriate for a Jesus-follower. The structures of the world, the powers of the world, are usually full of evil. Our task as Christians is not to fight against the worldly powers but to give a witness by our voluntary submission to the hierarchies of a fallen world.
Yoder answers a number of objections to using the model of Jesus as a model for us to follow. He of course also argues for a certain model of Jesus (thus Jesus didn't use his whip against the money changers but to drive the animals out of the temple).
- The objection that Jesus' ethic was limited to his years on earth, an "interim" ethic before a kingdom that was going to come in force later.
- The objection that Jesus' model was for a situation in which it was not conceivable to change the system.
- The objection that Jesus only provides a model for individual response, not for government, which more appropriately turns to God the Father as a model.
- I accept the basic principles of Just War theory laid out by Augustine.
- I believe that Jesus' earthly ministry was phase one and that in the second coming phase he will not be so meek and mild
- I do believe we should work for change more vigorously and engagedly with worldly powers when we can, although not usually with violence (I support Bonhoeffer's deviation in regard to Hitler). I do accept reasonable force to protect the lives of others and, in some cases, in self-defense.
- I do think that God the Father provides a better model for governance and justice rather than Jesus when he was on earth.
But what do you think?
Monday, March 05, 2012
5.3 Disciples Don't Get It
... continued from Friday
_____________
We have some significant clues that there was somewhat of a disconnect between the expectations of Jesus' disciples and followers and how things actually played out. For example, the Synoptic Gospels show us that Jesus' audiences expected the kingdom to come almost right away. They believed that Jesus' earthly ministry would culminate right then in his earthly kingship and the restoration of Israel (e.g., Acts 1:6). So Jesus' disciples probably did not know at first that they would live out the rest of their lives on the mission without Jesus on earth. Mark shows them repeatedly asking Jesus about their roles in the coming kingdom with no sense at all that Jesus was about to die.
First, it is apparently not until the end of Jesus' earthly ministry that his identity as messiah comes out into the open with his disciples. It seems to be just before Jesus finally heads for Jerusalem that Jesus really raises with them the question of his identity and his explicit role in the kingdom (Mark 8:27-33). It is at this point that Peter for the first time confesses openly what he no doubt had suspected for a long time, that Jesus is the messiah.
Jesus agrees with them. He is the "anointed one," the messiah--"christos in Greek." To everyone's ears, this means he will become king and will rule over Israel.
But then Jesus shocks them. He is going to Jerusalem to die (Mark 8:31). Peter immediately rejects this suggestion. That's not what the "anointed one" does, Peter is thinking. The messiah doesn't die; he becomes king. Peter has no sense of Jesus' impending death, let alone a two thousand year lag in time between Jesus' earthly ministry and the coming kingdom on earth.
Two more times in Mark Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to die amid their complete lack of understanding. Just after Jesus tells them a second time that he is going to die, they argue over who will have the most prominent role in the coming restored kingdom of Israel (Mark 9:34). This happens even a third time. Jesus tells them what is coming and immediately thereafter, James and John ask Jesus for the most prominent seats next to Jesus in his coming kingdom on earth (Mark 10:35-40).
It seems a fair enough conclusion that the disciples might have thought Jesus' triumphal entry to Jerusalem was going to be the beginning of his rule on earth. Peter's denials were surely more about his complete confusion than any cowardice on his part. He was probably ready to fight for Jesus, just not prepared for Jesus to surrender himself and be arrested. They apparently did not expect Jesus to die.
His resurrection also seems to have taken them by surprise. The women at the tomb are so flustered and confused by the absence of his body, they don't tell anyone at first (Mark 16:8). And once the disciples are convinced, they resume thinking that Jesus is about to restore the earthly kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). So Jesus' death and resurrection seem completely off the radar of Jesus' closest followers.
From these observations in Mark, probably the earliest gospel, we conclude that the bulk of Jesus' message and proclamation of the good news was not about him. It was about what God the Father was doing...
_____________
We have some significant clues that there was somewhat of a disconnect between the expectations of Jesus' disciples and followers and how things actually played out. For example, the Synoptic Gospels show us that Jesus' audiences expected the kingdom to come almost right away. They believed that Jesus' earthly ministry would culminate right then in his earthly kingship and the restoration of Israel (e.g., Acts 1:6). So Jesus' disciples probably did not know at first that they would live out the rest of their lives on the mission without Jesus on earth. Mark shows them repeatedly asking Jesus about their roles in the coming kingdom with no sense at all that Jesus was about to die.
First, it is apparently not until the end of Jesus' earthly ministry that his identity as messiah comes out into the open with his disciples. It seems to be just before Jesus finally heads for Jerusalem that Jesus really raises with them the question of his identity and his explicit role in the kingdom (Mark 8:27-33). It is at this point that Peter for the first time confesses openly what he no doubt had suspected for a long time, that Jesus is the messiah.
Jesus agrees with them. He is the "anointed one," the messiah--"christos in Greek." To everyone's ears, this means he will become king and will rule over Israel.
But then Jesus shocks them. He is going to Jerusalem to die (Mark 8:31). Peter immediately rejects this suggestion. That's not what the "anointed one" does, Peter is thinking. The messiah doesn't die; he becomes king. Peter has no sense of Jesus' impending death, let alone a two thousand year lag in time between Jesus' earthly ministry and the coming kingdom on earth.
Two more times in Mark Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to die amid their complete lack of understanding. Just after Jesus tells them a second time that he is going to die, they argue over who will have the most prominent role in the coming restored kingdom of Israel (Mark 9:34). This happens even a third time. Jesus tells them what is coming and immediately thereafter, James and John ask Jesus for the most prominent seats next to Jesus in his coming kingdom on earth (Mark 10:35-40).
It seems a fair enough conclusion that the disciples might have thought Jesus' triumphal entry to Jerusalem was going to be the beginning of his rule on earth. Peter's denials were surely more about his complete confusion than any cowardice on his part. He was probably ready to fight for Jesus, just not prepared for Jesus to surrender himself and be arrested. They apparently did not expect Jesus to die.
His resurrection also seems to have taken them by surprise. The women at the tomb are so flustered and confused by the absence of his body, they don't tell anyone at first (Mark 16:8). And once the disciples are convinced, they resume thinking that Jesus is about to restore the earthly kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). So Jesus' death and resurrection seem completely off the radar of Jesus' closest followers.
From these observations in Mark, probably the earliest gospel, we conclude that the bulk of Jesus' message and proclamation of the good news was not about him. It was about what God the Father was doing...
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Creation and Alienation
... continuing the outline of a brief overview of Wesleyan theology... less unique in this section...
______________
3.1 The Story
I think I would start this chapter with the Christian story. God created the earth, and it was good. God created humanity in his image, and it was good. Adam and Eve sinned and not only did human nature "fall" but the creation as well.
The interpretation of the relevant biblical passages has not remained static over time. For example, what is the image of God in Genesis? In the original meaning, it was a kind of governmental or functional image. Adam and Eve were the image of God because they ruled the land as God rules all things.
In Christian history, including Wesley, the image developed to be seen in terms of human characteristics like moral capacity or free will. These were things Christians had in common with God that on the other hand distinguished them from other animals. The capacity for relationships is a more recent trend in the way in which humans are seen to be in the image of God, one that fits well also with the Wesleyan tradition. Christian tradition sees the image of God as marred to varying degrees within humanity because of sin.
3.2 The Condition
The Fall has been interpreted in the Augustinian-Calvinist stream of Protestantism as a matter of total depravity apart from the grace of God, and the Wesleyan tradition has historically stood in this stream. Perhaps constructively I would rather say that any goodness in the creation is completely derivative from God and that the world currently is thoroughly alienated from him.
Purely from a look around us, it is clear enough that the world is alienated from God and in need of redemption and reconciliation. We call it sin. How did we come to be in this state? Augustine and the Christian tradition in general, including Wesley and the Wesleyan tradition, has pointed to Adam, the first human.
Evolution has presented a significant challenge to the Augustinian tradition of the Fall, especially recent genetic challenges to the idea that all the genetic variation among humans could come from two individuals. This is a major issue for Christian understanding. What does Christian theology do with evolution? Are there models of Christianity today that can both remain orthodox and accept some form of evolution?
These are questions of where the current alienation of the world came from and our answers to them have implications for where the world is going to. Nevertheless, the fallenness and alienation of the world from God is clear enough. Whether we agree on the precise cause of the current situation, the situation exists and longs for a solution.
The Wesleyan tradition has generally thought of humanity having a "carnal" or "sinful" nature linked to Adam's "original sin." I consider these to be pictures of the human condition more than literal descriptions. Perhaps a more helpful approach is to think of us as spiritually dis-empowered because our default condition is disconnected from God. Our alienated state thus becomes more a matter of what we lack rather than some presence of evil within us.
______________
3.1 The Story
I think I would start this chapter with the Christian story. God created the earth, and it was good. God created humanity in his image, and it was good. Adam and Eve sinned and not only did human nature "fall" but the creation as well.
The interpretation of the relevant biblical passages has not remained static over time. For example, what is the image of God in Genesis? In the original meaning, it was a kind of governmental or functional image. Adam and Eve were the image of God because they ruled the land as God rules all things.
In Christian history, including Wesley, the image developed to be seen in terms of human characteristics like moral capacity or free will. These were things Christians had in common with God that on the other hand distinguished them from other animals. The capacity for relationships is a more recent trend in the way in which humans are seen to be in the image of God, one that fits well also with the Wesleyan tradition. Christian tradition sees the image of God as marred to varying degrees within humanity because of sin.
3.2 The Condition
The Fall has been interpreted in the Augustinian-Calvinist stream of Protestantism as a matter of total depravity apart from the grace of God, and the Wesleyan tradition has historically stood in this stream. Perhaps constructively I would rather say that any goodness in the creation is completely derivative from God and that the world currently is thoroughly alienated from him.
Purely from a look around us, it is clear enough that the world is alienated from God and in need of redemption and reconciliation. We call it sin. How did we come to be in this state? Augustine and the Christian tradition in general, including Wesley and the Wesleyan tradition, has pointed to Adam, the first human.
Evolution has presented a significant challenge to the Augustinian tradition of the Fall, especially recent genetic challenges to the idea that all the genetic variation among humans could come from two individuals. This is a major issue for Christian understanding. What does Christian theology do with evolution? Are there models of Christianity today that can both remain orthodox and accept some form of evolution?
These are questions of where the current alienation of the world came from and our answers to them have implications for where the world is going to. Nevertheless, the fallenness and alienation of the world from God is clear enough. Whether we agree on the precise cause of the current situation, the situation exists and longs for a solution.
The Wesleyan tradition has generally thought of humanity having a "carnal" or "sinful" nature linked to Adam's "original sin." I consider these to be pictures of the human condition more than literal descriptions. Perhaps a more helpful approach is to think of us as spiritually dis-empowered because our default condition is disconnected from God. Our alienated state thus becomes more a matter of what we lack rather than some presence of evil within us.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
God in Wesleyan Theology
Last Saturday, I threw out an outline of what a short overview of Wesleyan theology might look like if I wrote one. On Sunday, I spun out the outline of a possible introductory chapter. Today I thought I would brainstorm the outline of a second chapter on God. By the way, I guess Chris Bounds does have the workings of a short book of this sort. My "Wesleyan" theology is much more "constructive," while Chris' is much more "dogmatic." [1]
______
2.1 Trinity
A Wesleyan theology might emphasize the relational dimension of the Trinity over individualism. In particular, it might see love as fundamental to the nature of God, as a fundamental aspect of the Trinity's inner identity. These might not be uniquely Wesleyan, but they are probable emphases of a Wesleyan theology of the Trinity.
2.2 God as Creator
I'm not sure that a Wesleyan theology of God as creator would differ much from any other orthodox view. I personally see features like omnipotence and omniscience as functions of creation. For me, they primarily define God in relation to what he has created (this is part of my theology rather than a distinctively Wesleyan theology). Omnipresence also is a feature of God in relation to the creation.
Where I personally would be perhaps a little unique is to see holiness primarily as a function of God as creator. Holiness is, in its fundamental sense, God-ness. It is sacredness. In a fallen world, holiness can take on an added sense of purity. But is it possible that, even if the world were not fallen, there would be the distinction between sacred space/time and the ordinary?
2.3 God as Love
Any Wesleyan theology will emphasize God's nature as love. Mercy takes priority over justice. God's justice is formative in making people better. It is protective in keeping the righteous safe from the unrighteous. And it is final when there is no hope of redemption. God's goodness is another way of saying that he always acts in love toward his creation, with his justice providing a loving framework for the creation.
I would say that my thinking on these things is more a working out of a particular Wesleyan perspective than anything like the Wesleyan perspective.
[1] These are technical terms. "Dogmatic" theology is much more a matter of presenting a "deposit" of theology from the past. "Constructive" theology tries to re-present and synthesize theology in the light of new elements in a never-ending discussion. The former is more a given, the latter more dynamic.
______
2.1 Trinity
A Wesleyan theology might emphasize the relational dimension of the Trinity over individualism. In particular, it might see love as fundamental to the nature of God, as a fundamental aspect of the Trinity's inner identity. These might not be uniquely Wesleyan, but they are probable emphases of a Wesleyan theology of the Trinity.
2.2 God as Creator
I'm not sure that a Wesleyan theology of God as creator would differ much from any other orthodox view. I personally see features like omnipotence and omniscience as functions of creation. For me, they primarily define God in relation to what he has created (this is part of my theology rather than a distinctively Wesleyan theology). Omnipresence also is a feature of God in relation to the creation.
Where I personally would be perhaps a little unique is to see holiness primarily as a function of God as creator. Holiness is, in its fundamental sense, God-ness. It is sacredness. In a fallen world, holiness can take on an added sense of purity. But is it possible that, even if the world were not fallen, there would be the distinction between sacred space/time and the ordinary?
2.3 God as Love
Any Wesleyan theology will emphasize God's nature as love. Mercy takes priority over justice. God's justice is formative in making people better. It is protective in keeping the righteous safe from the unrighteous. And it is final when there is no hope of redemption. God's goodness is another way of saying that he always acts in love toward his creation, with his justice providing a loving framework for the creation.
I would say that my thinking on these things is more a working out of a particular Wesleyan perspective than anything like the Wesleyan perspective.
[1] These are technical terms. "Dogmatic" theology is much more a matter of presenting a "deposit" of theology from the past. "Constructive" theology tries to re-present and synthesize theology in the light of new elements in a never-ending discussion. The former is more a given, the latter more dynamic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
