Theological Humor

Here is a Foxtrot (copyright Bill Amend) comic strip that references a classic theological issue:

 Click on the pick to enlarge it.  Enjoy!

(HT: Alanyzer)

On Reading This Blog

So, apparently my education is paying off:

I’m just glad it wasn’t lower, or i would have missed something somewhere along the way.

[HT: FQI]

Placher on Trinitarian Analogies Part 1

 

In an article by William C. Placher written a few months ago, he discusses the dominant analogies used to understand the Trinity and their strengths, weaknesses, and inherent limitations.  In this post i want to merely describe each analogy, for both the reader and myself.  In a subsequent post i will review Placher’s engagement with them. Let me make one disclaimer.  I’m aware that there are different naunces and points of focus within each conception, but for brevity’s sake i will only deal with one.  Without further ado . . .

Social Analogy

The fundamental premise of all social analogies is that the “threeness” of God forces us to think about God as “community” of some sort in His own nature.  This has been the dominant analogy in Trinitarian thought in the eastern church, although as Placher notes it has also appeared in the west at times, particularly in Richard of St. Victor in the 12th century, and Bonaventure in the 13th.  A more recent espousal of this view is to be found in John Zizioulas.  Zizioulas’ basic point is that one cannot exist except in relationship to other beings.  For that reason, we must conceive of God as also existing in relationship to others.  However, since God obviously existed prior to creation, for Him to exist means that there must be some type of eternal, inherent relationship going on within the being of God.  Zizioulas expresses these convictions in the title of his sure to be a classic work Being as Communion.  The obvious danger here is that of falling into Tritheism. 

Psychological Analogy

This analogy, originally conceived of by Augustine and later refined by Anselm and Aquinas, has dominated the western church mindset.  This analogy flows from reflecting on the nature of the human mind.  For Augstine, the human mind exists in knowing and loving.  It is important to note, as Placher does, that for Augstine and Aquinas, knowing and loving aren’t merely activities the mind engages in, but rather the existence of the human mind is in the doing of these activities.  Furthermore, these activities are mutally interconnected.  One cannot love something without knowing it, and visa-versa.  According to Augustine, this interdependence between the mind itself, and its fully integrated activities of knowing and loving mirror the relationships of the Triune God.

With these admittedly simplified understandings, we can tentatively begin to engage Placher’s article that analyzes them in a forthcoming post.

Vanhoozer on Theological Competence

Nothing major tonight.  Just a quote from Kevin Vanhoozer’s work The Drama of Doctrine regarding theological competence.

Theological competence is ultimately a matter of being able to make judgments that display the mind of Christ.

The reason why i love this definition is that, as Vanhoozer points out, competence “involves more than academic expertise.”  Vanhoozer certainly isn’t denying the importance of study, but doing theology well necessarily spills over into our lives.  If we aren’t “incarnational theologians,” then we are just pursuing a hobby.

Free John Piper Book

Chris has recently brought to the blogosphere’s attention that the newest work from John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright is free online.  I’ve also uploaded it into my sideblog under the title of the book.  Enjoy!

I. Howard Marshall: Beyond the Bible

I. Howard Marshall, Beyond the Bible: Moving From Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 136 pp.      

As has been pointed out by another reviewer of I. Howard Marshall, here is a man who goes to great pains to be charitable and thorough in his explanations of both the problems surrounding the faithful reading of the biblical texts, and those who endorse different methodological approaches.

After my first, albeit brief, encounter with Marshall i have to agree.  One of the strengths of this book is how hard Marshall works to be clear about the difficulties surrounding biblical interpretation.  This short book only contains three chapters written by Marshall, with an additional chapter each by Kevin Vanhoozer and Stanley Porter, where they interact with Marshall’s proposals and make suggestions from their respective views.  Despite the short page total, Marshall’s proposal could have taken probably less thean 50 pages had he not been so thorough in some respects.  While, as i mentioned earlier, i appreciate his concern for thoroughness, it sometimes makes his work overly drawn out and actually serves to confuse the reader.

It is important to note at the outset that Marshall’s goal is to understand primarily how to use scripture in theological work, although the importance of his approach for the church and ethics isn’t discounted.  This focus has both its strengths and weaknesses, which i will mention below.

After chapter one surveys the last several decades of evangelical thought and progression regarding how to interpret texts, Marshall gets to his central thesis in chapter 2: since we see a clear progressive development in doctrine, the authority of the bible cannot be limited to merely what is says.  How scripture interprets itself should have interpretative authority for us today as well.  Since there is theological progression throughout revelation, then we must be willing to act in a similar manner in our theological and exegetical work.

This claim is defended in chapter 3, where Marshall sets out to show how scripture itself contains principles from going “beyond the bible.”  Here, what Marshall discerns as principles given by Scripture for moving beyond it are somewhat unsurprising.  For example, the old/new covenant distinction is vital when trying to read the Old Testament and viewing the teachings of Christ occurring as within a liminal period is necessary.  Also, reading the New Testament with special attention to the basic theological “deposit” of the apostles is to be commended, and not fearing receiving the same “spirit-given insight” that the apostles received are all principles is adovcated.  All of these ideas have been put forth before, and Marshall affirms them.  One of Marshall’s main points in this book, that the Scriptures demonstrate new categories of thought and progressive doctrinal understanding, is ably demonstrated.

For Marshall, it is vital that Christians have a Christocentric filter in reading the Bible, but only one that is understood in the light of Christ’s death and resurrection.  This is not to say that Marshall rejects compatibility between parts of Scripture, but rather seeks to discern the continual movement of Scripture throughout its pages to what God is doing at the time of writing.  For Marshall it is better than to hold apparent tensions together at times rather than always try to make them fit together.  Doing so makes room for God’s Spirit to move and take an individual or church in the direction God desires. 

A few of the book’s weaknesses should be mentioned.  Marshall at times seems to simply filtering out parts of Scripture He doesn’t like.  To cite one example, Marshall comments on the parables which speak of torture, and although sees them as in continuity with the OT, condemns the imagery as horrific and wouldn’t be used by Jesus today.  One can detect, at the very least, a possible hint of Marshall’s modernist sensibilities being read into these texts.  His rationale for this view is that since we have minds that have been “nurtured on the gospel,” we would never be able to stomach such imagery.  Such a response seems to merely beg the question of what exactly a “mind nurtured on the gospel” should or shouldn’t be able to stomach.

The other major criticism i have of Marshall’s work is that he very noticeably ignores articulating a theory of inspiration.  This is very harmful to the work.  Many of his basic ideas of inspiration can be read inbetween the lines, but without a clear understanding of how Marshall views the texts as inspired, one sometimes wonders why he is handling scripture like he does. 

Vanhoozer and Porter’s chapters are worth reading, but some of the critiques of Marshall’s view in their writings have already been put forward here.  Also, if one is already with the canonical-linguistic approach of Vanhoozer, or the application of translation theory to biblical interpretation of Porter, then nothing new will be gained by reading of these chapters.  That being the case, i will not delve into their thoughts here. 

Marshall’s book is a very useful primer on how to relate Scripture to doctrine and everyday life.  It is full of little insights that are useful for both the interpreter and the theologian.  Marshall tries to walk a fine line between taking today’s culture and God’s work within it seriously and being faithful to Scripture.  While at times Marshall seems to be doing little more than reading his culture back into the bibilical text, one has to appreciate the goal of his project, which is to simply let Scripture be what it actually is, a time-conditioned revelation of God that shows signs of development within it.  How to faithfully read and apply the bible isn’t conclusively demonstrated by Marshall, but his book is sure to get many people to think about these issues in new ways.

God-Centered Worship is Heresy

Tonight my Professor proposed a provocative thought: that worship that focuses on God as the object of worship alone could very well be viewed as heresy.

His reasoning is based on Hebrews as a whole and the gospels, but particularly on 8:2, where Jesus is worshipping the Father in the heavenly sanctuary (might Jesus be called a worship leader?), and we take part with Him in worshipping the Father.

So for my professor, our worship is actually a participation through the Spirit in the Son’s worship of the Father.  In this model, based on James Torrance’s great work, Worship, Community, and the Triune God of Grace, worship is authentically Trinitarian, as opposed to a unitarian-existential view of worship that pervades much the church today, evangelicalism included.

What my professor is arguing for is that for worship to be truly trinitarian and faithful to the contours of the book of Hebrews, we must view God as not only the object, but also the subject of worship.

I agree with Him for the most part; i still have a few misgivings, but by and large i think that he is on track.  I see his perspective as providing the criteria by which we evaluate our worship services.  Foundationally, we have to ask ourselves if our worship is pointing people to the real worship leader?  Questions of relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness, while important, must never detract from this central concern.

New Upload to Read

 

Thanks to Benjamin Myers, i’ve uploaded what looks like a great article regarding Karl Barth’s understanding of Paul.  It looks like it will be a great read.  It is on his blog, but i’ve also uploaded it in my sideblog under the name Ben gave it, “From Faithfulness to Faith . . .”

Enjoy!

View of the Eucharist

Eucharistic theology created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as CalvinYou are John Calvin. You seek to be faithful to Scripture, and to harmonize difficult sayings. You believe that in the Lord’s Supper those who have faith are united to Christ, who is present spiritually, yet in a real way. Calvin 69% Zwingli 63% Orthodox 56% Luther 44% Catholic 31% Unitarian 19%

Torrance on Revelation & Anti-Semitism

 

Ran across this interesting take on the (possible?) connection between Israel’s role in mediating divine revelation and hatred of the Jewish people:

“In the Hebrew idiom revelation implies not only the uncovering of God but the uncovering of the ear and heart of man to receive revelation.  Thus the mediation of divine revelation through Israel has the effect not only of disclosing something of the nature of God but of disclosing the natural offence to God deeply embedded in the human heart.  Now if this is the case, as we find in God’s dealings with Israel, that the more deeply revelation pierces into the roots of human being the more it intensifies the enmity of the human heart against God, then the destined function of Israel in bearing and mediating divine revelation for mankind caanot but have the effect upon us of rousing and bringing to the surface our own latent enmity against God, which can easily express itself in the form of enmity to Israel.”

Thoughts?

[Source]

Evangelicalism in Transition?

In a recent article by Time magazine, it would seem that many ”clear teachings” within conservative evangelicalism are still being debated.  What i found interesting was how the writer explored whether or not the “new” interpretations of contested passages (like Jesus’ teaching on divorce) signaled a shift within conservative evangelicalism.  My two cents on this matter is that evangelicals will always struggle with these issues as long as such a literal interpretation is always required of the Bible, while discarding the gospel’s own “inner logic (to borrow from Torrance)” of grace, freedom, and redemption.