The Blessings of Controversies and Heresies

 

In a book i’m currently reading by Ted Peters (with a review hopefully done next week) the author points out that controversies can be a good thing in the church’s theological and thus proclamation efforts. 

He points out that if current thought is true regarding the development of Christology and the Trinity in the early church, then it was only after Arius had proposed his view of Christ that Athanasius thought articulated what would come to be considered the orthodox position.

According to Peters this shows how the controversy actually served to stimulate creative theological reflection on who Jesus was.  I think that this shows the benefits of controversies in the church.  Few events in our world can serve as a catalyst as well as when our cherished (and often stagnant) beliefs and systems of thought break in and disrupt our assumptions. 

Of course, we are often disoriented and uncomfortable by our foundations being challenged, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  In fact, it could be just what we need.  There is no inherent connection between the duration of a belief and its veracity.  It is this truth which helps to justify the need of scholarship in the church today.  What if we have something wrong?  How else could God correct us, unless he rises up or uses an “agitator?” 

This does not mean that there is not a time to reject or to condemn, but that we should not be so quick to dismiss the theologically novel.  This is because even when controversies and those who start them are deemed heretical, they can still be used by the Father to wake us up, to get re-engage our minds in the task of fides quaerens intellectum.    

Whatever Happened to the Kingdom?

 

Tonight in our spiritual formation class we talked a great deal about the Kingdom of God (or Heaven).  In fact, we seem to talk of the Kingdom more than anything else.  This may sound odd subject matter for a spiritual formation class, but my prof believes it is essential.

He believes that many today dislike the ”spiritual formation movement” primarily because it often seems to be disconnected with the actual Gospel.  For many, spiritual formation means little more than integrating psychological techniques into Christian life(for better or worse, depending on your perspective). 

What is so great about my profs perspective is that he takes this criticism very seriously, so seriously that is approach is undergirded and permeated by Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom of God.  In fact, one of his great laments is over how the Kingdom of God has by and large disappeared from the church.

His simple question “where is Jesus’ Gospel in the church today” resonates with me.  I’ve only heard a handful of sermons about Jesus’ Gospel, and all of them occured in just two churches.  Sadly, Harnack’s criticism of Jesus proclaiming a Kingdom and instead leaving a church has become a prophetic indictment of the church’s proclamation.

So what DID happen to Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom of God in the church today?

Thinking Through the Trinity

 

If you have been following this blog for a while now, you know that one of the major effects my master’s work has had on my theological development has been to point towards the Trinity.  I have been convinced that this doctrine is foundational, not only for tests of orthodoxy, but for our everyday lives with God.

One of the most interesting topics to me at the moment is exploring the relationship between the economic (who God reveals Himself to be to us) and immanent (who God is “in Himself”) Trinity.  Right now, their is a contentious debate going on between two scholars, Paul Molnar and Bruce McCormack, regarding how to understand this relationship.  Recently McCormack did a series of lectures that pertained to this and surrounding issues.  There has been other work done on this topic very recently.  Click here to get the ball rolling.

My Current Thinking on the Lord’s Supper

 

Over the last year or so, a lot of my beliefs have been shifting significantly.  To cite one example, growing up in a conservative church, i never knew that there was a view other than the one i held, which i later learned was called the memorial view.  My beliefs on this matter have already shifted somewhat, and are still a bit in process.  So, here are my current musings on the Lord’s Supper, which i originally discussed here:

I think that since nearly all conservative evangelicals typically (over?)emphasize the sermon, the Eucharist is an afterthought.  It seems that most people don’t even think about what is happening at the Lord’s Table.  To me this is tragic.

My two cents on why many evangelicals downplay the Lord’s Supper is that most have a severely underdeveloped pneumatology.   Although this is changing the Holy Spirit is still, to paraphrase the great theologian Karl Barth’s (and maybe Picard’s) words: “the last theological frontier.”

How this fleshes out in the Eucharist is that since we often fail to realize the presence of Christ in the Holy Spirit many relegate Jesus back to the 1st century and “remember” Him in the Lord’s Supper.  Jesus doesn’t need to merely be remembered.  Jesus wants to connect with us here and now when we take the sacrament.  I know that i’m caricaturing the memorial view a bit, but i think that many fall into this trap of merely “remembering” what Jesus did for them, as opposed to being lifted into the presence of Christ here and now in the sacrament.

All that said, i’m not sure what category i best fit into.  I don’t know if i need to have absolute clarity on this matter: a little mystery seems okay at this point.  I do know that i’ve moved past a mere “memorial” view.  I think this is healthy.  It seems to me that to think about the Lord’s Supper in pneumatological (and thus Trinitarian) terms forces us to do so. 

James Bryan Smith: Embracing the Love of God

James Bryan Smith, Embracing the Love of God: The Path & Promise of Christian Life (HarperCollins, 1995), 179 pp.

There are not many books that people can point to and with honesty say things like “that book changed my life,” or “I will never be the same after reading that book.” It has become too easy to say such things in today’s world.  The obvious danger in such a statement is that until one’s life is over, he or she can’t really know if that work changed their perspective permanently.  Without trying to sound sarcastic, it seems like it is only on one’s deathbed could someone make such a pronouncement.

With that in mind, let me state that while James Bryan Smith’s book may not end up being the most powerful spiritual formation work i ever read, it is certainly the “most powerful book i’ve read so far.”  This book showed me and reminded me just how loving the God i follow is.  What follows is merely a sketch of the overarching structure, themes, and weaknesses of the book.

The book is structured into three sections, dealing with three facets of the God’s love that Smith views as absolutely essential to grasp: 1) acceptance, 2) forgiveness, & 3) care.  The opening chapter of each section deals with the unconditional move of God in our lives, followed by a chapter on how this move relates to our lives, and then a third and final chapter within each subsection that demonstrates how this move of God and our appropriation of it changes the way we relate to others.

This structure is not coincidental.  The format of the book corresponds with how Smith views the spiritual formation of believers.  For Smith, everything begins and ends with the graciousness of God.  Such graciousness pervades all of our lives, and is not limited to the procuring of our salvation.  Smith moves beyond the coservative evangelical propensity to reduce God’s grace to the salvific benefits of the cross, and into an understanding of God’s favor which pervades all of lives in the here and now.   

Thus, for Smith God’s acceptance, forgiveness, and care forus is unconditional.  He didn’t come to make us acceptable or forgiven only so that we can get into heaven one day.  Rather, in Christ God has pronounced us accepted, forgiven, and cared for in the here and now.  That being the case, the internalization of these truths are paramount.  To do so is to be transformed from the inside out.  This leads us to respond to God’s grace and our new identities by showing the same love we have been shown back to God and to our neighbors.  In this respect Smith is following the plan of Jesus Himself, who gave priority to internal change (Mt 15:1-20). 

Smith does strongly encourage the use of the classic spiritual disciplines.  However, Smith doesn’t intend them to be thought of in a legalistic way.  Rather, since the grace and love of God pervades all of our life, the disciplines are more therapeutic in nature.  They don’t have to be done in order for God to love us.  Rather, we should do them because God in His love uses them to stir our hearts and to draw us close to Him. 

As much as i benefited from this book, i would be remiss if i did not mention what i perceived to be a couple weaknesses.  My main issue is with his understanding of humanity and sanctification.  Bryan wants believers to simultaneously believe that in Christ we are both holy and depraved.  His goal is that we would be balanced in our view of ourselves.  I can certainly sympathize with this desire, but i believe that Christians can affirm our dependence on God without sacrificing the ontological change of our being after we are united with Christ.  This can be done by realizing that apart from an intimate relationship with God we cannot live out who we are in Him anymore than a brand new corvette can run without gas.  My other main complaint would be with the occasional downplaying of the intellect, although this wasn’t a major theme, and thus it is a bit hard to say just how lowly his opinion of the human mind is.

That said, this is still a tremendous work, the kind of work that finds its immense depth in the simplicity of its message.  We are loved, we are accepted, we are forgiven, we are cared for, and that will never change.  This is a God of love, and one who treats us in such an amazing way that He is worth loving back with all that we are.

Orange Bowl Champs!

So i have resisted talking about KU football on here all year, b/c i know that their schedule was weak.  That being said, finishing off the year by beating the #3 team in the nation does seem to validate their status as an elite team this year.  For those who missed the game, it was actually kind of an ugly game.  Sloppy, with some questionable decision-making by each team’s coaches, but in the end KU pulls it out 24-21.   

How they’ll be next year, who can say (For some initial opinions on the team’s future click here)?  But for tonight, they are Orange Bowl Champions!  How sweet it is!

It’s All About Perspective

 

I’ve heard this line often in my lifetime, that it’s all about perspective.  I’ve learned that to a significant degree, it is true, especially when it comes to church history.  As an example, check out these rather satirical quotes from professors at Duke that i found here:

Protestants on Catholics:
“The Catholic church is like an attic where a bunch of rubbish is stored; but sort through it and there’s hidden treasure buried deep under all the crap.”

Catholics on Protestants:
“Protestants are content with so little; they took a few things like the bible and a few doctrines they think come from the bible alone, but they discarded all the rich treasures of the church, like Siberians tossing off babies to the ravenous wolves behind them.”

While i obviously disagree with each view entirely, i do think that each quote rather humorously points out our myopic tendencies.

A Troubling Realization

A while back several people suggested to me that the study of philosophy was much more academically rigorous than the study of theology.  This wasn’t the first time such a suggestion had been made to me, but for some reason this particular instance really bothered me. 

Part of the reason undoubtedly was that these individuals had received graduate degrees in both theology and philosophy, so i couldn’t write this suggestion off as mere ignorance.  Arrogant maybe, but not ignorant.  Another reason why this bugged me was that it seems like most of the Christian philosophers in training saw theology as “helpful,” but not foundational (for lack of a better word at the moment) for their work. 

I’m sure that this second reason betrays my conceit that theology is a nobler discipline than philosophy.  Like many fathers in the church, i want to see philosophy as the handmaiden of theology.  Like Karl Barth once remarked, theology is the “queen of the sciences.”  While i’m not disparaging the importance or the necessity of Christian philosophy, if we are to be true to our beliefs it seems like we must affirm the primacy of theology.

Even though i may tend towards arrogance or snobbery, i get annoyed when i sense that theology is being supplanted by philosophy in the realm of Christian academia.  I think that to a degree i have a legitimate gripe.  However, i fear that at least part, if not most of, the reason for my frustration is that it is true.  It does seem like they have to work a lot harder than i do.  This was quite a troubling realization.  In a sense, it is convicting for me.  Although i refuse to make a “new year’s resolution,” i do want to hold myself to the highest possible standard in my academic pursuits so that i actually live out what i profess to believe, that theology is the queen of the sciences, and to do theological work well requires the utmost effort on my part.