Torrance on the Task of Theology

One of the most common criticisms levelled at theologians is that what they do has no bearing on “real life,” whether that is understood as the day to day realities of indiviudal life, or the corporate life of the church.  Theology for most is a necessary evil at best and at worst a cancer on the church.  Sadly, on occasion theologians themselves see their own task as irrelevant to the mission and worship of Christ’s church.

In an article dealing with the content of T.F. Torrance’s understanding of the Holy Spirit, Elmer Colyer shows T.F. Torrance’s basic theological method can help to “resuscitate” relevance back into the theological task. 

Colyer calls Torrance’s basic approach to the theological task “a participatory evangelical and doxological approach.”  If one looks at the individual words in Colyer’s label, the general contours of Torrance’s method can start to come to light. 

For Torrance theology is a participatory endeavor.  This refers to the theologian’s interaction with the Triune God Himself.  Since God can only be known in a manner consistent with who He is, then it follows that since God has revealed himself as (1) Triune, revealed in the economy of salvation, and (2) the reconciling God,  which also contains a trinitarian structure, then we can fashion no other “base” to begin to  know him.  This includes both the seminary library and the ho-hum of “real” life.

While we can certainly experience the presence and reality of God anywhere, we can only know God consistent with the way he has chosen to reveal himself.  So to know God we must interact with him in a restored relationship.  Colyer writes that

We come to know the triune God of Christian faith by entering into a saving and intensely personal relation with the God of love through the grace of Christ in the communion of the Spirit (161).

We engage this God primarily in the evangelical and doxological life of the church.  As we worship, go out to proclaim the grace of God, study the scriptures, and remember the last supper we continue through our interactions with God to come to know him deeper. 

Given these core convictions, it is not surprising that Torrance views the value of theology being in the

rigorous refinement and extension of the knowledge of God communicated in the gospel and realized in the lives of ordinary Christians within the church (162).

Theology, fundamentally then, seeks to aid the church and individual believers by clarifying who God is and, in the words of Andrew Purves “what he is up to” in the economy of salvation and in individual believers beautiful and difficult lives. 

What is the upshot of all this?  One should understand that, fundamentally, theology is a discipline of service.  It’s more concerned with faithfulness than novelty, although at times innovation may be the best expression of that virtue.  While no doubt such a task is daunting and at times requires esoteric language, this only puts the impetus on theologians to work that much harder to make their work conform to the above specifications.  Believers who aren’t called to this life of faithfulness and service cannot and should not be expected to scale theologian’s ivory towers; theologians must come down, not condescendingly, but humbly and with joy, giving thanks for the role they get to play in God’s work of reconciling the world to himself. 

If we can, in Colyer’s words, heed Torrance’s warning to not separate revelation and reconciliation, perhaps theologians can better remember that they possess no fundamental unique access to God, but seek to understand him much like every other believer, and devote their lives to render that understanding faithfully and practically to Christ’s body for the furtherance of the mission of God.

Book Review-Holy Scripture, a Dogmatic Sketch: Introduction

Webster, John

Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Current Issues in Theology)

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.  Pp. vii + 144.  Paper. $18.42.  ISBN 0521538467

 

In the opening sentence of this work, John Webster succinctly states both his topic and the method of its investigation

What follows is a dogmatic sketch of a topic much negelcted in contemporary theology, namely, the nature of Holy Scripture (1).

What Webster wants to do is to examine Scripture from an unashamedly theological perspective, eshewing many major concerns regarding Scripture, like textual accuracy and the nature of inspiration.  While Webster wouldn’t deny the importance of these issues (he maintains that his dogmatic account of Scripture is subserveint to the primary theological task of exegesis), he wants to tackle the more foundational issue of what Scripture fundamentally is.  Webster’s study is an attempt to map out an ontology of Scripture from a dogmatic perspective in the hopes that it benefits the work of the church.  As Webster puts it

The result is a dogmatic ontology of Holy Scripture: an account of what Holy Scripture is in the saving economy of God’s loving and regenerative self-comunication (2).

Thus, in this introduction, Webster has articulated his topic (a theological ontology of Scripture), his method/presupposition (dogmatic theology), and his goal (a theological ontology of Scripture that is useful for understanding its role in God’s salvific plan).  At this point, some may be wondering why Webster sees the need to achieve this goal.  In his first chapter, which will be reviewed soon, Webster demonstrates why we need to rethink what exactly Scripture is and where it fits within God’s work of salvation.

Informal Poll: Who Should I Be Reading?

In my previous post, I talked about how seminary, while a great experience, has thus far pulled me away from my first academic love, theology.  I have decided to rebel against that somewhat, and am going to start reading in my favorite discipline again, lest i forget why i’m even in seminary. 

This is where you, my wonderful reader(s) come in.  I’m not sure what to read; it has been awhile since i’ve really dug my teeth into something, and I’m wondering what everyone else who finds their education less restrictive at this point than mine is focusing on.  So, since i lack the ability to insert a cool “poll widget” i’m shamelessly asking you to comment on this post with suggestions for what i should read.  I’m hoping to read something with substance that isn’t long for the sake of being long.  So, what say you?

Seminary and the Calling of a Theologian

So right now i’m in the midst of my first semester at seminary.  I have done graduate work already, but not at an official seminary.  I’ve learned much during these first couple of months.  One of the most surprising realizations i’ve had is that if one isn’t careful seminary can make you forget why you were there in the first place. 

For example, I love theology, but due to the quantity of reading i have in related fields (Social Scientific Studies, Church History, etc), i rarely get to read in the subject.  I’m so consumed by study in related fields that, while interesting at times, and relevant to my discipline of interest to be sure, i find myself losing my sense of purpose, my calling, in the midst of the very place where it was supposed to be honed!

I know that everyone has to pay their dues, and luckily for me, i’ll be starting my PhD within two years (I hope), but at times it seems like i’m drowning in the preparatory work.  I think that there is something to be said for just jumping in swimming pool (or in my case, getting used to how cold the water is again).

So I’ve decided to start reading more theology again, even if I’m swamped with school.  I don’t want to view reading/studying merely as a burden, or boring.  I think that if i’m going to be successful (or even make it to) in academia, i can’t forget what my gifting, calling, and passion is, and that is to do theology.

Ecclesiology in a Globalized World, Part 1

As promised about a week ago, i want to recap a couple of my favorite presentations from our conference last week (If this is the first time you’ve heard about it, click here for more background).  Without a doubt, one of my favorite presentations was done by Rev. Andrew Grosso, who currently is a rector at an episcopal church.  His talk was titled “Ecclesiology in a Globalized World: Revisiting One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.”  I really enjoyed his presentation, and since there was much quality material (which i hope i can do justice to), i’m going to break up my reflections on his session into 2-3 posts.  WIthout further ado:

According to Grosso, there are two major ways experts view the process and factors behind globalization.  Rather than trying to tease out which one is more correct, Grosso assumes a level of validity to each and applies each model to the church.

Following the ideas of Philip Jenkins, Grosso labels one approach as the “bottom-up approach.”  Globalization is understood as to follow on the heels of the collapse of western colonialism, and with that, the emergence of indigenous churches.  In this view particularity and the unique embodiment of the faith are valued, thus many will seek to find the essentials of the faith in order to have the freedom to express their “individuality.”  

I believe that this approach is inadequate.  As Grosso points out, this model pushes toward increasingly narrow forms of the faith.  Further, these unique forms are highly enculturated, making true dialogue and interdependence on the church difficult, if not impossible.  In my view, if the “bottom-up model” were to become too dominant, churches in the world would find themselves to be increasingly isolated, turning into individual artifacts dispersed all over the more integrated and interconnected global world. 

Grosso articulates the other major model through the work of Fukuyama.  Grosso calls this the “top-down” approach to globalization.  In this model, globalization occurs primarily due to the dominance of the free market and the consequent imbalance of power that it engenders.  While the side effects of this are tragic, it is hard to deny that the free market is the primary means of cross-cultural communication.  This goes hand in hand with the spread of liberal democracy and the economic model of capatilism.  Add to these factors the instant access to information through technological means and you have the tools to become a global culture.     

This model, in contrast to the other one discussed, takes seriously universality.  It tends to view things as very interconnected.  However, as Grosso pointed out in the session, this alone isn’t a great thing.  This model if left unchecked tends to favor utility to the point where there becomes a genuine need for the explication of what Grosso calls “universal parameters of the faith.”  

While one can debate the merits of these two models (false dichotomy?), I believe that we can see evidence of both.  According to Grosso, we must neither wholly embrace or reject one approach.  In the next post, we will begin to unpack how Grosso believes we can meet this challenge of “the one and the many.”

At this point, i would love to hear feedback on his initial “two models” approach.  Do you agree or not, and why?  Is this a helpful way to start thinking about the issues for the church that surround globalization?

Eliot on Theology and Social Justice

It is not enough simply to see the evil and injustice and suffering of this world, and precipitate oneself into action.  We must know, what only theology can teach us, why these things are wrong.  Otherwise, we may right some wrongs at the cost of creating new ones. 

Pg 75

 

The Role of Diverse Perspectives in Theological Study

Today i picked my books for my other summer class (Theology of Family) that starts in the middle of July.  I noticed that out of the four books, three were by Ray Anderson.  I did some counting, and with those three i have 13 books by Ray Anderson, all of which were purchased after i started graduate school.

Now to be fair, some of those weren’t required reading, but i found them on sale at a used book store.  I though that since it was becoming clear to me that my professor loved Anderson’s work (he is a former student of his), it might be helpful to pick up other resources on the cheap. 

Even with this disclaimer, i find myself questioning at times whether or not it is such a good idea to spend so much of my time devoted to only one person’s thought.  Further, my prof also learned under T.F. Torrance, so i think that it is fair to say that roughly half of my required or recommended reading during my time at school has been either Anderson, the Torrances, or their mutual father in theology Karl Barth.  While i understand that their is an integrity issue here for my prof (teach the truth), nonetheless i am saddend that there hasn’t been a broader scope at times.  So the question is; how does one teach broadly while giving their convictions a prominent place in the classroom?

Book Review Etiquette

So i am about to finish reading Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian for my summer course devoted to thinking theologically about culture.  I was thinking of doing a short book review, but since the book is over seven years old, i’m not sure if i should devote my time to it.  So i’m calling for fellow theo-bloggers to offer their opinions on when (or if?) a book is too old to review.  Any other additional thoughts on how to do book reviews in a proper, near nose-in-the-air manner is appreciated.   

Why Peter Enns Was Suspended

Thanks to Ben at F & T, i have learned that the theolgical reasoning for Enns’ suspension has been released by the school.  I have not read the whole document yet, but after a brief perusal, it seems that Ben’s assessment is accurate.  Depressing.  As cliche as this can sometimes sound, i hope that many feel compelled to pray for this man and his family. 

Highlights from Chapter 1 of Peter Enns’ Book

As i have previously mentioned, a recent book that has stirred much controversy is Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.  For a couple reviews, click here and here.  If you aren’t in the mood for reading several reviews and debates linked here, then let me give you the simplified story: Enns (see his personal blog here), a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, was suspended from his post due to the fear that he has rejected the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. 

I have finished the first chapter of i & i, and so far i have loved it.  I am hoping to review the work by chapter.  It might take a couple of months, since i am wrapping up the Spring semester and also trying to start seminary.  There is so much that i want to write about it, but since it is so late here are several tasty quotes to reflect on:

The problems many of us feel regarding the Bible may have less to do with the Bible itself and more to do with our own preconceptions.

What is needed is a way of thinking about Scripture where these kinds of issues are addressed from a very different perspective–where these kinds of problems cease being problems and become windows that open up new ways of understanding. 

The human marks of the Bible are everywhere, thoroughly integrated into the nature of Scripture itself.

It is essential to the very nature of revelation that the Bible is not unique to its environment.  The human element of Scripture is essential to its being Scripture.

The starting point for our discussion is the following: as Christ is both God and human, so is the Bible. 

 

An Argument for a Christologically-Centered Theology

So right now i’m reading James Torrance’s Worship, Community, and the Triune God of Grace.  In it he has one particular insight that serves as a reminder why all good theology, to use Paul Zahl’s phrase, is Christology.

Torrance points out that “our doctrine of God reflects our understanding of humanity and, conversely, our understanding of the human being reflects our view of God (37).”  This implications of this fairly apparent insight are significant for how we do theology.  It also serves as a critique of most (if not all) protestant theologies.

It seems to me that liberal theology (at least in the pre-WW sense) had such an (overly)optimistic anthropology that there was little room or need for God to be any more than a cosmic companion on our way to perfection.  In fact, the atonement was scandalous to the modern mind because of its implication of our deep, deep problem.  As Torrance points out, this view, championed initially by Harnack and now by John Hick, has no need of being Trinitarian, and is quite happy to be unitarian.  Just God and enlightened man were needed in this equation.  No need for atonement, salvation, etc.

Conversely, i think that much conservative theology is so concerned with “defending God’s glory” that they end up disrespecting the humanity that was created in His image.  While i wouldn’t want to claim that it is wrong to have a high view of God, i would say that much conservative theology allows their conceptions of God to be formed not by the Suffering Servant but by medieval Lordship.  Moreover, strong forms of determinism seem to fight against the notion of saying anything good at all about humanity, especially in their fallen state, and even in the redeemed souls and bodies of Kingdom people.  Thus, while conservatives are very good at proclaiming Christ as the way to salvation, his condescension to take on real humanity can be vexing.  This mindset is betrayed comically by how Jesus’ hair isn’t allowed to be swayed by the wind.  In more theological circles it reveals itself in escapist eschatologies, and in the refusal to take seriously the ontological implications of the atonement/salvation in our theological anthropologies.  Practically it can be discerned in our aversion to the “social gospel.”

It seems to me that while we can never completely escape the dialectical nature of our understanding of God and humanity, our only hope is to focus our theological endeavors on Jesus Christ.  Only He reveals the true nature not only of God, but of humanity.  He thus stands over and above the overly optimistic views of liberal theology and the drudgery of most conservative theology.  Jesus’ person and work critiques both the liberal theologians’ “enlightened man,” as well as a picture of God as a cosmic equal.  At the same time, Jesus called for, and expected, that a relationship with Him and His Father would lead to a radical change in one’s life.  Jesus reveals a God of redemption, not one who tells us to merely affirm that we are just “sinners saved by grace” who have to wait with folded hands to see personal or societal change.  If Jesus and those who followed Him do not have such a low view of humanity, then neither should we. 

May we walk in the narrow middle way, carved out for us by our incarnate Lord, submitting neither to a naive optimism nor a worthless worm anthropology.  Further, may we conceive of God as one who is not merely a cosmic hand-wringer, nor as a God who is so high above us that he can be of no real help here, but one whose Lordship is found in His servanthood.   

Placher on Trinitarian Analogies Part 3

Tonight i thought that i would wrap up my analysis of William Placher’s article in First things on Trinitarian Analogies (Part 1, Part 2).  To sum up his view succintly, he believes that the two dominant western analogies (the psychological & the social) used to understand the Trinity are both inadequate.  However, when held in tension together they keep us on the straight and narrow, helping us avoid falling into the ditches of tritheism and modalism.  What follows are what i see as the weaknesses and strengths of his position.

The main strength i see in Placher’s approach is in His sincere effort to have a balanced approach to thinking through the Trinitarian nature of God.  Placher’s analysis of the issues in both the dominant conceptions of the Trinity is well-noted, and to a large degree i sympathize with the concerns he raises for both conceptions. 

Similarly, i appreciate the almost dialectical approach he takes in seeking to explicate the doctrine.  I agree that no analogy is perfect, and holding both models in tension with each other seems to protect one from error.  In dealing with the nature of God, it is often good to avoid being too “cavalier,” and i think that Placher works hard to avoid this danger in his approach.

However, what concerns me isn’t necessarily his concern for balance, or caution when speaking of God, but how Placher doesn’t really wrestle with the deeper issues regarding formulating a biblically faithful and relevant understanding of the Triune God.

To begin, while Placher does a fine job of explaining the dominant models in the discussion today, he doesn’t see the need to define crucial terms.  For example, in Placher’s article there is no exploration of how we should understand the term “person.”  Obviously, any meaningful speech about God will either explicitly use this term or will have an a priori understanding of what a “person” is standing behind their doctrine of God.  There are some clear ramifications for one’s understanding of God depending on which understanding of person we use today.

Going deeper, as Ted Peters has argued in God as Trinity (1993), this key issue over the ever changing meaning of personhood only follows from the larger scholarly war between classical substantialist metaphysics and more recent relational and process understandings of reality (pgs 35-36).  This is a key issue, if not the main issue, in how we understand Trinitarian doctrine today.  I wish that Placher had addressed it.  The fact that He views the social analogy as leading to tritheism if unchecked seems to reveal his hand that relationality isn’t a major component of his understanding of personhood.

As with most Reformed thinkers (as i understand Placher to be), this reluctance to allow the self-revelation of God as Father-Son-Spirit to be constitutive of the Ontological Trinity seems to stem more from holding to a more substantialist metaphysical understanding of God than a more holistic and relational understanding of God.  It seems to me that the reason for Placher’s reticence to equate the divine action and being lies in his fear of equating the action with the “more real” being behind such appearances.  This can be read between the lines of Placher’s article throughout, where there is a strong separation between who God is in Himself (in which the verbage of the mystery of God is almost always employed), and who he shows Himself to be in the economy of salvation.   

Thus, while Placher wants to avoid speaking to freely of God, He ends up in inconsistencies.  He wants to affirm that Jesus shows us who God is like, that there is no “unknown God behind the back of Jesus,” while simultaneously stating that the function of the dominant analogies isn’t to help us understand God (know who He really is), but to rather “preserve the mystery of a God we cannot understand (pg 30).”  I cannot see how Placher reconciles these two statements.

As i close, let me point out that i do realize that Placher is writing a short article, and probably doesn’t delve more deeply into these issues due to space constraints imposed on him.  In addition, while i do not mean to denigrate First Things, it does have to be pointed out that it isn’t necessarily a forum for such extended developments like i’m asking Placher for here.  I’m sure that he hasn’t revealed his full hand yet.  So clearly i can’t pull this one article out and say that i have debunked his ideas, nor will I.  Nonetheless, i think a mention of the myriad of issues would have been helpful, and until i see him address these concerns in some format, i cannot in good conscience accept his mutual corrective proposal. 

Any thoughts?

Descartes, Postmodernity, & the Return of ATP

 

The title says it all.  I have been absent from this blog for nearly a month.  I don’t think i want to quit for good, but since i have gotten out of the habit, it will take some work to get really rolling again.  I have a ton on my plate, including a conference i’m essentially organizing by myself, doing master’s work, ministry, and have a family.  I hope to call for papers through this website, so stay tuned.  For tonight, here is a post i wrote on another blog, and i think that it has some cool thoughts (even if some of the work is a bit sloppy): 

In class tonight my professor made an interesting observation regarding the “postmodern movement.”  His point was that postmodernism isn’t necessarily a “shift” but rather a strain, albeit a radical one, within modernity.

 

To illustrate this point he pointed us to one of Johnny-Dee’s favorite philosophers, Rene Descartes.  Descartes is widely believed to have ushered in the enlightenment/modernity with his famous rationalistic approach to understand reality.  He attemped to raze his entire belief system down in order to begin again on a sure foundation.  His famous dictum “I think, therefore i am,” came in part from the belief he had found an undeniably certain foundation to begin on, that of the belief that he couldn’t refute the fact that he was a thinking creature.  From this basic belief Descartes built from the ground up (hence his association with strong foundationalist epistemology).

While my professor readily affirmed that the postmodern person would find Descartes trust in his reason to find truth seriously misguided and naive at best, the postmodern actually bases this critique on the father of the Enlightenment’s methodology. 

Like Descartes, the consistent postmodern person use a “methodology of doubt” when evaluating truth.  That is to say that Descartes and the postmodern believe that it is doubtful whether anything their beliefs are true or can be justified. 

Their is an obvious difference between the two when it comes to applying this methodology.  Descartes answer is to begin again, hopeful that through reason he can find “something to believe in.”  The postmodern however takes this methodology to its extreme conclusion, believing that ultimately nothing, not even reason can save them from drowning in relativism. 

So while there are differences in application, the method in both camps is (roughly) the same.  Maybe the postmodern is more consistent, or maybe too cynical.  So while in some ways “postmodernism” is different in how it understands epistemology than modernity, they both are branches growing off the trunk of skepticism that fueled the “age of reason.”  So really instead of being a completely new monster or “shift,” maybe it is just a further outgrowth of the ideals of modernity.  It is, as it were, modernity on crack.

I’m sure many will disagree with my professor’s assessment.  This was only a comment he in passing; i’m sure he has much more to say than this.  I for one see alot of truth in what he says.  Any thoughts?

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.