Two questions of finding the write theological language confront me as I write:
1 - I keep wanting to say 'God' and 'human' as if they are opposites, but it strikes me that this isn't as simple as it looks. So, for example when I write -
Christian martyrdom is an act of God, not of human beings
- isn't this a false dichotomy because of Jesus Christ, who makes possible a kind of divine-human act? Isn't the opposition more between divine and non-divine? Is that the right language?
2 - I keep going to write 'the Church' out of habit - meaning 'the Church visible', as in -
the Church must always remember what the particular task for which they carry divine authority is.
- only as a Protestant I am not sure that this is meaningful language. Can I really talk about the visible church as a unity that can act, think, decide, live in this way? Isn't it more accurate - and more biblical - to speak of 'churches' when talking of the people of God under this aspect, and reserve 'the Church' for the final eschatological gathering?
11 comments:
Can I really talk about the visible church as a unity that can act, think, decide, live in this way?
Would it be easier if you foreswore the capital letter?
This is actually a serious question/comment. "Christians" will not do, unless you want to go fully individualistic (and I don't think you do); "churches" likewise presupposes the unit that is being addressed. Surely one would sometimes be talking about individuals or small groups, sometimes a congregation, sometimes a local church, sometimes a cross-denominational collection of such churches in a single place (such as those that maintain high-school Scripture teachers in NSW), sometimes a denomination in some place, sometimes a denomination as a whole or what we used to call a parachurch organisation, and sometimes all of the faithful. If you just say "the church", I think it will support all of those usages at need. If you say "churches", I don't see that it can.
(Thanks BTW for the note on my blog a while back.)
Isn't it more accurate - and more biblical - to speak of 'churches' when talking of the people of God under this aspect, and reserve 'the Church' for the final eschatological gathering?
You can take the boy out of Sydney...
yeah, like that's an argument Kemp! Got anything?
isn't this a false dichotomy because of Jesus Christ
Yes. Perhaps you could say, "Christian martyrdom is an act only made possible by God in Christ." But it depends on your context and what you are attempting to say at this point.
Not sure that divine/non-divine cuts it unless you want to start divvying up Jesus' actions to one nature or the other.
1 - I keep wanting to say 'God' and 'human' as if they are opposites, but it strikes me that this isn't as simple as it looks. So, for example when I write -
Christian martyrdom is an act of God, not of human beings
- isn't this a false dichotomy because of Jesus Christ, who makes possible a kind of divine-human act? Isn't the opposition more between divine and non-divine? Is that the right language?
Hmm, I suppose bringing up the concept of theosis wouldn't help clarify matters, would it?
Well that's an interesting concept to raise David C... Wish I could say more!
I guess I could say: martyrdom is an act of God, not an act of man alone... I think this problem highlights an interesting aspect of trying to think theologically!
Byron: there are acts of which I can say validly 'this is an act of God and not of man' can't I? Like, I dunno: creation?
Like, I dunno: creation?
:-)
martin kemp wrote that You can take the boy out of Sydney...
And there I was carefully avoiding any explicit reference to Knox-Robinson issues, and trying to address the initial post on its face. Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered.
Got anything?
Well I do. Or, I thought I did.
Well, shoot! I have to say, there is so much ecclesiological confusion about Knox-Robinson feels like a bit of a safe harbour.
Refer earlier post: in place of "the Church", rather than saying "churches", why not "the church"?
I have always been sceptical about the visible/invisible church distinction, but in this case I think one can set it aside pragmatically, rather than needing to make a general criticism.
The circumstances in which you'll need to say "the church must always remember", "the church is told that", "the church is called to" and so on are plainly diverse. Shouldn't you be sitting loose to ontology, and trying to think carefully about each case?
Your original question was, "[aren't I buying into too much by saying `the Church']?". Possibly so. But if you just replace all of those usages with "churches", I suggest you're likewise prejudging the situations and the actions required. It may be more pleasing "as a Protestant", but is it going to help you to think theologically / ecclesiologically?
Byron: there are acts of which I can say validly 'this is an act of God and not of man' can't I? Like, I dunno: creation?
I guess it depends on what you understand as "creation". Isn't there a fairly prominent stream of theological thought, particularly in Judaism that would regard humans as co-creators?
Regarding martyrdom and theosis, maybe martyrdom is at the same time the ultimate expression and attainment of one's humanity and divine, since the martyr is sharing in (indeed mystically bonded to) the sufferings of Christ in the most profound way possible?
Post a Comment