Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Are Sydney Anglicans Fundamentalists? Muriel Porter thinks so
The critics of Sydney of course continue to use the term 'fundamentalist' as a pejorative against them. One such very recent example is Muriel Porter’s book The New Puritans – The Rise of Fundamentalism in the Anglican Church. Make no mistake: Porter loathes Sydney Anglicanism and is not afraid to say so. Though it is published by a University Press (Melbourne), this book is a piece of unmitigated polemic rather than having any pretence to some kind of scholarly objectivity (as the author herself admits). The title of her project is an indication of the purpose of her tract. If she can prove that Sydney Anglicans are rightly labelled ‘fundamentalists’ then that is, in a sense, enough. In the minds of the audience to which Porter imagines she is writing, fundamentalism is per definition a very bad thing. Her thesis is that ‘Sydney Diocese is now in several key respects fundamentalist although it detests this badge’; therefore, she denies the right of Sydney Anglicans to self-describe. In fact, protesting against being called ‘fundamentalists’ (as Robinson has done) is exactly what fundamentalists do.
So, she is right about that Sydney Anglicans do not wish to be called fundamentalists. Archbishop Peter Jensen sought to distinguish fundamentalism from his kind of evangelicalism in his first major address following his election in 2001. In that speech he outline fundamentalism as implying ‘an anti-intellectual, backward-looking and ugly zeal in the cause of religion’. He agrees that both the fundamentalist and the evangelical hold to the supreme authority of Scripture. The difference is that, while the evangelical interprets the Bible ‘literally’, the fundamentalist interprets it ‘literalistically’. A literal, or plain reading of Scripture might still make use of traditional interpretation, the genuine advances of modern biblical scholarship and was open to learning from contemporary thought.
Porter is less than impressed by this speech, mostly because she can’t grasp the really not very subtle difference between ‘literal’ and ‘literalistic’. There is more to fundamentalism than that, she says, and points to Barr’s notion of the particular ‘fundamentalist mentality’. Never mind that Peter Jensen has actually acknowledged a similar kind of definition in his speech. What is that mentality? Porter wheels on the definitions provided by Oxford academic Harriet Harris: a rationalist mindset, a ‘Calvinistic zeal to root out error and preserve doctrinal purity’, charismatic and authoritarian leadership, behavioural requirements, and a tendency to separatism. To this Porter adds ‘a commitment to male headship’. This list is of course not arbitrary. Porter’s determination is to define ‘fundamentalism’ in such a way that her description of Sydney Anglicanism fits the definition. But the definition is already decided by her perceptions of Sydney Anglicans. While she acknowledges that there is a vast literature in the study of religion about fundamentalism (she doesn’t mention the ground-breaking work of George Marsden and Mark Noll, for example), she overlooks that and chooses the one that suits her polemical purposes best. Sydney Anglicanism is fundamentalist because fundamentalism is whatever Sydney Anglicans are. And Porter doesn’t like it. It is, in short, a cheap shot.
But even with the dice loaded, it still fails miserably. Firstly, she claims that Sydney is ‘rationalistic’. It is interesting, by the way, that ‘rationalism’ is felt by Porter to be an obviously bad thing, without explanation as to why this is so. Porter claims that the Sydney commitment to ‘propositional revelation’ is evidence of this self-evidently egregious rationalism – which is of course evidence of fundamentalism, on the terms she has decided beforehand:
The theory [i.e. propositional revelation] refers to revelation imparted through rational thought processes alone, without any subsidiary, complementary or external revelatory processes, such as through sensuous experiences mediated through liturgy, music, nature or Eucharistic participation.
Certainly, the emphasis on the Word of God as the revelation is the Sydney emphasis, and she is right to say that Sydney church services emphasis the reading, hearing and preaching of the Word of God over against other aspects. It is not accurate to describe this in terms of ‘rational thought processes’. It is the hearing of the Word, which has personal and existential and emotional and experiential impact – as Luther said, ‘the ears are the organ of the Christian’. Faith comes from hearing, after all. It seems uncontroversial to uphold, in a Protestant denomination, the verbal nature of the Word of God (for that is all that is meant by ‘propositional’ revelation).
Again, Porter rightly observes that what is at stake is a different view of how Scripture is meant to work. This is a crucial and revealing moment, for Porter at this point puts forward her version of the Christian doctrine of revelation. What Porter wants is for the Holy Spirit to speak outside of Scripture so that her particular causes, especially the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopacy, may be endorsed. She appeals to some vague sense of an extra-scriptural guidance which is not at the same time subject to the authority of Scripture. And she makes an attack on the classic Protestant doctrine of the clarity of Scripture – which now becomes another feature of fundamentalism (not before listed): ‘This support for a ‘plain’ meaning is a hallmark of the fundamentalist approach to Scripture’. (p. 26) This is because Porter doesn’t like the insistence in Sydney that Scripture might mean what it actually says. As a matter of fact, fundamentalist approaches to Scripture more often result in literalistic and not plain readings of Scripture.
Then follows a bizarre paragraph:
Many commentators have demonstrated that no ‘plain’ reading is possible, given the nature of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, which are thousands of years old. They reflect entirely different thought-worlds from that of the twenty-first century, and are inevitably imbued with the ancient cultural patterns, norms and expectations from which they were written. More than a hundred years of scholarly criticism has revealed the complexity of interpreting the meaning of the Bible for contemporary Christians. Similarly, many scholars have pointed out clear examples of the Christian Church changing its mind as over the centuries it has read the Scriptures with fresh insight.
Porter of course names no such commentators or scholars or critics, despite citing them as indisputable authorities. Despite Peter Jensen’s protestation that Sydney Anglicans were in fact open to the genuine findings of contemporary biblical scholarship, Porter is insistent that this is not the case. Never mind the academic qualifications and publications – from secular universities and in leading research journals - of the biblical scholars from Moore.
What’s more, she misunderstands the notion of the ‘plain’ reading entirely. Protestant interpreters have always acknowledged that the interpretation of Scripture is complex, and that new light may be shed on the meaning of the text (as in fact 2 Peter 3 tells us!). The notion of the plain reading of Scripture is in the first instance a commitment to read Scripture as a properly literary document and not to bring fanciful spiritual allegories to bear upon it. Porter herself is confused - on the one hand she wants to be able to say that the Holy Spirit can overrule the teachings of Scripture; but on the other she wants to say that reading the Scriptures with fresh insight matters. Why would fresh insight into Scripture matter if you weren’t actually committed to the authority of Scripture? The example of slavery is brought out, as it always is, of a case in which people changed their minds about Scripture. This is of course not news. It was people who held to a doctrine of revelation like that of Sydney, such as the great reformer William Wilberforce, who decided that obedience to Scripture necessitated an end to slavery. He won not because his reading of Scripture was in the end more convincing than those who argue for slavery from Scripture. The danger with Porter’s model of divine revelation, which seems to invite consideration of which social trends are the work of the Holy Spirit and which aren’t, is that this logic could be used to support almost any cause you could name. How could Porter speak against an aberrant but widely-held development in society? This is where Porter’s own extremism slips into view: she represents the extreme liberal wing of the Anglican Communion as represented by the Episcopal Church in the USA, in which the only authority to which anyone is subject is gut feeling. Is ‘emotionalism’ preferable to ‘rationalism’? Whatever the case, even if ‘rationalism’ is a hallmark of fundamentalism, and even if the kind of rationalism that is meant by that term is found in Sydney, Porter has wandered far from this point and strayed into a discussion of the role and practise of the authority of Scripture – in which she proves less than widely read and not particularly acute. It is hard to see how it supports the point she is making.
As for the ‘zeal to root out error and doctrinal impurity’, again Porter resorts to the unscholarly sweeping gesture - ‘too many to discuss in detail here’. The frankly trivial example that she does cite is the ban on the Anglo-Catholic use of the chasuble, which has been in force since 1910. Remembering that Porter is trying to show that Sydney is only since 2001 ‘fundamentalist’, this example is particularly insipid. Other Anglican dioceses make requirements of their clergy vis a vis liturgical garments. Her second example is a piece of unsubstantiated hearsay: ‘refusal by many Sydney clergy to allow lay women to play any significant part in the main Sunday services – even reading lessons from the Bible – as a means of keeping faith with their claim that women must not exercise any leadership in mixed … congregations’ (p. 29). Not one concrete instance is cited. I personally travel to many different parishes in Sydney and I can say categorically that Porter is plainly wrong at this point. Lay and clergy women lead services, read lessons, lead in prayers, lead singing and in some parishes preach. In my own parish, there are a number of women who serve in this way. Once again: the experience of evangelical clergy and candidates who hold a complementarian view in other dioceses is that the authorities will insist on their view with zeal and enforce it if necessary. Is this not ‘zeal to root out error and doctrinal impurity’? It just aligns with Porter’s prejudices.
The third point on her checklist is ‘charismatic and authoritarian leadership’. In her sketch of the role of Sydney’s Archbishop, she provides a less than convincing case, noting that Sydney is historically committed to the priority of the parish. Parish clergy enjoy remarkable independence in Sydney, in fact, compared with other dioceses. While noting Peter Jensen’s high profile, she admits ‘whether this equates with authoritarianism I do not know, but I suspect that this archbishop does not need to be authoritarian’. Noting that there has been in Sydney a high degree of unity in the Synod and so on is not exactly tantamount to establishing an authoritarian pattern. Again, it is worth observing that there are charismatic and authoritarian leaders in non-evangelical dioceses – indeed far more authoritarian than in Sydney. Archbishop Peter Carnley of Perth, well known for his liberal Catholic or ‘progressive Orthodox’ views, was by all accounts just such a figure.
Thus far, Porter has failed to tick off any of the points on her checklist. We might concede something of her first point. However, despite the fact that she acknowledges the sophistication with which the Sydney view is argued, her own alternative model of guidance and revelation is theologically thin and certainly questionable.
What of the last two points? As to behavioural requirements, Porter argues that Sydney has a ‘harsher set of rules concerning personal morality’. As evidence, she cites Sydney’s policy on divorce and remarriage. Sydney’s policy is certainly less flexible than the free-for-all in place in some places in Australia. It remains however a good deal more liberal and accommodating than the practice of the Roman Catholic Church. Remarriage after divorce is not banned – it is, rather, than clergy are very reasonably required to be cautious. Since scripture has some specific things to say on this issue, it seems unremarkable to find this policy. Sydney Anglicans talk about sex far less than outsiders sometimes think. However, it is true that an orthodox position on marriage – held by the majority of Anglican Christians today, contrary to Porter’s claim – is held by the great majority in Sydney diocese. Porter then repeats a piece of ‘anecdotal evidence’ which is actually false: ‘it is now highly unlikely that a single man will be appointed rector of any Sydney parish, presumably for fear that his single state might mask an unacceptable sexual identity or that he might fall prey to sexual temptation’. There is no such policy. I cite as counter-evidence Rev Paul Dale, who is now married, but who was appointed rector of St John’s Kirribilli some years ago as a single man.
‘Separatism’ is Porter’s last check-box. She can only establish this by looking sideways at the evidence. She notes rightly that Sydney Anglicans are proudly counter-cultural which she says ‘indicates a predisposition towards separatism’. We thank her for her amateur psycho-analysis. However, it is scarcely a telling point. Christians have always seen themselves as counter-cultural in some way, since the earliest times. In any case, the label ‘separatism’ invites the question ‘what separatism and on what grounds?’ There have been many forms of separatism in Christian history justified for any number of reasons. The monastic movement is one such example. Porter quite overlooks the ongoing commitment of the Sydney diocese in any case to involvement in society – its commitment to justice and social welfare in which it continues to invest enormous resources. Sydney seeks the Christianisation of society by inviting people to become Christians, not by spreading Christian values (so-called) abroad. That much is a given. But it is not tantamount to ‘separatism’.
Porter’s attempt to classify Sydney Anglicans as fundamentalists was a put-up job in the first place. Even then, it fails spectacularly at every point – partly because she is simply hasn’t done her homework and relies on gossip and hearsay. She has an open goal, and still she misses the target. As she herself acknowledges she avoids scholarly complexity repeatedly and chooses instead the kind of journalistic shorthand that has corrupted public debate of politics in Australia.
So, she is right about that Sydney Anglicans do not wish to be called fundamentalists. Archbishop Peter Jensen sought to distinguish fundamentalism from his kind of evangelicalism in his first major address following his election in 2001. In that speech he outline fundamentalism as implying ‘an anti-intellectual, backward-looking and ugly zeal in the cause of religion’. He agrees that both the fundamentalist and the evangelical hold to the supreme authority of Scripture. The difference is that, while the evangelical interprets the Bible ‘literally’, the fundamentalist interprets it ‘literalistically’. A literal, or plain reading of Scripture might still make use of traditional interpretation, the genuine advances of modern biblical scholarship and was open to learning from contemporary thought.
Porter is less than impressed by this speech, mostly because she can’t grasp the really not very subtle difference between ‘literal’ and ‘literalistic’. There is more to fundamentalism than that, she says, and points to Barr’s notion of the particular ‘fundamentalist mentality’. Never mind that Peter Jensen has actually acknowledged a similar kind of definition in his speech. What is that mentality? Porter wheels on the definitions provided by Oxford academic Harriet Harris: a rationalist mindset, a ‘Calvinistic zeal to root out error and preserve doctrinal purity’, charismatic and authoritarian leadership, behavioural requirements, and a tendency to separatism. To this Porter adds ‘a commitment to male headship’. This list is of course not arbitrary. Porter’s determination is to define ‘fundamentalism’ in such a way that her description of Sydney Anglicanism fits the definition. But the definition is already decided by her perceptions of Sydney Anglicans. While she acknowledges that there is a vast literature in the study of religion about fundamentalism (she doesn’t mention the ground-breaking work of George Marsden and Mark Noll, for example), she overlooks that and chooses the one that suits her polemical purposes best. Sydney Anglicanism is fundamentalist because fundamentalism is whatever Sydney Anglicans are. And Porter doesn’t like it. It is, in short, a cheap shot.
But even with the dice loaded, it still fails miserably. Firstly, she claims that Sydney is ‘rationalistic’. It is interesting, by the way, that ‘rationalism’ is felt by Porter to be an obviously bad thing, without explanation as to why this is so. Porter claims that the Sydney commitment to ‘propositional revelation’ is evidence of this self-evidently egregious rationalism – which is of course evidence of fundamentalism, on the terms she has decided beforehand:
The theory [i.e. propositional revelation] refers to revelation imparted through rational thought processes alone, without any subsidiary, complementary or external revelatory processes, such as through sensuous experiences mediated through liturgy, music, nature or Eucharistic participation.
Certainly, the emphasis on the Word of God as the revelation is the Sydney emphasis, and she is right to say that Sydney church services emphasis the reading, hearing and preaching of the Word of God over against other aspects. It is not accurate to describe this in terms of ‘rational thought processes’. It is the hearing of the Word, which has personal and existential and emotional and experiential impact – as Luther said, ‘the ears are the organ of the Christian’. Faith comes from hearing, after all. It seems uncontroversial to uphold, in a Protestant denomination, the verbal nature of the Word of God (for that is all that is meant by ‘propositional’ revelation).
Again, Porter rightly observes that what is at stake is a different view of how Scripture is meant to work. This is a crucial and revealing moment, for Porter at this point puts forward her version of the Christian doctrine of revelation. What Porter wants is for the Holy Spirit to speak outside of Scripture so that her particular causes, especially the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopacy, may be endorsed. She appeals to some vague sense of an extra-scriptural guidance which is not at the same time subject to the authority of Scripture. And she makes an attack on the classic Protestant doctrine of the clarity of Scripture – which now becomes another feature of fundamentalism (not before listed): ‘This support for a ‘plain’ meaning is a hallmark of the fundamentalist approach to Scripture’. (p. 26) This is because Porter doesn’t like the insistence in Sydney that Scripture might mean what it actually says. As a matter of fact, fundamentalist approaches to Scripture more often result in literalistic and not plain readings of Scripture.
Then follows a bizarre paragraph:
Many commentators have demonstrated that no ‘plain’ reading is possible, given the nature of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, which are thousands of years old. They reflect entirely different thought-worlds from that of the twenty-first century, and are inevitably imbued with the ancient cultural patterns, norms and expectations from which they were written. More than a hundred years of scholarly criticism has revealed the complexity of interpreting the meaning of the Bible for contemporary Christians. Similarly, many scholars have pointed out clear examples of the Christian Church changing its mind as over the centuries it has read the Scriptures with fresh insight.
Porter of course names no such commentators or scholars or critics, despite citing them as indisputable authorities. Despite Peter Jensen’s protestation that Sydney Anglicans were in fact open to the genuine findings of contemporary biblical scholarship, Porter is insistent that this is not the case. Never mind the academic qualifications and publications – from secular universities and in leading research journals - of the biblical scholars from Moore.
What’s more, she misunderstands the notion of the ‘plain’ reading entirely. Protestant interpreters have always acknowledged that the interpretation of Scripture is complex, and that new light may be shed on the meaning of the text (as in fact 2 Peter 3 tells us!). The notion of the plain reading of Scripture is in the first instance a commitment to read Scripture as a properly literary document and not to bring fanciful spiritual allegories to bear upon it. Porter herself is confused - on the one hand she wants to be able to say that the Holy Spirit can overrule the teachings of Scripture; but on the other she wants to say that reading the Scriptures with fresh insight matters. Why would fresh insight into Scripture matter if you weren’t actually committed to the authority of Scripture? The example of slavery is brought out, as it always is, of a case in which people changed their minds about Scripture. This is of course not news. It was people who held to a doctrine of revelation like that of Sydney, such as the great reformer William Wilberforce, who decided that obedience to Scripture necessitated an end to slavery. He won not because his reading of Scripture was in the end more convincing than those who argue for slavery from Scripture. The danger with Porter’s model of divine revelation, which seems to invite consideration of which social trends are the work of the Holy Spirit and which aren’t, is that this logic could be used to support almost any cause you could name. How could Porter speak against an aberrant but widely-held development in society? This is where Porter’s own extremism slips into view: she represents the extreme liberal wing of the Anglican Communion as represented by the Episcopal Church in the USA, in which the only authority to which anyone is subject is gut feeling. Is ‘emotionalism’ preferable to ‘rationalism’? Whatever the case, even if ‘rationalism’ is a hallmark of fundamentalism, and even if the kind of rationalism that is meant by that term is found in Sydney, Porter has wandered far from this point and strayed into a discussion of the role and practise of the authority of Scripture – in which she proves less than widely read and not particularly acute. It is hard to see how it supports the point she is making.
As for the ‘zeal to root out error and doctrinal impurity’, again Porter resorts to the unscholarly sweeping gesture - ‘too many to discuss in detail here’. The frankly trivial example that she does cite is the ban on the Anglo-Catholic use of the chasuble, which has been in force since 1910. Remembering that Porter is trying to show that Sydney is only since 2001 ‘fundamentalist’, this example is particularly insipid. Other Anglican dioceses make requirements of their clergy vis a vis liturgical garments. Her second example is a piece of unsubstantiated hearsay: ‘refusal by many Sydney clergy to allow lay women to play any significant part in the main Sunday services – even reading lessons from the Bible – as a means of keeping faith with their claim that women must not exercise any leadership in mixed … congregations’ (p. 29). Not one concrete instance is cited. I personally travel to many different parishes in Sydney and I can say categorically that Porter is plainly wrong at this point. Lay and clergy women lead services, read lessons, lead in prayers, lead singing and in some parishes preach. In my own parish, there are a number of women who serve in this way. Once again: the experience of evangelical clergy and candidates who hold a complementarian view in other dioceses is that the authorities will insist on their view with zeal and enforce it if necessary. Is this not ‘zeal to root out error and doctrinal impurity’? It just aligns with Porter’s prejudices.
The third point on her checklist is ‘charismatic and authoritarian leadership’. In her sketch of the role of Sydney’s Archbishop, she provides a less than convincing case, noting that Sydney is historically committed to the priority of the parish. Parish clergy enjoy remarkable independence in Sydney, in fact, compared with other dioceses. While noting Peter Jensen’s high profile, she admits ‘whether this equates with authoritarianism I do not know, but I suspect that this archbishop does not need to be authoritarian’. Noting that there has been in Sydney a high degree of unity in the Synod and so on is not exactly tantamount to establishing an authoritarian pattern. Again, it is worth observing that there are charismatic and authoritarian leaders in non-evangelical dioceses – indeed far more authoritarian than in Sydney. Archbishop Peter Carnley of Perth, well known for his liberal Catholic or ‘progressive Orthodox’ views, was by all accounts just such a figure.
Thus far, Porter has failed to tick off any of the points on her checklist. We might concede something of her first point. However, despite the fact that she acknowledges the sophistication with which the Sydney view is argued, her own alternative model of guidance and revelation is theologically thin and certainly questionable.
What of the last two points? As to behavioural requirements, Porter argues that Sydney has a ‘harsher set of rules concerning personal morality’. As evidence, she cites Sydney’s policy on divorce and remarriage. Sydney’s policy is certainly less flexible than the free-for-all in place in some places in Australia. It remains however a good deal more liberal and accommodating than the practice of the Roman Catholic Church. Remarriage after divorce is not banned – it is, rather, than clergy are very reasonably required to be cautious. Since scripture has some specific things to say on this issue, it seems unremarkable to find this policy. Sydney Anglicans talk about sex far less than outsiders sometimes think. However, it is true that an orthodox position on marriage – held by the majority of Anglican Christians today, contrary to Porter’s claim – is held by the great majority in Sydney diocese. Porter then repeats a piece of ‘anecdotal evidence’ which is actually false: ‘it is now highly unlikely that a single man will be appointed rector of any Sydney parish, presumably for fear that his single state might mask an unacceptable sexual identity or that he might fall prey to sexual temptation’. There is no such policy. I cite as counter-evidence Rev Paul Dale, who is now married, but who was appointed rector of St John’s Kirribilli some years ago as a single man.
‘Separatism’ is Porter’s last check-box. She can only establish this by looking sideways at the evidence. She notes rightly that Sydney Anglicans are proudly counter-cultural which she says ‘indicates a predisposition towards separatism’. We thank her for her amateur psycho-analysis. However, it is scarcely a telling point. Christians have always seen themselves as counter-cultural in some way, since the earliest times. In any case, the label ‘separatism’ invites the question ‘what separatism and on what grounds?’ There have been many forms of separatism in Christian history justified for any number of reasons. The monastic movement is one such example. Porter quite overlooks the ongoing commitment of the Sydney diocese in any case to involvement in society – its commitment to justice and social welfare in which it continues to invest enormous resources. Sydney seeks the Christianisation of society by inviting people to become Christians, not by spreading Christian values (so-called) abroad. That much is a given. But it is not tantamount to ‘separatism’.
Porter’s attempt to classify Sydney Anglicans as fundamentalists was a put-up job in the first place. Even then, it fails spectacularly at every point – partly because she is simply hasn’t done her homework and relies on gossip and hearsay. She has an open goal, and still she misses the target. As she herself acknowledges she avoids scholarly complexity repeatedly and chooses instead the kind of journalistic shorthand that has corrupted public debate of politics in Australia.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Homo adorans: Eight theses liable to contradiction...
1. ‘Men of Athens – I can see that in every way you are very religious’ (Acts 17). Religiosity is natural for human beings – a phenomenological observation and a theological one. Man is by natural disposition a worshipper. The trick is to work out what ‘natural’ means…
2. It is only comparatively recently that religious belief was counted an alternative to be chosen by the believing subject, and not a properly basic condition of the world (Charles Taylor, The Secular Age).
3. We need to beware the tendency to impose Western and Christian notions of religion upon the religious phenomena of the world. Hinduism for example is almost entirely a creation of the British Raj. We seek to observe quasi-Christian structures and observances.
4. Where does religion end and philosophy begin? Which is Marxism? Taoism? Buddhism? It makes a large difference to a theological analysis.
5. The religious disposition in human beings has been conducive to wisdom about human beings and the world. It has more often than not obscured the truth about God.
6. While religions may be the monstrous lies and deceits of Satan, they may also be sources of social cohesion, the transmission of wisdom inter-generationally and the basis for human enlightenment. Religions do (to a degree) work as ways to live in the world. It is this ambiguity that is the real tragedy. They present incomplete truths.
7. ‘The human heart is a factory for making idols’ (John Calvin). Prides corrupts the properly natural disposition for worship.
8. False belief and unbelief are suppressions of the truth about the divine nature that is already available to human beings. Ignorance, being culpable, is no excuse.
2. It is only comparatively recently that religious belief was counted an alternative to be chosen by the believing subject, and not a properly basic condition of the world (Charles Taylor, The Secular Age).
3. We need to beware the tendency to impose Western and Christian notions of religion upon the religious phenomena of the world. Hinduism for example is almost entirely a creation of the British Raj. We seek to observe quasi-Christian structures and observances.
4. Where does religion end and philosophy begin? Which is Marxism? Taoism? Buddhism? It makes a large difference to a theological analysis.
5. The religious disposition in human beings has been conducive to wisdom about human beings and the world. It has more often than not obscured the truth about God.
6. While religions may be the monstrous lies and deceits of Satan, they may also be sources of social cohesion, the transmission of wisdom inter-generationally and the basis for human enlightenment. Religions do (to a degree) work as ways to live in the world. It is this ambiguity that is the real tragedy. They present incomplete truths.
7. ‘The human heart is a factory for making idols’ (John Calvin). Prides corrupts the properly natural disposition for worship.
8. False belief and unbelief are suppressions of the truth about the divine nature that is already available to human beings. Ignorance, being culpable, is no excuse.
Friday, September 17, 2010
George Athas' notes on my 1 Corinthians paper
http://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/apocalyptic-and-ethical-in-1-corinthians/
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Matthew Malcolm - The glory of God in 1 Corinthians
Matthew determines to read 1 Cor with the help of John Chrysostom.
For Chrysostom: The Corinthians are effectively pursuing the glory of humans rather than the glory of God. Boastful pride is the cause of the evil among them. Orators who think of themselves as wise have put themselves forward, and put godly leaders like Stephanos down. In all the various sins of the Corinthians, Chrysostom identifies pride. His hearers should see human pride to be nothing. Paul must pull down the 'puffed up pride of the opponents'.
But also: present wealth. We should ... look down on all things present. Let us think nothing of riches and think much of hell. Let us look down on glory, and look rather at salvation. Let us endure toil and labour here, in order that we might not fall into punishment there. (Hom 6)...
The problem of human autonomy. The present focussed human pride results in the problem of human autonomy. This is an attempt for humans to save themselves.... He does all things in order that we might consider nothing to be of ourselves; in order that all things might be ascribed to God. And have you given yourselves over to this or that person? And what pardon will you receive for this? For God has shown that we are not able to be saved by ourselves alone, and he has done this from the beginning.
Paul wants to indicate that God overcomes the world by contraries and how the gospel is not human. Becoming dead to the world, we live! The pastoral point of 1 Cor 1-4: the church clings to CHrist and his cross, not feeding boastful human pride. Therefore:
We glorify God by depending on the cross of Jesus Christ. We exhibit our dependence by inhabiting the cross of Christ. 'let us be cemented to him; for if we are apart from him, we are destroyed.'... 'The one who has descended will rise with great gain, just as also Paul descended alone, but ascended with the world...
The Glory of God and the Exercise of Theology...
Will we entrust ourselves to the one who raises Christ from the dead?
The ground and goal of all theology is necessitated by independent identification with God's messiah Jesus Christ. Christian believers are united to Jesus Christ. Sharing ultimately in his glory. Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord!
Paul evaluates pastoral situations theologically in terms of the glory of God.
But: why the ascension? God is glorified when we know him as the one who gives life to the dead....
For Chrysostom: The Corinthians are effectively pursuing the glory of humans rather than the glory of God. Boastful pride is the cause of the evil among them. Orators who think of themselves as wise have put themselves forward, and put godly leaders like Stephanos down. In all the various sins of the Corinthians, Chrysostom identifies pride. His hearers should see human pride to be nothing. Paul must pull down the 'puffed up pride of the opponents'.
But also: present wealth. We should ... look down on all things present. Let us think nothing of riches and think much of hell. Let us look down on glory, and look rather at salvation. Let us endure toil and labour here, in order that we might not fall into punishment there. (Hom 6)...
The problem of human autonomy. The present focussed human pride results in the problem of human autonomy. This is an attempt for humans to save themselves.... He does all things in order that we might consider nothing to be of ourselves; in order that all things might be ascribed to God. And have you given yourselves over to this or that person? And what pardon will you receive for this? For God has shown that we are not able to be saved by ourselves alone, and he has done this from the beginning.
Paul wants to indicate that God overcomes the world by contraries and how the gospel is not human. Becoming dead to the world, we live! The pastoral point of 1 Cor 1-4: the church clings to CHrist and his cross, not feeding boastful human pride. Therefore:
We glorify God by depending on the cross of Jesus Christ. We exhibit our dependence by inhabiting the cross of Christ. 'let us be cemented to him; for if we are apart from him, we are destroyed.'... 'The one who has descended will rise with great gain, just as also Paul descended alone, but ascended with the world...
The Glory of God and the Exercise of Theology...
Will we entrust ourselves to the one who raises Christ from the dead?
The ground and goal of all theology is necessitated by independent identification with God's messiah Jesus Christ. Christian believers are united to Jesus Christ. Sharing ultimately in his glory. Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord!
Paul evaluates pastoral situations theologically in terms of the glory of God.
But: why the ascension? God is glorified when we know him as the one who gives life to the dead....
David Peterson - 'Enriched in every way': Gifts and Ministries in 1 Corinthians
The first four chapters of 1 Corinthians provide a very important basis for the discussion of ministry and gifts in 1 Corinthians. It is a substantial theme!
Paul starts by noting how the Corinthians were enriched in grace and in knowledge - by the Holy Spirit's gifting. Spiritually, they were rich (4:8). It is very unhelpful to translate karisma as 'spiritual gift'... it is probably better rendered 'gift'. In 12, of course, we get a trinitarian explanation (as opposed to the Corinthians pneumatika).
The initial discussion of gifts seems to emphasise the communicative giftings; and also that it is for those who wait and who need to be sustained. Perserverance is enabled by the gifting that God gives to the church - sustained externally in other words. It is a salvific concern - the gifts are given to SUSTAIN us in Christ - not for our enjoyment, or even for our maturing.
Paul goes on to critique the divisions among the Corinthians. They wrongly evaluated their favourites - Paul/Apollos/Cephas.... Paul challenges this by reminding them of the wisdom they received in the gospel in the first place. Paul was concerned for the sophia/content and the logou/form of Christian proclamation. Both form and content of ministry need to be God-honouring. Paul draws attention to the MANNER of his own proclamation of the gospel. There is a FORM that is appropriate to the gospel. Especially, the ministry of evangelism.
The work of the Spirit? He moved the preacher to avoid display of rhetoric and brought people to faith. 2:6-16 establishes a framework for the later discussions. There needs to be an interpretation of spiritual things to spiritual people... the Corinthians regarded themselves as spiritual: but Paul reminds them of the true maturity in the knowledge of God and for which food is needed. Gospel faithfulness is a key for evaluating the ministries of people in ch 4. The gospel should determine the content AND the manner in which the ministry is conducted. How would Paul have classified his own ministry in relation to the gifts of ch 12? In 4:1, the three are described as 'servants of Christ'. Gospel-driven leadership was foundational. (It is a mistake to focus on 11-14 when in 1-4 you have a picture of gospel-preaching for the benefit and growth of the church... put the two sections together and you have a better picture).
What about gender distinctiveness in congregational ministry? (11:2-16). Paul doesn't explain what prophesying is here. His concern is to elaborate on appopriate relationships. C/R seem to think that Paul is talking about 3 things:
1) respect for a certain creation mandate
2) respect for culturally specific approaches to guarding sexual purity in mixed company
3) fully integrating women into the experience of the worshipping community
The apostle wants them to understand an aspect of their own traditions that they have neglected. God is the top of a series of 'heads'. Christ honoured his head... so men and women must honour their respective heads. The theme of self-discipline for the other's good comes out.
It is possible that they are talking about husbands and wives; but the dress codes had a wider significance. (note a huge amount of information about 1st century customs and fashions)
Paul is concerned to develop a scriptural argt but to tie it in to cultural appropriateness. The word 'head' kephale? It seems to mean 'one who has authority over'. Of course this is made egalitarian in ch 7 in a remarkable way... but the order from Gen 2: a submission maintained. How are these two to be balanced? Tricky.
In 1 Cor 11 Paul is setting up a complex order between creation and recreation -a dialectic. The practice expression is the appropriate covering of the woman's head and the uncovering of the man's. Covered hair for a woman indicated controlled sexuality. Ciampa and Rosner show how Paul is continuing a common custom of his own time. Sexual provocation is the point.
The Greco-Roman world was concerned for separate spaces in worship. The Christians met together. But Paul wanted them not to simply be blended. Paul seems to have understood Gen 2 in Psalm 8 terms counterbalancing the shame aspect of the argument. Paul's ultimate concern is what gives glory to God in public worship between the genders.
11:10? Is this the wife's recognition of her husband's authority? or a sign of her own authority? Whichever: women clearly participate in prayer and prophesy in the congregation. Paul does not forbid this at all. But they should do it an appropriate way.
What is this 'prophesying'? What were the women doing? Certainly in ch 14, Paul thinks that this is THE best and preferred activity. Of course it is much contested. What is said about the prophetic ministry in Paul and Luke/Acts? It is not merely the spontaneous utterance of future predictions, this isn't what the evidence says. Paul notes that revelations may come in the meeting; and may occur before hand. Not all of these give expression to immediate revelations. He also talks about how the outsider is convicted by such prophesying, of their sin. It is a ministry that they have to one another. In the process the outsider is converted. IT IS SOME KIND OF GOSPEL COMMUNICATION - which the unbeliever hears. Prophesying edifies everyone (ie, not just the women or men). It is a very significant ministry, right? It is a great shame that this biblical concept is not talked about. Thisleton argues that the limitation of prophesy to mini-messages demeans the term. He calls it 'the proclamation of gospel truths to the contexts of the hearers'. The church is upbuilt by the declaration of the truths of the gospel. In Eph 1:17 - the spirit applies the Wisdom of the gospel to a particular context and situation. There is a link between prophesy and the 'word of wisdom/knowledge' (of course redefined by Paul in terms of the cross). It is all about gospel applicaton. These words in chp 12 seem to be limited discreet teachings... Prophesy is the broad heading under which these come.
What is the relationship between this and pastoral preaching? Calvin notes that the 1 Tim relates the teaching to leadership and authority - quite different from prophecy. A simplistic equation of prophesy with what we call 'preaching' is not on. But prophecy seemed to be an umbrella term. Remember Acts 2 - everyone will prophesy (both genders)? Certainly, the apostles seem to preach evangelistic sermons as a result. There are many things that prophets do in Acts (in addition to Agabus of course). = Spirit-directed gospel proclamation. Likely that the teaching/prophecy distinguishment of the GR world is maintained. The Spirit can work to empower preaching and so on - but it does a whole range of things.
SO: chapter 12-14? The source and purpose of gifts and ministries.
The christological test for spirit-led ministry in 12.... Paul goes beyond what the Corinthians say, and offers a corrective of the pneumatika... Had the Corinthians been involved in ecstatic pagan worship? Carson (1987) doesn't think so. As pagans, their ignorance was profound... the christological confession was the test of true spirituality... who is spritual? it is about Jesus and his Lordship!!
Unity in the gifts is given a trinitarian basis. The gifts have the same origins - one Lord/Spirit/God. Paul lists the gifts of the spirit: is there any order to the lists? Certainly, he seems to think about prophets/apostles etc as the gifts which are foundational (as back in chapter 4).
Love and the edification in the church (13-14)
Prophecy and tongues... edification is about maturity but also evangelism. The significance of love in ministry is expounded in 13 as we know - this grounds the gifts... He proclaims there love as the power of the future age.
Six principles for edification.
a) church is not primarily for self-edication or private communion with God, but for the edication of teh body in relation to its head;
b) Prophesying edifies the churchin a way that tongues do not by providng encouragement and consolation through divine direction for all;
c) Evne prayers and praises that are directed to God must be expressed in a way that eidfies the congregation.
d) When believers prophesy for mutual encouragement and strengthening, God may use that ministry to bring unbelievers to himself.
e) Although many may wish to contribute to the congregational meeting on any given occasion, only a few will be able to participate in a meaningful way: practical considerations exercised in love should determine the pattern;
f) Listening with discernemnt is an aspect of edifaction: it is a way of encouraging others in theri ministry and benefitting from it at the same time.
Paul starts by noting how the Corinthians were enriched in grace and in knowledge - by the Holy Spirit's gifting. Spiritually, they were rich (4:8). It is very unhelpful to translate karisma as 'spiritual gift'... it is probably better rendered 'gift'. In 12, of course, we get a trinitarian explanation (as opposed to the Corinthians pneumatika).
The initial discussion of gifts seems to emphasise the communicative giftings; and also that it is for those who wait and who need to be sustained. Perserverance is enabled by the gifting that God gives to the church - sustained externally in other words. It is a salvific concern - the gifts are given to SUSTAIN us in Christ - not for our enjoyment, or even for our maturing.
Paul goes on to critique the divisions among the Corinthians. They wrongly evaluated their favourites - Paul/Apollos/Cephas.... Paul challenges this by reminding them of the wisdom they received in the gospel in the first place. Paul was concerned for the sophia/content and the logou/form of Christian proclamation. Both form and content of ministry need to be God-honouring. Paul draws attention to the MANNER of his own proclamation of the gospel. There is a FORM that is appropriate to the gospel. Especially, the ministry of evangelism.
The work of the Spirit? He moved the preacher to avoid display of rhetoric and brought people to faith. 2:6-16 establishes a framework for the later discussions. There needs to be an interpretation of spiritual things to spiritual people... the Corinthians regarded themselves as spiritual: but Paul reminds them of the true maturity in the knowledge of God and for which food is needed. Gospel faithfulness is a key for evaluating the ministries of people in ch 4. The gospel should determine the content AND the manner in which the ministry is conducted. How would Paul have classified his own ministry in relation to the gifts of ch 12? In 4:1, the three are described as 'servants of Christ'. Gospel-driven leadership was foundational. (It is a mistake to focus on 11-14 when in 1-4 you have a picture of gospel-preaching for the benefit and growth of the church... put the two sections together and you have a better picture).
What about gender distinctiveness in congregational ministry? (11:2-16). Paul doesn't explain what prophesying is here. His concern is to elaborate on appopriate relationships. C/R seem to think that Paul is talking about 3 things:
1) respect for a certain creation mandate
2) respect for culturally specific approaches to guarding sexual purity in mixed company
3) fully integrating women into the experience of the worshipping community
The apostle wants them to understand an aspect of their own traditions that they have neglected. God is the top of a series of 'heads'. Christ honoured his head... so men and women must honour their respective heads. The theme of self-discipline for the other's good comes out.
It is possible that they are talking about husbands and wives; but the dress codes had a wider significance. (note a huge amount of information about 1st century customs and fashions)
Paul is concerned to develop a scriptural argt but to tie it in to cultural appropriateness. The word 'head' kephale? It seems to mean 'one who has authority over'. Of course this is made egalitarian in ch 7 in a remarkable way... but the order from Gen 2: a submission maintained. How are these two to be balanced? Tricky.
In 1 Cor 11 Paul is setting up a complex order between creation and recreation -a dialectic. The practice expression is the appropriate covering of the woman's head and the uncovering of the man's. Covered hair for a woman indicated controlled sexuality. Ciampa and Rosner show how Paul is continuing a common custom of his own time. Sexual provocation is the point.
The Greco-Roman world was concerned for separate spaces in worship. The Christians met together. But Paul wanted them not to simply be blended. Paul seems to have understood Gen 2 in Psalm 8 terms counterbalancing the shame aspect of the argument. Paul's ultimate concern is what gives glory to God in public worship between the genders.
11:10? Is this the wife's recognition of her husband's authority? or a sign of her own authority? Whichever: women clearly participate in prayer and prophesy in the congregation. Paul does not forbid this at all. But they should do it an appropriate way.
What is this 'prophesying'? What were the women doing? Certainly in ch 14, Paul thinks that this is THE best and preferred activity. Of course it is much contested. What is said about the prophetic ministry in Paul and Luke/Acts? It is not merely the spontaneous utterance of future predictions, this isn't what the evidence says. Paul notes that revelations may come in the meeting; and may occur before hand. Not all of these give expression to immediate revelations. He also talks about how the outsider is convicted by such prophesying, of their sin. It is a ministry that they have to one another. In the process the outsider is converted. IT IS SOME KIND OF GOSPEL COMMUNICATION - which the unbeliever hears. Prophesying edifies everyone (ie, not just the women or men). It is a very significant ministry, right? It is a great shame that this biblical concept is not talked about. Thisleton argues that the limitation of prophesy to mini-messages demeans the term. He calls it 'the proclamation of gospel truths to the contexts of the hearers'. The church is upbuilt by the declaration of the truths of the gospel. In Eph 1:17 - the spirit applies the Wisdom of the gospel to a particular context and situation. There is a link between prophesy and the 'word of wisdom/knowledge' (of course redefined by Paul in terms of the cross). It is all about gospel applicaton. These words in chp 12 seem to be limited discreet teachings... Prophesy is the broad heading under which these come.
What is the relationship between this and pastoral preaching? Calvin notes that the 1 Tim relates the teaching to leadership and authority - quite different from prophecy. A simplistic equation of prophesy with what we call 'preaching' is not on. But prophecy seemed to be an umbrella term. Remember Acts 2 - everyone will prophesy (both genders)? Certainly, the apostles seem to preach evangelistic sermons as a result. There are many things that prophets do in Acts (in addition to Agabus of course). = Spirit-directed gospel proclamation. Likely that the teaching/prophecy distinguishment of the GR world is maintained. The Spirit can work to empower preaching and so on - but it does a whole range of things.
SO: chapter 12-14? The source and purpose of gifts and ministries.
The christological test for spirit-led ministry in 12.... Paul goes beyond what the Corinthians say, and offers a corrective of the pneumatika... Had the Corinthians been involved in ecstatic pagan worship? Carson (1987) doesn't think so. As pagans, their ignorance was profound... the christological confession was the test of true spirituality... who is spritual? it is about Jesus and his Lordship!!
Unity in the gifts is given a trinitarian basis. The gifts have the same origins - one Lord/Spirit/God. Paul lists the gifts of the spirit: is there any order to the lists? Certainly, he seems to think about prophets/apostles etc as the gifts which are foundational (as back in chapter 4).
Love and the edification in the church (13-14)
Prophecy and tongues... edification is about maturity but also evangelism. The significance of love in ministry is expounded in 13 as we know - this grounds the gifts... He proclaims there love as the power of the future age.
Six principles for edification.
a) church is not primarily for self-edication or private communion with God, but for the edication of teh body in relation to its head;
b) Prophesying edifies the churchin a way that tongues do not by providng encouragement and consolation through divine direction for all;
c) Evne prayers and praises that are directed to God must be expressed in a way that eidfies the congregation.
d) When believers prophesy for mutual encouragement and strengthening, God may use that ministry to bring unbelievers to himself.
e) Although many may wish to contribute to the congregational meeting on any given occasion, only a few will be able to participate in a meaningful way: practical considerations exercised in love should determine the pattern;
f) Listening with discernemnt is an aspect of edifaction: it is a way of encouraging others in theri ministry and benefitting from it at the same time.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Bruce Winter on Paul's Pastoral Practice in 1 Corinthians
In 1 Corinthians Paul deals pastorally with the church's presenting problems - those both reported and written to him. These can be examined under the heading of cause, consequence and cure. Bruce argues that the causes of the problems arise from the influence of secular ethics... the way Corinthian culture had programmed the converts before they became Christians and significant social changes that had occurred after Paul left Corinth.
1 Cor 15 shows Paul dealing with the underlying problems. What has the 'wake out of drunkeness' passage have to do with the resurrection of the body, however? In this chapter, Paul is dealing with the effect that their concept of anthropology are causing.
In Philo of Alexandria we see just such a critique of a pagan anthropology. The orators of Alexandria were saying 'Is not the body the soul's house?' 'Did not nature creat pleasures and enjoyments and the delights that meet us all the way through life for the dead, or for those who have never come into existence, and not for the living?' 'The so-called lovers of virture are almost without exception obscure people, looked down upon, of mean estate, destitute of the ncessities of life, not enjoying the privileges of subject peoples or even of slaves, filthy, sallow, reduced to skeletons, with a hungry look for want of food, the prey of disease, in training for dying'....
Philo called these opponents the 'lovers of self' ...
In Corinth, Paul likewise finds people living out of their anthropology: that the body and its behaviour doesn't have eternal significance at all.
Paul talks about his own life, with its own struggles:
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (1Co 15:10 TNIV)
30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?
31 I face death every day--yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord.
32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
33 Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character."
(1Co 15:30-33 TNIV)
Bruce wants to suggest that the last set of injunctions is key. 15:58 begins with a strong injunction - they are to be steadfast by how they live their lives; immovable about their thinking. Not prone to the smorgasbord approach to Christianity. The last line is a very important line!
See For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive what is due them for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. (2Co 5:10 TNIV)
The presenting problems are serious matters indeed: the incestuous relationship in ch 5, for example. Surface conformity was the go in Rome, hiding deep competetiveness and conflict.
Education was a means of getting ahead, not of actual learning. Don't forget the vexatious litigations issue. People are being contentious... see 1 Cor 11.
Has Bruce ignored what the passage is actually about? Well, he says he has tried to raise the often overlooked sections which reveal the underlying cause: a popular anthropology that the Christians were toying with while at the same time invoking the Christian identity. The Christian playboy 'your best life now' philosophy! Life is NOT all about my pleasure... But I did it my way is now the most popular funeral hymn in England...
The issue is the insurrection of the body, to which the resurrection of the body is the retort.
1 Cor 15 shows Paul dealing with the underlying problems. What has the 'wake out of drunkeness' passage have to do with the resurrection of the body, however? In this chapter, Paul is dealing with the effect that their concept of anthropology are causing.
In Philo of Alexandria we see just such a critique of a pagan anthropology. The orators of Alexandria were saying 'Is not the body the soul's house?' 'Did not nature creat pleasures and enjoyments and the delights that meet us all the way through life for the dead, or for those who have never come into existence, and not for the living?' 'The so-called lovers of virture are almost without exception obscure people, looked down upon, of mean estate, destitute of the ncessities of life, not enjoying the privileges of subject peoples or even of slaves, filthy, sallow, reduced to skeletons, with a hungry look for want of food, the prey of disease, in training for dying'....
Philo called these opponents the 'lovers of self' ...
In Corinth, Paul likewise finds people living out of their anthropology: that the body and its behaviour doesn't have eternal significance at all.
Paul talks about his own life, with its own struggles:
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (1Co 15:10 TNIV)
30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?
31 I face death every day--yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord.
32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
33 Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character."
(1Co 15:30-33 TNIV)
Bruce wants to suggest that the last set of injunctions is key. 15:58 begins with a strong injunction - they are to be steadfast by how they live their lives; immovable about their thinking. Not prone to the smorgasbord approach to Christianity. The last line is a very important line!
See For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive what is due them for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. (2Co 5:10 TNIV)
The presenting problems are serious matters indeed: the incestuous relationship in ch 5, for example. Surface conformity was the go in Rome, hiding deep competetiveness and conflict.
Education was a means of getting ahead, not of actual learning. Don't forget the vexatious litigations issue. People are being contentious... see 1 Cor 11.
Has Bruce ignored what the passage is actually about? Well, he says he has tried to raise the often overlooked sections which reveal the underlying cause: a popular anthropology that the Christians were toying with while at the same time invoking the Christian identity. The Christian playboy 'your best life now' philosophy! Life is NOT all about my pleasure... But I did it my way is now the most popular funeral hymn in England...
The issue is the insurrection of the body, to which the resurrection of the body is the retort.
Bp Michael Nazir-Ali on The Unique and Universal Christ and Religious Pluralism
Bishop Nazir-Ali's address was not directly on 1 Corinthians but addressed 'The Unique and Universal Christ and Religious Pluralism'. Paul's determination to know nothing but Christ and him crucified is a model for us today.
The plural culture in which we find ourselves still has a vestigial awareness of Christ. Jesus is an admired man - but not more than this. The atheist still turns to the Sermon on the Mount. Philip Pullman's new book is about the good man Jesus and the scoundrel Christ. So: how is Jesus viewed in contemporary culture.
The Qu'ran's interest in Jesus is doctrinal. It seeks to deny what Christianity affirms about Christ. In the traditions there is more an eschatological concern - about the return of Jesus. He will convert everyone to Islam and lead everyone in prayer behind Mohummed. Among the Sufi, Jesus is an example of ascetic practice. In Judaism, there is some re-evaluation of the role of Jesus. Vermes and Cohn-Sherbrock in different ways regard Jesus as a Jewish figure. In Hinduism: for some Hindus, Jesus is a significant object of devotion.
All these people have these views about Jesus: what did Jesus think of himself? Did Jesus say anything about himself? Dodd says 'Jesus was the embodiment of the kingdom'.
What can we say about Jesus self-understanding?
The BBC series on Jesus' miracles was presented by a Muslim! But it was presented quite respectfully. It was claimed: 'the divinity of Jesus is demonstrated by his miracles'. His miracles over nature, his authority over the supernatural, and his forgiveness of their sins: point us to his divine nature. The Qu'ran, he said, does not emphasise the miracles of Jesus.... (I lost the thread a bit here)
What of Jesus' use of the Son of Man? Andy Angel's research: a distinction between a general and an emphatic use of the Son of Man. If the evangelists had mean to have Jesus meaning 'A son of man' they could have. And yet they most certainly do not: as Charlie Moule always said, Jesus calls himself THE Son of Man. BTW, the Aramaic section of Daniel is where the Son of Man is mentioned. There, the Son of Man is served, in the sense of 'the worship of God'... in Dan 7 we see that 'all nations will worship the Son of Man'... Jesus understanding himself in this sense is clearly significant.
Jesus' refusal of the Messiah title was on account of the misuse of this title without its full sense. Jesus himself drew attention to Psalm 110 - how can it only be about the Son of David? Likewise Psalm 45. Tom Wright points out that the figure of the Son of Man was associated with the messianic expectation. The reason Jesus was reluctant to accept the title was because it had been reduced in terms of the witness of the OT.
What of the Son of God? This is always a sticking point in Christian-Muslim dialogue. We cannot understand Jesus without a sense of his intimacy with his Father. But you can't understand the significance of Jesus' person without an understanding of the work. The Anglican emphasis on the incarnation has led to a very attentuated account of Christ's work. We must at once agree that subjective accounts of the atonement are important. He shows God love for us. This exemplary aspects of the atonement do have a place amongst Muslims, strangely. Despite the denial of the cross! But the subjective aspects are not enough indeed. He is a representative, but also our substitute. Standing in our place he turns away God's anger from what he have become. If Jesus understood his work in terms of sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible, then we cannot escape that he would have thought of his work as substitution... God made him he know no sin to be sin ... And then Jesus is victor - an aspect in Athanasius. What gives the martyrs confidence going to their martyrdoms? It was the confidence of the victory that Jesus won on the cross. Christ as victor gave Martin Luther's theology its vigour.
What does this mean? 'If Christ is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all'... this is true of culture, too. Culture, as the non-biological aspect of the human condition, which makes art and science possible and so on: also manifests all that is wrong with the human condition. Remember Niebuhr? Not an endorsement of any culture. The Bible is the only tradition that provides for adequate self-criticism...
We are moving to the position of Christ against culture... we have been salt. But do we now need to change the metaphor from salt to light?
Nazir-Ali pointed to some examples where the gospel has transformed culture. In South America, Pentecostalism (for example) has done what liberation theology could only theorise about... a transformed spiritual and so social and economic situation. Abp David Gitari of Kenya said that the gospel affirmed some things in Kenyan gospel. Other things were unchanged - like, the food one might eat. There were things that the gospel could tolerate for a while, while things were then changed. For example, men and women meeting apart; or polugamy. (That is, giving up polygamy was a generational shift). Then there were things that the gospel could not tolerate: twin killing and cattle rustling!
It was, as Goldingay argues, the monotheism of the Hebrews that led to their fundamental egalitarianism - over and against the Canaanite world. And yet... Abraham makes on offering to Melchizedek. This is fundamental to the idea of mission in the NT - think of the god-fearers, for example. Nazir-Ali claimed that people in the image of God may know something of the God that made them. The Lordship of Christ needs to be acknowledged in the encounter with other faiths - whether that is in judgement or in recognition.
Is it possible for religions themselves to be converted to Christ? (John V Taylor)
Hinduism, for example, is unrecogniseable following its encounter with the gospel... many important aspects have been deeply changed by Christian influence. Another scholar seeks to show how Jesus is the Christ according to the logic of Islam (N-A is interested, but not optimistic). Gregory the Great told St Augustine to purify the shrines and put them to Christian use... how far can we go with this?
The plural culture in which we find ourselves still has a vestigial awareness of Christ. Jesus is an admired man - but not more than this. The atheist still turns to the Sermon on the Mount. Philip Pullman's new book is about the good man Jesus and the scoundrel Christ. So: how is Jesus viewed in contemporary culture.
The Qu'ran's interest in Jesus is doctrinal. It seeks to deny what Christianity affirms about Christ. In the traditions there is more an eschatological concern - about the return of Jesus. He will convert everyone to Islam and lead everyone in prayer behind Mohummed. Among the Sufi, Jesus is an example of ascetic practice. In Judaism, there is some re-evaluation of the role of Jesus. Vermes and Cohn-Sherbrock in different ways regard Jesus as a Jewish figure. In Hinduism: for some Hindus, Jesus is a significant object of devotion.
All these people have these views about Jesus: what did Jesus think of himself? Did Jesus say anything about himself? Dodd says 'Jesus was the embodiment of the kingdom'.
What can we say about Jesus self-understanding?
The BBC series on Jesus' miracles was presented by a Muslim! But it was presented quite respectfully. It was claimed: 'the divinity of Jesus is demonstrated by his miracles'. His miracles over nature, his authority over the supernatural, and his forgiveness of their sins: point us to his divine nature. The Qu'ran, he said, does not emphasise the miracles of Jesus.... (I lost the thread a bit here)
What of Jesus' use of the Son of Man? Andy Angel's research: a distinction between a general and an emphatic use of the Son of Man. If the evangelists had mean to have Jesus meaning 'A son of man' they could have. And yet they most certainly do not: as Charlie Moule always said, Jesus calls himself THE Son of Man. BTW, the Aramaic section of Daniel is where the Son of Man is mentioned. There, the Son of Man is served, in the sense of 'the worship of God'... in Dan 7 we see that 'all nations will worship the Son of Man'... Jesus understanding himself in this sense is clearly significant.
Jesus' refusal of the Messiah title was on account of the misuse of this title without its full sense. Jesus himself drew attention to Psalm 110 - how can it only be about the Son of David? Likewise Psalm 45. Tom Wright points out that the figure of the Son of Man was associated with the messianic expectation. The reason Jesus was reluctant to accept the title was because it had been reduced in terms of the witness of the OT.
What of the Son of God? This is always a sticking point in Christian-Muslim dialogue. We cannot understand Jesus without a sense of his intimacy with his Father. But you can't understand the significance of Jesus' person without an understanding of the work. The Anglican emphasis on the incarnation has led to a very attentuated account of Christ's work. We must at once agree that subjective accounts of the atonement are important. He shows God love for us. This exemplary aspects of the atonement do have a place amongst Muslims, strangely. Despite the denial of the cross! But the subjective aspects are not enough indeed. He is a representative, but also our substitute. Standing in our place he turns away God's anger from what he have become. If Jesus understood his work in terms of sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible, then we cannot escape that he would have thought of his work as substitution... God made him he know no sin to be sin ... And then Jesus is victor - an aspect in Athanasius. What gives the martyrs confidence going to their martyrdoms? It was the confidence of the victory that Jesus won on the cross. Christ as victor gave Martin Luther's theology its vigour.
What does this mean? 'If Christ is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all'... this is true of culture, too. Culture, as the non-biological aspect of the human condition, which makes art and science possible and so on: also manifests all that is wrong with the human condition. Remember Niebuhr? Not an endorsement of any culture. The Bible is the only tradition that provides for adequate self-criticism...
We are moving to the position of Christ against culture... we have been salt. But do we now need to change the metaphor from salt to light?
Nazir-Ali pointed to some examples where the gospel has transformed culture. In South America, Pentecostalism (for example) has done what liberation theology could only theorise about... a transformed spiritual and so social and economic situation. Abp David Gitari of Kenya said that the gospel affirmed some things in Kenyan gospel. Other things were unchanged - like, the food one might eat. There were things that the gospel could tolerate for a while, while things were then changed. For example, men and women meeting apart; or polugamy. (That is, giving up polygamy was a generational shift). Then there were things that the gospel could not tolerate: twin killing and cattle rustling!
It was, as Goldingay argues, the monotheism of the Hebrews that led to their fundamental egalitarianism - over and against the Canaanite world. And yet... Abraham makes on offering to Melchizedek. This is fundamental to the idea of mission in the NT - think of the god-fearers, for example. Nazir-Ali claimed that people in the image of God may know something of the God that made them. The Lordship of Christ needs to be acknowledged in the encounter with other faiths - whether that is in judgement or in recognition.
Is it possible for religions themselves to be converted to Christ? (John V Taylor)
Hinduism, for example, is unrecogniseable following its encounter with the gospel... many important aspects have been deeply changed by Christian influence. Another scholar seeks to show how Jesus is the Christ according to the logic of Islam (N-A is interested, but not optimistic). Gregory the Great told St Augustine to purify the shrines and put them to Christian use... how far can we go with this?
Roy Ciampa - Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians
Sex & the City of Corinth: Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians
Paul is a 'task' theologian - this is not an abstract piece of ethical reasoning. His focus in 1 Cor 5-7 is the problem of porneia and what to do about it (or, not do!).
What's going on in Corinth? 1 Cor 7:1 - 'what is 'touching' and ow was sex conceived in the Roman world? Most scholars think that it means 'sexual relations'; and so concluded that there are two opposing schools of thought in Corinth, licence and abstinence. The euphemism, Roy concludes from a new study of 25 references, refers not to marriage or sexual relations in general, but to immoral or violent or even pederastic sex.
Sex in the Roman world was debated. Was it to be engaged in for pleasure or just for procreation? Even those who though it could be recreational thought that married sex was chiefly for procreation. The Roman man had plenty of other opportunities for recreational sex.
What counted as adultery? Well, not just any sex outside marriage, but sex with other people's wives. Sex with prostitutes or slaves was not considered adultery by the Romans.
Paul is not talking about 'homosexuals' as we do in modern western discourse. There was no notion of sexual identity - though a strong sense of gender identity. The true noble man was the penetrator, not the penetrated. Many married men who practiced heterosexual sex with their wives also engaged in homosexual acts with male household slaves, prostitutes or others who may have been willingly or unwillingly penetrated.
One of the terms that Paul uses (often translated 'male prostitues') literally means 'soft men'...
The Roman man was not expected to be a virgin until married. On the contrary, they were expected to be sexually experienced (though not with other men's wives). Practising Jews DID expect their sons to arrive as virgins on their wedding day. Jewish men married younger.
It seems unlikely that there was a Corinthian push for ascetic celibacy (though Paul of course recommends it to those with the gift). Paul's portrayal of the Corinthian inclinations seems to tell this story.
Touching is not the same as porneia, though it is close. Porneia is not about sex for procreation vs sex for pleasure but about sex within marriage and sex that trangresses that boundary.
Roy argues for a Theocentric glory ethic - it is about the glory of God, even in our sexual life and the need to glorify God with our bodies. This is key for chapters 5-7. It is ultimately to do with God's honour and glory. Our lives are not about us, but about him. Much of Paul's use of purity language is based on the believers as the temple of God.
But also: a 'revisionist property ethic'. Whose property were you? One's sexual experience would be determined by those whose property one was. Slaves and wives were understood to be the property of the paterfamilias. Paul introduces as radical revision of the property ethic: we are not our own; we were bought at a price! Purchased by him, we are to honour our owner in our sexual behaviour. The wife is understood to have authority over the husband's body! This has radical implication for what a husband could or could not do. And so the husband is NOT free to use prostitutes and slaves and so on. You can't defraud your spouse. Remember that the typical Roman couple were vastly age-differentiated.
Paul's sexual ethic was remarkably egalitarian. While Roman marriage and Roman sex were highly hierarchical and unilateral - for Paul marriage is to be marked by radical mutuality and respect for the other. 'Touching' was not a mutual experience. You don't in this sense 'touch' each other. A Roman man would unilaterally 'touch' another. It was an asymmetrical power relationship. Paul instead emphasises MUTUALITY - husband to wife/wife to husband, and so on. The older Roman husband is expected to have agreement with his wife about their sex life, very much his junior. Paul expects them to be discussing and negotiating about their sex life.
Paul is heir to the rich Jewish and Scriptural ethic which was positive about the pleasure of companionate sexual relationships. 'One flesh' - is the basis of this mutuality. In the opening of chapter 11, you get the impression that it WON'T be balanced: but the only ministries discussed are praying and prophesying and women are allowed to do both.
Paul's ethic entails a reappropriation of Jewish scriptural ethics. This is reflected in his vice list 6:9 - asrenokoitai - this was a new term in the 1st century or so, probably based on Lev 20:13.
Paul's ethic was an eschatologically conditioned ethic. Paul recognizes the ultimacy of the resurrection and the shadow it casts over our present experience. 1 Cor 6:13-14 reminds us that what we do in our bodies (inc sex) matters, because in the end God presides over the destruction and resurrection of our bodies.
Paul's ethic is a pastorally realistic ethic - he recognises the power of sexual longings and attraction. He is not unrealistically idealistic: it is better to know one's limits than to exceed them. Paul's ethic clearly rejects extra-marital and (therefore homosexual) sex, but the church has not been concerned enough for those who cannot follow Paul's advice and yet do not have the gift of celibacy. Flippancy is not adequate.
Paul is very much aware of his own personal preference and temperament an dis very careful not to impose on them to others... 'not I, but the Lord'.
The wisdom of the cross leads to the glorificaton of god in the temple of the body.
Paul is a 'task' theologian - this is not an abstract piece of ethical reasoning. His focus in 1 Cor 5-7 is the problem of porneia and what to do about it (or, not do!).
What's going on in Corinth? 1 Cor 7:1 - 'what is 'touching' and ow was sex conceived in the Roman world? Most scholars think that it means 'sexual relations'; and so concluded that there are two opposing schools of thought in Corinth, licence and abstinence. The euphemism, Roy concludes from a new study of 25 references, refers not to marriage or sexual relations in general, but to immoral or violent or even pederastic sex.
Sex in the Roman world was debated. Was it to be engaged in for pleasure or just for procreation? Even those who though it could be recreational thought that married sex was chiefly for procreation. The Roman man had plenty of other opportunities for recreational sex.
What counted as adultery? Well, not just any sex outside marriage, but sex with other people's wives. Sex with prostitutes or slaves was not considered adultery by the Romans.
Paul is not talking about 'homosexuals' as we do in modern western discourse. There was no notion of sexual identity - though a strong sense of gender identity. The true noble man was the penetrator, not the penetrated. Many married men who practiced heterosexual sex with their wives also engaged in homosexual acts with male household slaves, prostitutes or others who may have been willingly or unwillingly penetrated.
One of the terms that Paul uses (often translated 'male prostitues') literally means 'soft men'...
The Roman man was not expected to be a virgin until married. On the contrary, they were expected to be sexually experienced (though not with other men's wives). Practising Jews DID expect their sons to arrive as virgins on their wedding day. Jewish men married younger.
It seems unlikely that there was a Corinthian push for ascetic celibacy (though Paul of course recommends it to those with the gift). Paul's portrayal of the Corinthian inclinations seems to tell this story.
Touching is not the same as porneia, though it is close. Porneia is not about sex for procreation vs sex for pleasure but about sex within marriage and sex that trangresses that boundary.
Roy argues for a Theocentric glory ethic - it is about the glory of God, even in our sexual life and the need to glorify God with our bodies. This is key for chapters 5-7. It is ultimately to do with God's honour and glory. Our lives are not about us, but about him. Much of Paul's use of purity language is based on the believers as the temple of God.
But also: a 'revisionist property ethic'. Whose property were you? One's sexual experience would be determined by those whose property one was. Slaves and wives were understood to be the property of the paterfamilias. Paul introduces as radical revision of the property ethic: we are not our own; we were bought at a price! Purchased by him, we are to honour our owner in our sexual behaviour. The wife is understood to have authority over the husband's body! This has radical implication for what a husband could or could not do. And so the husband is NOT free to use prostitutes and slaves and so on. You can't defraud your spouse. Remember that the typical Roman couple were vastly age-differentiated.
Paul's sexual ethic was remarkably egalitarian. While Roman marriage and Roman sex were highly hierarchical and unilateral - for Paul marriage is to be marked by radical mutuality and respect for the other. 'Touching' was not a mutual experience. You don't in this sense 'touch' each other. A Roman man would unilaterally 'touch' another. It was an asymmetrical power relationship. Paul instead emphasises MUTUALITY - husband to wife/wife to husband, and so on. The older Roman husband is expected to have agreement with his wife about their sex life, very much his junior. Paul expects them to be discussing and negotiating about their sex life.
Paul is heir to the rich Jewish and Scriptural ethic which was positive about the pleasure of companionate sexual relationships. 'One flesh' - is the basis of this mutuality. In the opening of chapter 11, you get the impression that it WON'T be balanced: but the only ministries discussed are praying and prophesying and women are allowed to do both.
Paul's ethic entails a reappropriation of Jewish scriptural ethics. This is reflected in his vice list 6:9 - asrenokoitai - this was a new term in the 1st century or so, probably based on Lev 20:13.
Paul's ethic was an eschatologically conditioned ethic. Paul recognizes the ultimacy of the resurrection and the shadow it casts over our present experience. 1 Cor 6:13-14 reminds us that what we do in our bodies (inc sex) matters, because in the end God presides over the destruction and resurrection of our bodies.
Paul's ethic is a pastorally realistic ethic - he recognises the power of sexual longings and attraction. He is not unrealistically idealistic: it is better to know one's limits than to exceed them. Paul's ethic clearly rejects extra-marital and (therefore homosexual) sex, but the church has not been concerned enough for those who cannot follow Paul's advice and yet do not have the gift of celibacy. Flippancy is not adequate.
Paul is very much aware of his own personal preference and temperament an dis very careful not to impose on them to others... 'not I, but the Lord'.
The wisdom of the cross leads to the glorificaton of god in the temple of the body.
Keith Condie on Barth on 1 Corinthians
Keith Condie asks: why look at Barth? Because he was a great theologian and a great exegete too! How does he argue for the coherence of 1 Corinthians?
1. The Resurrection of the Dead in historical context
By the time of his first pastorate 1911 Barth was a convinced liberal. But he was challenged by his pastoral context. What could you preach? By 1915 he had worked out his new approach - see the Epistle to the Romans. Christianity is about God - the God who is totally other, coming to us on his own terms. In the Gottingen years (1921-25) he was preoccupied with teaching both historical theology and NT exegesis.
In 1923, he gave his lectures on 1 Corinthians - published in 1924. Webster says that this is the most accomplished commentary work from these years. The commentary needs to be read on its own terms: it is not exhaustive, it is not thematic. Best seen as an attempt to restate what the text says - in order to allow the inherent clarity and force of the text be felt. Explicate the text! 'God is saying to you that' not 'this verse means this'. Interpreted as revelation, which is a slap in the face! It is saying something to us here today. SO: you have to be alert to the rhetoric of the text. Any genuine interpretation will be open to its own inadequacy. The transcendence of God's word is at play here.
2. Barth's thesis: 1 Corinthians as the key to understanding the epistle.
The unity of the letter only becomes clear when you reach chapter 15... the solution to all the other problems is found in the resurrection of the dead. The problem is that the human elements are flourishing in Corinth... In 1-4, the Corinthians have become puffed up with egoism, forgetting that all they have is from God. In 5-6, the church is sick if it does not react against expressions of human exuberance in the moral sphere that ignore the place of God. In 7, a warning against hubris in the arena of sexuality - even if ascetic. 9-10 - human freedom is not absolute... the community and the glory of God must be considered. Knowledge must not be used contrary to love. Freedom doesn't protect them from idolatry. In 11, there is a critique of human self-assertion that fails to recognise the enormity of the divide between the human and the divine and fails to remember the Lordship of Christ. In 12-14 - they are full of the Spirit and of God, but they appear unredeemed: hence the exhortations to unity and order.
That is: all that the Corinthians have is from God. Paul is critiquing a form of flourishing Christianity that has become an end in itself - a rearing up against God. Thus: chapter 15... the Corinthians have failed to reckon with the resurrection of the dead. They thought that they had the full picture of Christian experience. They failed to reckon with the fact that they must die. God has revealed another reality - and that is a sharp critique of the practice of the Corinthian church. The kingdom of Christ must become the kingdom of God. Their version of Christianity is an illusion. So, how are we to be the church NOW? The future has stuck a hand back into the present... being human means being reconstituted.
3. Coherence in 1 Corinthians: Barth in comparison with Ciampa/Rosner
There are of course, significant methodological differences between the two. C/R are trying to explain the literary form of the text in front of them. Barth is offering a theological reading. The Sache of the text of 1 Cor is what he is trying to explicate. All of this derives from Barth's convictions about what theology is about! It should lead to astonishment! Webster reminds us that KB is a church theologian more than an academic theologian (MJ: unbelievable how people round these parts refuse to see this). Keith says: you could do what C/R do without being Christian!! But you couldn't do what Barth does as a non-Christian.
There is a difference in eschatology, but both C/R and KB see chapter 15 as the climax of the letter. It has been commonplace to claim the Corinthians had an over-realised eschatology (as KB does). For KB, the Corinthians seem to think they have it already. But this isn't KB's emphasis - it is more upon what is the SOURCE of the Corinthians' experience. Where does it come from - themselves or God? For C/R, they are not being Christian enough.
Both interpretations see a focus on God as being ultimate in the concerns of the letter.
4. The relevance of Barth's perspective today
How do we relate all the pieces of the theological process to ourselves? Read it 'objectively'? This was the enlightenment project.
This divorce between the Bible and Theology was challenged by Barth way back when. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement is the exciting development which builds on this insight. It acknowledges that we do not interpret dispassionately or neutrally. We can beneficially read the Scriptures from within the community of faith. God must shape any theological exercise or practice. Barth reminds us that we need to pay attention to the...TEXT! or we may fail to hear what God is saying.
Grace is central in Paul's theology, if Barth is right. We tend to think of this in terms of justification by faith. But, there is something else going on here... with DEATH. Dead people don't help themselves: resurrection is an act of sheer sovereign grace from God. This parallels the logic of J by grace through faith. This says KB is central to all Paul's letters. The Corinthians were rebuked by this.
It is also a reminder that expressions of the Christian faith need to be capable of self-criticism. The Corinthians believed their own press-releases. The problems with all social entities is that they become self-reinforcing... it becomes very hard to question them. This problem occured in Corinth: the letter is a WEIGHTY ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY!!!! Just as the prophets attacked Israel, so also... God's people can become God's enemies.
Barth's reading of the letter batters human pride. God hates and opposes human pride. Barth spells out the solution: listen to God's testimony about himself - he raises the dead. God is not man said in a loud voice... And he challenges worldliness. How can we remain worldly.
C/R provide an elegant and persuasive structure. But lets not downplay what Barth achieved: reading the text against the flow of scholarship! Barth wanted us to listen to God in Scripture... the Corinthians believe not in God but in their own belief in God.
Rosner on 1 Corinthians
Brian Rosner opened the 2010 Moore School of Theology by presenting his (and his co-author Roy Ciampa's) thesis that 1 Corinthians is a unified and coherent letter - flying in the face of many recent views. Murphy-O'Connor for example writes:
The salient feature of 1 Corinthians is the absence of any detectable logic in the arrangement of its contents.
Scholars commonly see the ethics and theology of the letter as being completely disconnected.
Brian showed in response how, for example, the theme of love is not merely confined to a single chapter in the letter but flows out of the whole thesis.
Rosner and Ciampa assert:
In 1 Corinthians Paul tells the church of God in Corinth that they are part of the fulfillment of the OT expectation of world-wide worship of the God of Israel. Therefore, as God's end-time temple, they must act in a manner appropriate to their pure and holy status by becoming unified, shunning pagan vices and glorifying God as they reflect the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Brian also presented the view of fellow present Matthew Malcolm, a student of Anthony Thistleton:
1 Corinthians is a unified composition that exhibits kerygmatic rhetoric. The Jewish motif of dual reversal, whereby boastful rulers are destined for destruction while righteous sufferers are destined for vindication, serves as an influential conceptual motif in the formulation of Christian kerygma and may be seen as an interpretative framework and rhetorical available to Paul and Sosthenes...
Either way, the methodological assumption to test is that the letter is a whole - and that themes introduced in one part of the letter are connected to the other themes and motifs.
The salient feature of 1 Corinthians is the absence of any detectable logic in the arrangement of its contents.
Scholars commonly see the ethics and theology of the letter as being completely disconnected.
Brian showed in response how, for example, the theme of love is not merely confined to a single chapter in the letter but flows out of the whole thesis.
Rosner and Ciampa assert:
In 1 Corinthians Paul tells the church of God in Corinth that they are part of the fulfillment of the OT expectation of world-wide worship of the God of Israel. Therefore, as God's end-time temple, they must act in a manner appropriate to their pure and holy status by becoming unified, shunning pagan vices and glorifying God as they reflect the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Brian also presented the view of fellow present Matthew Malcolm, a student of Anthony Thistleton:
1 Corinthians is a unified composition that exhibits kerygmatic rhetoric. The Jewish motif of dual reversal, whereby boastful rulers are destined for destruction while righteous sufferers are destined for vindication, serves as an influential conceptual motif in the formulation of Christian kerygma and may be seen as an interpretative framework and rhetorical available to Paul and Sosthenes...
Either way, the methodological assumption to test is that the letter is a whole - and that themes introduced in one part of the letter are connected to the other themes and motifs.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Are Sydney Anglicans Fundamentalists?
The insistence on the authority of Scripture means that, theologically speaking, Sydney Anglicans are very conservative. They are anti-progressive in the sense that the Word of God ‘stands written’: there is no further revelation, nor any virtue in ‘moving on’ from Scripture. It is a good deposit to be guarded, the ‘faith once delivered to all the saints’ (ref). But it would be a mistake to call them ‘fundamentalists’ in the modern sense. They often are so called by their detractors, but the term of abuse is for the most part inaccurate and unfair.
There are Christians who would call themselves ‘fundamentalists’, chiefly living in the USA. Fundamentalism was a movement that began in 1920 in response to theological modernism and originally indicated that one was committed to the ‘fundamentals’: the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity. Chiefly today, Christian fundamentalism is distinguished by teachings like six-day Creationism, pre-millennial eschatology and a particularly right-wing approach to politics. None of these things is characteristic of Sydney Anglicans. Like millions of other Christians, they trace their heritage to mainstream and orthodox theologians like John Calvin and Martin Luther, who upheld the supreme authority of Scripture in the church. Holding to the supreme authority of Scripture does not in itself make you a ‘fundamentalist’, however irritating this is to Christians who differ. What it does mean is that tradition, reason and experience will never trump Scripture as an authority.
In a piece entitled ‘What Shall We Do With The Bible?’, published originally in 1987, Archbishop Donald Robinson recounted the shift in the usage of the term. When he went to Sydney University in 1940, he was not unhappy to own the label ‘fundamentalist’. It merely indicated then that he was not a modernist, and was committed to the authority of Scripture. As the term increasingly was being used by the opponents of evangelicals to caricature and abuse them, prominent evangelicals began to disavow it from the 1950s on – especially in the UK. Leading British evangelical Anglican John Stott was in the vanguard. As Robinson writes:
He said we ought to discard it [the term fundamentalist] because it had become associated with three extravagances, first, a total rejection of all biblical criticism, secondly, excessively literalist interpretation of the Bible and thirdly, certain rather mechanical theories of the nature of biblical inspiration. Those extravagances, he said, were no part of the orthodox evangelical position or of the IVF in particular.
J.I. Packer, another leading British evangelical likewise detested the term as a description for evangelicalism, and authored a book called ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God – with the inverted commas in the title indicating that he thought that the word was not something he could now own.
It was clearly a word that made evangelicals wince, and so their opponents continued to use it. And evangelicals continued to seek to distinguish themselves from it. A leading American evangelical named E.J. Carnell argued that fundamentalism had become more of a religious attitude than a theological position. Fundamentalists claimed to sit under Scripture’s authority, but in fact they followed their own traditions and habits in interpreting the Bible. They had not developed an affirmative world view and would not try to connect their convictions with the culture. Their only goal was to negate modernism. But once modernism itself had died away, fundamentalism had no obvious raison d’etre. It became a highly rigid and ideologically driven form of Christianity, incapable of recognising incompleteness and inconsistency in its own position or of tolerating it in anyone else. As Carnell wrote:
‘Fundamentalism is a lonely position. It has cut itself off from the general stream of culture, philosophy and ecclesiastical tradition. This accounts, in part, for its robust pride. Since it is no longer in union with the wisdom of the ages, it has no standard by which to judge its own religious pretense’.
This characterisation of fundamentalism as a mentality rather than a particular position was taken up by Old Testament scholar James Barr in his 1977 book Fundamentalism, in which he offered a sweeping critique of the Inter-Varsity Press and its publications.
Donald Robinson is at pains to show how his evangelical commitment to the authority of Scripture does not operate as a mere ‘religious mentality’. He concedes that some evangelicals are indeed guilty of the kind of attitudes decried by Carnell and Barr. But being committed to the authority of Scripture ought to result in a theological method that is not subject to the charged laid against fundamentalism, not at all. Robinson wrote:
The first task of theology as I see it is the understanding of the revelation of the Scriptures in their own original terms, that is, in the language and cultural forms in which it was originally given. The second task is to express and interpret that understanding in relation to the language and cultural forms of our own day and in response to questions and concerns which arise from our own life, some of which did not arise in the life of Bible times. Yet even the disciplined theological task which I have described is not a static of isolated one. It does not take place in a vacuum. There is an always has been the continuous fellowship of the people of God, the actual living of the life of faith by individuals and churches, the preaching of the gospel and the exercise of various spiritual ministries .
For Robinson, the practice of the authority of Scripture ought to result in a rigorous Biblical scholarship and attentiveness (though not concession) to contemporary questions and concerns. And it ought to take place in conversation with and with respect to the venerable tradition of Christian – and not necessarily just evangelical - interpretation of the Bible.
In outlining this method and in exemplifying it in his work over four decades as a churchman and a scholar, Robinson bequeathed to Sydney Anglicans the possibility of an intellectually robust evangelicalism. He showed how a Reformation conviction about the supreme authority of Scripture need not be at odds with scholarly integrity; nor need it result in the kind of defensive obscurantism displayed in fundamentalism. To this day, the students at Moore College, who have access to the best and most comprehensive theological library in the southern hemisphere, are encouraged to read and to learn from the works of scholars from a variety of traditions and not just those that agree with them.
The challenge remains though for a new generation of Bible-believing card-carrying evangelicals. It is easier, in a sense, to be what your critics claim you are. Fundamentalism as a mentality is an easy temptation to fall for, especially when the authority of Scripture is under attack. But it is a lazy and ultimately corrupt form of thought. Are Sydney Anglicans fundamentalists? I don't think they have been in the past, as Archbishop Robinson explains.
There are Christians who would call themselves ‘fundamentalists’, chiefly living in the USA. Fundamentalism was a movement that began in 1920 in response to theological modernism and originally indicated that one was committed to the ‘fundamentals’: the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity. Chiefly today, Christian fundamentalism is distinguished by teachings like six-day Creationism, pre-millennial eschatology and a particularly right-wing approach to politics. None of these things is characteristic of Sydney Anglicans. Like millions of other Christians, they trace their heritage to mainstream and orthodox theologians like John Calvin and Martin Luther, who upheld the supreme authority of Scripture in the church. Holding to the supreme authority of Scripture does not in itself make you a ‘fundamentalist’, however irritating this is to Christians who differ. What it does mean is that tradition, reason and experience will never trump Scripture as an authority.
In a piece entitled ‘What Shall We Do With The Bible?’, published originally in 1987, Archbishop Donald Robinson recounted the shift in the usage of the term. When he went to Sydney University in 1940, he was not unhappy to own the label ‘fundamentalist’. It merely indicated then that he was not a modernist, and was committed to the authority of Scripture. As the term increasingly was being used by the opponents of evangelicals to caricature and abuse them, prominent evangelicals began to disavow it from the 1950s on – especially in the UK. Leading British evangelical Anglican John Stott was in the vanguard. As Robinson writes:
He said we ought to discard it [the term fundamentalist] because it had become associated with three extravagances, first, a total rejection of all biblical criticism, secondly, excessively literalist interpretation of the Bible and thirdly, certain rather mechanical theories of the nature of biblical inspiration. Those extravagances, he said, were no part of the orthodox evangelical position or of the IVF in particular.
J.I. Packer, another leading British evangelical likewise detested the term as a description for evangelicalism, and authored a book called ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God – with the inverted commas in the title indicating that he thought that the word was not something he could now own.
It was clearly a word that made evangelicals wince, and so their opponents continued to use it. And evangelicals continued to seek to distinguish themselves from it. A leading American evangelical named E.J. Carnell argued that fundamentalism had become more of a religious attitude than a theological position. Fundamentalists claimed to sit under Scripture’s authority, but in fact they followed their own traditions and habits in interpreting the Bible. They had not developed an affirmative world view and would not try to connect their convictions with the culture. Their only goal was to negate modernism. But once modernism itself had died away, fundamentalism had no obvious raison d’etre. It became a highly rigid and ideologically driven form of Christianity, incapable of recognising incompleteness and inconsistency in its own position or of tolerating it in anyone else. As Carnell wrote:
‘Fundamentalism is a lonely position. It has cut itself off from the general stream of culture, philosophy and ecclesiastical tradition. This accounts, in part, for its robust pride. Since it is no longer in union with the wisdom of the ages, it has no standard by which to judge its own religious pretense’.
This characterisation of fundamentalism as a mentality rather than a particular position was taken up by Old Testament scholar James Barr in his 1977 book Fundamentalism, in which he offered a sweeping critique of the Inter-Varsity Press and its publications.
Donald Robinson is at pains to show how his evangelical commitment to the authority of Scripture does not operate as a mere ‘religious mentality’. He concedes that some evangelicals are indeed guilty of the kind of attitudes decried by Carnell and Barr. But being committed to the authority of Scripture ought to result in a theological method that is not subject to the charged laid against fundamentalism, not at all. Robinson wrote:
The first task of theology as I see it is the understanding of the revelation of the Scriptures in their own original terms, that is, in the language and cultural forms in which it was originally given. The second task is to express and interpret that understanding in relation to the language and cultural forms of our own day and in response to questions and concerns which arise from our own life, some of which did not arise in the life of Bible times. Yet even the disciplined theological task which I have described is not a static of isolated one. It does not take place in a vacuum. There is an always has been the continuous fellowship of the people of God, the actual living of the life of faith by individuals and churches, the preaching of the gospel and the exercise of various spiritual ministries .
For Robinson, the practice of the authority of Scripture ought to result in a rigorous Biblical scholarship and attentiveness (though not concession) to contemporary questions and concerns. And it ought to take place in conversation with and with respect to the venerable tradition of Christian – and not necessarily just evangelical - interpretation of the Bible.
In outlining this method and in exemplifying it in his work over four decades as a churchman and a scholar, Robinson bequeathed to Sydney Anglicans the possibility of an intellectually robust evangelicalism. He showed how a Reformation conviction about the supreme authority of Scripture need not be at odds with scholarly integrity; nor need it result in the kind of defensive obscurantism displayed in fundamentalism. To this day, the students at Moore College, who have access to the best and most comprehensive theological library in the southern hemisphere, are encouraged to read and to learn from the works of scholars from a variety of traditions and not just those that agree with them.
The challenge remains though for a new generation of Bible-believing card-carrying evangelicals. It is easier, in a sense, to be what your critics claim you are. Fundamentalism as a mentality is an easy temptation to fall for, especially when the authority of Scripture is under attack. But it is a lazy and ultimately corrupt form of thought. Are Sydney Anglicans fundamentalists? I don't think they have been in the past, as Archbishop Robinson explains.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Natural Law 13
Can anything be saved from the wreckage? Barth’s position - another ”Nein!” - is perhaps too extreme. Several Protestant thinkers have found a place for a modified doctrine of Natural Law. Calvin helpfully gives his doctrine of Natural Law clear demarcation in the light of his more Augustinian doctrine of sin. Barclay argues for a “creation ethic” that starts with special revelation and deploys good sense. With greater sophistication, O’Donovan reminds us that the critique of Thomist epistemology (begun by the nominalists and continued in the Reformation) need not affect ontological issues. Thus, while we might seriously doubt human access to “Natural Law”, we need not repudiate the notion of a divine order in the world. Just because until the coming of the Word of God we could discern no meaning in creation does not mean that it had no meaning. In particular, Christian eschatology gives to the world a highly specific telos. O’Donovan also wants to apply salvation-history to creation, to avoid a static view of nature endemic in Thomism. Brunner, in the light of what he saw in Europe in the 1940s, allowed that the “orders of creation” were not hidden from those who do not know the Creator, but that no concept of true Justice may be obtained from this primitive knowledge.
Thus, we may allow a carefully demarcated role for a natural ethic of some type; but only within an understanding of nature (and especially human nature) that is informed from the start by the divine revelation of the scriptures. The Bible itself appeals to inklings of eternity within the human heart; but the construction of an ethical system from this point is a most uncertain enterprise. Most critically, the catastrophe of the Fall cannot be mitigated by an appeal to human reason which, like our other parts, lies also under the Curse.
Thus, we may allow a carefully demarcated role for a natural ethic of some type; but only within an understanding of nature (and especially human nature) that is informed from the start by the divine revelation of the scriptures. The Bible itself appeals to inklings of eternity within the human heart; but the construction of an ethical system from this point is a most uncertain enterprise. Most critically, the catastrophe of the Fall cannot be mitigated by an appeal to human reason which, like our other parts, lies also under the Curse.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Natural Law 12
Second, we might complain with reason that Natural Law is the product of classical theism rather than a biblical theology. It serves an ontology of God that is Greek, not Christian. The criticism of natural theology, that it leads to an abstract concept and not to a personal God here also applies. Barth rightly asks:
What has that metaphysics of being to do with the God who is the basis and Lord of the Church?
He goes on:
This [Christian] God is replaced by the divine image of being, the god-concept of ancient philosophy.
At the heart of Aquinas’ doctrine there is an analogia entis - thus the “Eternal” and “Natural” laws. Human beings are “co-ordinated” to God (Barth’s term) by this (pagan) metaphysical analogy, over against the humanity of Christ. Brunner
What has that metaphysics of being to do with the God who is the basis and Lord of the Church?
He goes on:
This [Christian] God is replaced by the divine image of being, the god-concept of ancient philosophy.
At the heart of Aquinas’ doctrine there is an analogia entis - thus the “Eternal” and “Natural” laws. Human beings are “co-ordinated” to God (Barth’s term) by this (pagan) metaphysical analogy, over against the humanity of Christ. Brunner
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Natural Law 11
There are two other areas of concern. First, Natural Law reasoning rejoices in what it sees as an apologetic advantage (over divine-commnd theories) in its non-reference to God. Yet as Grotius observed, God is not necessary for Natural Law at all. Rather than leading the non-believer to God, it may lead him or her merely to an atheistic formulation of Natural Law such as that of Hart. Alternatively, a Christian version of Natural Law must rely on such Christian premises as would likely negate any so-called apologetic advantage. Vacek writes:
...natural-law ethics need not refer to God for either the content or the obliging force of our moral obligations.
A practical agnosticism can be the result.
...natural-law ethics need not refer to God for either the content or the obliging force of our moral obligations.
A practical agnosticism can be the result.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Natural Law 10
Fourth, the doctrine of Natural Law is at best “a very general moral outlook”. It has difficulty in showing how its basic principles may be translated into reliable and specific practical maxims. We may complain that the first precept is not self-evident but rather tautological. Once again, the sheer variety of outcomes in Natural Law thinking is evidence.
Fifth, does Natural Law give an adequate (in biblical terms) account of the distortion of human reason by sin? Barth fulminates:
...we cannot accept that merely relative and quantitative scope and significance of the fall, that doctrine of the nature of man which regards it as merely sick, dereanged and impotent, that talk of a remnant of the original divine image and likeness which remains in spite of the fall. This explains whu we have to object against Roman doctrine that...it misunderstands and distorts in the most dangerous way the seriousness of sin and therefore the seriousness of the human situation in relation to God.
On these grounds, Barth might allow a pre-lapsarian role for Natural Law; but the fall has so affected our human nature that even our reason is distorted. Brunner, in his earlier work, criticised Catholic ethical teaching as
not aware of this conception at all; for it is extremely unpalatable.
Of course, Thomas does account in part for the obfuscating power of sin. However, he views human nature as retaining its natural outline (pura naturalia); when not only our will, but our knowledge is corrupted by the effects of sin. Ultimately, Thomas’ anthroplogy is more in harmony with Aristotlean categories than scriptural principles.
Fifth, does Natural Law give an adequate (in biblical terms) account of the distortion of human reason by sin? Barth fulminates:
...we cannot accept that merely relative and quantitative scope and significance of the fall, that doctrine of the nature of man which regards it as merely sick, dereanged and impotent, that talk of a remnant of the original divine image and likeness which remains in spite of the fall. This explains whu we have to object against Roman doctrine that...it misunderstands and distorts in the most dangerous way the seriousness of sin and therefore the seriousness of the human situation in relation to God.
On these grounds, Barth might allow a pre-lapsarian role for Natural Law; but the fall has so affected our human nature that even our reason is distorted. Brunner, in his earlier work, criticised Catholic ethical teaching as
not aware of this conception at all; for it is extremely unpalatable.
Of course, Thomas does account in part for the obfuscating power of sin. However, he views human nature as retaining its natural outline (pura naturalia); when not only our will, but our knowledge is corrupted by the effects of sin. Ultimately, Thomas’ anthroplogy is more in harmony with Aristotlean categories than scriptural principles.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Natural Law 9
Third, does Aquinas adequately describe the nature of human beings as rational? This exposes two problems: anthropology has radically altered our understanding of the nature of human beings; and the notion of reason itself has undergone massive debate in the seven centuries since Aquinas. Thielicke writes:
...Natural Law in any given instance depends on the view of man which underlies it. But this view of man is something which is quite inconstant...hence there can never be such a thing as Natural Law which is of unchanging and universal validity.
Could human nature ever be known in the detail required to construct a Natural Law? Natural lawyers tend merely to insist that human nature is rational nature. The notion of reason itself, which is so crucial to Natural Law, has also been subject to much debate. Post-enlightenment rationality (and in particular practical reasoning) is of a different genus to that of Aquinas. While making this point, Crysdale almost ludicrously tries to adapt modern statistical reasoning to a Natural Law outlook.
...Natural Law in any given instance depends on the view of man which underlies it. But this view of man is something which is quite inconstant...hence there can never be such a thing as Natural Law which is of unchanging and universal validity.
Could human nature ever be known in the detail required to construct a Natural Law? Natural lawyers tend merely to insist that human nature is rational nature. The notion of reason itself, which is so crucial to Natural Law, has also been subject to much debate. Post-enlightenment rationality (and in particular practical reasoning) is of a different genus to that of Aquinas. While making this point, Crysdale almost ludicrously tries to adapt modern statistical reasoning to a Natural Law outlook.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Natural Law 8
Second, the sheer diversity of moral principle and practice in the human experience mitigates heavily against the universalism of Natural Law. Thomas is aware of this difficulty, but his rejoinder, that the reason may be darkened by passion or racial proclivity, is inadequate in that it presupposes the successful attainment, sans grace, of the Natural Law in at least some human beings. The possibility that no human being has attained such knowledge is not considered.
The ascription of a telos to aspects of the natural order is almost arbitrary in the practice of Natural Law, as the controversies over the various Papal Encyclicals show. Various structures in the created order or society, such as procreation or the family, are assumed by their presence to be God-given and thus given a higher moral rating. Thus the objectivity and rationality that Natural Law claims for itself is compromised by the mutability of its detailed precepts. It becomes difficult to defend Natural Law as an objective and reasonable system when the precepts it allows seem so relative and subjective.
The ascription of a telos to aspects of the natural order is almost arbitrary in the practice of Natural Law, as the controversies over the various Papal Encyclicals show. Various structures in the created order or society, such as procreation or the family, are assumed by their presence to be God-given and thus given a higher moral rating. Thus the objectivity and rationality that Natural Law claims for itself is compromised by the mutability of its detailed precepts. It becomes difficult to defend Natural Law as an objective and reasonable system when the precepts it allows seem so relative and subjective.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Natural Law 7
There are five ways in which the question of knowledge is a problem for Natural Law. First, how does a human being actually know that “good should be done and evil avoided”? Can a more persuasive account be given for the operation of synderesis on the human heart? Lewis inquires:
...it is no good saying there are Natural Law precepts unless one can explain how “ordinary men” know them.
Is Aquinas an intuitionist? Daniel Maguire portrays Aquinas’ teaching as “affectivity” (or “gut-feeling”), a position rebutted successfully by Scott Davis. However, Thomist Natural Law is a form of intuitionism, in that it requires a moral proposition to be per se notum; and while Aquinas wants to appeal to reason as the ground of the doctrine, the primary precept must be understood pre-reason, that reason may build from it. This explanation is vague, to say the least.
...it is no good saying there are Natural Law precepts unless one can explain how “ordinary men” know them.
Is Aquinas an intuitionist? Daniel Maguire portrays Aquinas’ teaching as “affectivity” (or “gut-feeling”), a position rebutted successfully by Scott Davis. However, Thomist Natural Law is a form of intuitionism, in that it requires a moral proposition to be per se notum; and while Aquinas wants to appeal to reason as the ground of the doctrine, the primary precept must be understood pre-reason, that reason may build from it. This explanation is vague, to say the least.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Natural Law 6
At first glance, the doctrine of Natural Law has a great deal to commend it to the moral theologian. The scriptures themselves offer ample testimony, it would seem, to the presence of some kind of inward and general moral knowledge by which humanity understands the divine imperative. Budziszewski offers some dubious examples, but there are several valid references. There is the witness of the created order to the character of its creator (Ps 19:1-6; 104; Rom 1:20); and the conscience whereby the law is “written on their hearts” (Rom 2:14-15). Wisdom literature seems to allow the application of reason in the understanding of morality. Further, the judgement of God is pronounced on pagan nations throughout the Old Testament (for example on the Canaanites for necromancy in Dt 18:9-14) when no explicit specially-revealed divine decree pertains to them.
Natural lawyers like Budziszewski (and Tony Abbott!) defend Natural Law on the grounds of its use as an apologetic contact point with the non-Christian world. Natural Law gives us reason to be optimistic about moral and political discussions, because even if the non-Christian denies knowledge of right and wrong in Christian terms, we can assume (according to Budziszewski) that he or she is deliberately suppressing the truth. Natural Law addresses the human ethical condition from the level, not of knowledge, but of will. Knowledge is assumed.
Ironically, it is this very area of knowledge in which the Thomist doctrine of Natural Law is most vulnerable. The epistemological question must head a critique of the doctrine. Helmut Thielicke writes:
In this whole matter...what is involved is not an ontic, but a noetic problem.
Natural lawyers like Budziszewski (and Tony Abbott!) defend Natural Law on the grounds of its use as an apologetic contact point with the non-Christian world. Natural Law gives us reason to be optimistic about moral and political discussions, because even if the non-Christian denies knowledge of right and wrong in Christian terms, we can assume (according to Budziszewski) that he or she is deliberately suppressing the truth. Natural Law addresses the human ethical condition from the level, not of knowledge, but of will. Knowledge is assumed.
Ironically, it is this very area of knowledge in which the Thomist doctrine of Natural Law is most vulnerable. The epistemological question must head a critique of the doctrine. Helmut Thielicke writes:
In this whole matter...what is involved is not an ontic, but a noetic problem.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Natural Law 5
Natural Law since Aquinas has followed several rivulets aside from the main stream. In the fourteenth century the nominalism of William of Ockham stressed the absolute power and freedom of God. Along with Duns Scotus, he deviated from the Thomistic doctrine by eliminating reason from the basis of Natural Law. In the sixteenth century, both Luther and Calvin held to versions of Natural Law, as did Hooker. Hugo Grotius, whose major work is On the Law of War and Peace (1625), provided for a secular version of Natural Law by observing that since this law was the law of our rational human nature, God was not an essential part of the doctrine, an autonomy affirmed by the Spanish Jesuit Suarez. Natural Law thinking has thus developed into a theory of universal human rights. The doctrine underwent a revival in Catholic teaching in the nineteenth century during the pontificate of Leo XIII as a counter to socialism and the rising tide of mistrust in divine revelation. The world, if it ignored the Word of God, might at least listen to reason. “Right reason” and Natural Law continue to be the basis of official Roman Catholic ethical teaching, from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae down to John Paul II.
Aside from the institutional endorsement of Natural Law, there are several advocates of Natural Law theory on the contemporary scene which are best described as adjustments to the Thomist position. Two powerful Protestant proponents of Natural Law, to whose arguments we will return, are Oliver O’Donovan and Emil Brunner. Among the Roman Caholics, Finnis and Grisez offer a theories founded on “pre-moral pratical principles” identifying the various kinds of human good that are self-evidently worth pursuing. For Finnis these are life, knowledge, play, aesthtic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and ‘religion’. At a second level are “modes of responsibility”, which correspond to virtues. Moral rules (unsuprisingly for Finnis those of a peculiarly Roman Catholic sort) result from deductions at a tertiary level.
Aside from the institutional endorsement of Natural Law, there are several advocates of Natural Law theory on the contemporary scene which are best described as adjustments to the Thomist position. Two powerful Protestant proponents of Natural Law, to whose arguments we will return, are Oliver O’Donovan and Emil Brunner. Among the Roman Caholics, Finnis and Grisez offer a theories founded on “pre-moral pratical principles” identifying the various kinds of human good that are self-evidently worth pursuing. For Finnis these are life, knowledge, play, aesthtic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and ‘religion’. At a second level are “modes of responsibility”, which correspond to virtues. Moral rules (unsuprisingly for Finnis those of a peculiarly Roman Catholic sort) result from deductions at a tertiary level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)