Johannes Heidegger, Corpus Theologicae
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Heidegger (the other one) on the use of reason in theology
"Illumined reason is of no contemptible use to theology. And its chief use consists in that it brings forth from its own treasury arguments on behalf of faith. This happens in four ways. Firstly, reason urged and directed by the Spirit of God through sure and undoubted criteria and signs of divinity discovers that he who reveals the way of salvation, God, is not an imposter, demon or man suspected of falsehood. Secondly, illumined reason puts forth arguments for the principles of the Christian faith by which it shows to the unbelieving of those who embrace it its worthiness of credit, which is not a thing impossible, irrational or contrary to man's uncorrupted nature; and it dissolves subtleties adduced to the contrary by a perverse reason. Thirdly, reason occasionally proceeds in accordance with its own principles by collecting suitable arguments on behalf of faith., in those matters which are known both by faith and by reason; or arguments at least known by faith, which stimulates reason in many, are confirmed by reason. Fourthly, in a word reason, accompanying the use of words and of the things signified by these words, whether natural ideas and reasons which we have of and for the things and which revelation presupposes, has power of judgment on equal terms, ie, those considered apart from construction of conjunction. Use is the judge in familiar words which are not proper and peculiar to revelation. Faith alone judges upon the supernatural construction and conjunction of simple words or terms which belong to revelation alone. The Holy Spirit alone secures our right use of reason and the propriety of our faith."
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Greg Clarke - Les Murray's Vernacular Version
Murray, like the KJV seeks connection to the divine in the vernacular.
Greatest Aussie poet - see Derek Walcott's verdict. Murray is a Catholic who dedicates his poetry to the glory of God.
A religious upbringing - Presbyterian religion terrified him. A spine chilling sermon from 1 Kings - 'the cloud no bigger than a man's hand'.
He knew the KJV - 'the first poetry I encountered'. Religion and poetry are linked in a particular way. 'Religion is a big metaphor taken all the way to identity'. The more rationalising, the more he ran to his faith. The harder it is to believe, the more he wants to! It's a challenge after all. A perverse resistance to the enlightenment. He is a trenchant critic of the 'trends'.
'Poetry and Religion'
Religion are poems... etc
'God is the poetry caught in any religion'.
Greg calls this the vernacularisation of religious expression.
The Catholic tradition caught his eye, not the Protestant. See 'Distinguo': 'Prose is Protestant-agnostic. .... but poetry is Catholic.
But in the KJV do you not see story AND presence come together? Perhaps.
The Australian spirit: can it find a home in the biblical tradition. He points to the quest for a national identity, drawn from the broad Christian tradition.
'The Quality of Sprawl' -
Being roughly Christian, it scratches the other cheek
And thinks it unlikely. Though people have been shot for sprawl.
And thinks it unlikely. Though people have been shot for sprawl.
A vernacular vision of the Sermon on the Mount? And grace. Going the extra 100 miles!
The mirth of Aussie spirituality is what may be its greatest contribution.
Murray seeks to revernacularise the vernacular tradition.... to bring the spiritual back into the secular vernacular.
See his 'Translations of the Natural World'.
The divine will in fact be revealed in the natural - by its sensual and metaphorical power. To speak of a bean... may be to speak something of God.
The translator's preface to the KJV: using metaphors to press home the point about something being spiritually revealed. Murray wants to translate the natural world to show who it is 'revelatory'. See 'Bat's Ultrasound'. 'Broad Bean Sermon'.
Greg Anderson - The KJV and English Liturgies
For many people the KJV and BCP would go hand in hand.
But it isn't the whole story.
The work of Bible translation was well established by the time KJV came along. The 1559 BCP was in use when James ascended.
How was the Bible used?
- Lectionary required daily readings.
- Psalms in a monthly cycle. Other Psalms and canticles. Used in other services.
- Lessons related to the occasion.
- Single verse related to a theme. - Sentences
- Prayers themselves - from Tyndale, or from Vulgate.
- influence of biblical passages - documented in mid-19th cent
Coverdale (1539).
Bishop's Bible (1568, auth. 1571) - used for lectionary readings alone.
Until 1662, the Biblical material was not KJV.
When the 1662 was published - most extracts were taken from the KJV. But some not: Psalms, 10 C's, sentences, the grace and the Lord's Prayer.
Epistle and Gospel readings and other extracts were from the KJV. Psalter and Morning Prayer used different versions of the same Psalm.
Surely, this change was very noticeable.
So: to the nitty-gritty of these changes.
What about when you had Luke 1 and 2 read in KJV and then in Great Bible in the BCP?
It is difficult to judge whether it sounded deliberately archaic or not. And yet the change for readers and hearers must have been quite intense.
Liturgically the KJV did not sweep all before it. There's one thing to learn - to have the liturgy so thoroughly imbued with the Bible must be to the benefit of all!
Dr John Harris: the Power of the Word: The Bible and the Struggle for Freedom in Australia
The KJV changed the way people faced God, life, death...
It was the book. The recorded their births, marriages and deaths. They learnt to read.
People began to feel they had the right to question ... authority. 'Oppressed people found in it the source of freedom'.
Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King and their great speeches...'justice rolling down like waters'. See also Nelson Mandela... the book he had read in prison.
Having said all this: a word of caution.
The Bible does proclaim freedom from oppression BUT: we cannot control who can use the Bible. What of 'Let my people go?' The Boers also used it as a mantra of their own Exodus. It is used on both sides of the gay debate. How easily the Bible's phraseology and imagery can be used by all manner of people.
1788 - Richard Johnson 'What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?'
But this wasn't a particularly Christian place. The European invaders = 800 convicts and 300 jailers. The founding of Australia was almost aggressively secular.
Johnson was the only clergyman who would come. Few records of pleasing piety exist. Rum became the currency. There were sincere and committed Christians, but ... not many.
Governor Macquarie - his wife noted the lack of Bibles. She urged for a meeting to form an auxiliary of the Bible Society! 1817 - a committee of 43 citizens. The oldest existing registered organisation in Australia. Visit of homes to see need for Bibles. Results were evident.
Instance of the press response to the Myall massacre. Sydney preachers united to condemn settler brutality. John Dunmore Lang and Saunders (Baptist) - forthright in condemning the approval of the massacre. Using the Bible to make their case.
But also, the Catholics pressed for the massacrists to be condemned. See Bishop Polding. This came from Catholic teaching rather than direct from the Bible, to be fair.
People became very familiar with the Bible. WG Spence (trade union movement). Regarded as a good and godly man - cared about improving the lot of working class families.
Chifley's 'Light on the hill' speech.
The indigenous Christians raised on Missions. Had a deep grasp of Scripture. See Aboriginal leaders like William Ferguson. 'a labourer is worthy of his hire'.
Mark Strauss - 'The KJV and the Politics of Bible Translation'
[At the Moore Library KJV conference, July 7, 2011]
Translation is obviously effected by all kinds of social, political factors. See the 'Conservative Bible'!
Even the most venerated of English versions is effected by political considerations.
KJV is still a best seller. Some people follow it fanatically. 'God wrote only one Bible!'
The KJV arose from the tumultuous period of Elizabeth's reign.
The Puritans in Elizabethan England -
it was in a sense a golden age and saw the rise of England's power. But internally - we see the struggle between Puritans and conservatives. Elizabeth demanded a maintenance of traditions. When Elizabeth died, the Puritans saw their opportunity with James of Scotland - who had reigned in a Presbyterian system in Scotland. But - he hated it! And he especially hated the Geneva Bible.
It had been published in 1560 - with its extensive system of notes and commentary. This made it popular; Shakespeare used it.
But this irked the Anglican leadership. James wished to see its demise - see Psalm 105 'touch not mine anointed': Geneva interpreted it as 'the people'.
The Hampton Court Conference of 1604: the Puritans had hoped respectfully to push for their demands. James was willing to deal. He presided at the conference. The puritans were lead by John Reynolds, and the Anglicans were lead by Richard Bancroft. Bancroft was able to convince James in a middle path between Puritans and Catholics. The deck was stacked against the Puritans. The council began with a long speech from James defending his right as King to run the church.
Puritan demands:
1 - doctrine church preserved
2 - good pastors
3- church govt = presbyterian
4 - BCP revised (or abolished)
SO: Reynolds proposed a new Bible translation for the whole Church. Bancroft didn't like it: 'if every man's humour were followed, there would be no end of translating'.
James saw a chance to throw the Puritans a bone. And also it might render the Geneva redundant.
SO:
The production of the KJV:
47 Bible scholars
six panels of translators, three for the OT, two for the NT, one for the Apocraphya
two at Westminster, two at Ox, two at Cam.
Translation rules set out:
1 - Bishop's Bible to be followed.
3 - old ecclesiastical words to be kept
6 - no marginal notes at all to be affixed (except for explanations of Greek and Heb)
The reception of the KJV:
little initial interest. The Pilgrims didn't take it on the Mayflower.
Hugh Broughton (scholar) didn't like it: 'it is so ill done'.
The eventual triumph of the KJV... the Geneva was banned from printing by James in 1616. But they were imported. It was cheaper, clearer and smaller. Charles 1 appointed Laud to Canterbury - continued to suppress the Geneva. KJV sales started to grow.
Under Cromwell the Geneva had lost influence. With the Restoration, along with all things Puritan, the Geneva was rejected. It succeeded because it was finally now associated with a popular regime.
Mostly in early times people didn't comment on its noble prose. McGrath: how did the adulation grow? Was it is that it became a 'classic'? It became embedded in the memory.
Indeed, it is the noblest monument of English prose!
Apostrophes. NOT apostrophe's.
OK, listen in. I want to clarify this once and for all. I mark maybe a million words a year. And the person who bothers to get apostrophes right is the EXCEPTION rather than the norm. It would obviously save me a good deal of bother if people took two minutes to learn the rule.
I really don't think that it matters more than global warming or people coming to know Jesus. But it matters in its own way, because clear and accurate communication is what separates us from the grunting barbarians. The more we let things like this slide, the more likely we are to eat each other with ...knives and forks.
So here we are.
There are two uses for an apostrophe:
And that is all there is to it.
[NB People are totally confused by its and it's.
Just remember: Its is the possessive. It's is the contraction. If you can't turn its into it is in the sentence you are writing, write its.]
I really don't think that it matters more than global warming or people coming to know Jesus. But it matters in its own way, because clear and accurate communication is what separates us from the grunting barbarians. The more we let things like this slide, the more likely we are to eat each other with ...knives and forks.
So here we are.
There are two uses for an apostrophe:
And that is all there is to it.
[NB People are totally confused by its and it's.
Just remember: Its is the possessive. It's is the contraction. If you can't turn its into it is in the sentence you are writing, write its.]
Friday, July 01, 2011
Why Theological Education?
(Being some notes of a seminar given at the Sydney Uni Evangelical Union's Annual Conference)
1. Theological education - meaning 'tertiary level academic theological study' - is under attack, from forces both within and without the church. It is seen by some as too expensive. Other see it as too impractical and too inflexible, in that theological education providers cannot give them the educational setting they would like in an area where online degrees and part-time study is proliferating. It is too academic and therefore too unspiritual in the eyes of some. And it is too slow for impatient young church planters or would-be church leaders who don't want to waste valuable gospelling years in the study.
2. Why do we need theological education?
a) for the spiritual health of churches, and the Christians in them. Knowledge and learning are not the whole of what it means to grow spiritually in the NT, but they are certainly major components of spiritual health and growth. Paul spends three years teaching the Ephesian elders, for example. Jesus gives the apostles 40 days - Peter's Acts 2 sermon didn't come out of nowhere!
b) for effectiveness in mission Once again, being well thought-through and informed is not the be-all and end-all of mission. But it sure helps! Paul is determined to 'take every thought captive' for the sake of the gospel of Christ (for example). And if we believe that the gospel applies accross cultures and times then we commit ourselves to the difficult work of contextualisation.
3. Who needs theological education?
The short answer: all Christians need to see themselves as learners and in the market for some theological education of whatever kind. And this means that church leaders - pastors, bible study group leaders, lay preachers - are in particular need of a more concentrated level of theological study. It is also the case that those who have particular opportunities to witness in their workplaces would benefit enormously from some higher level theological study - especially teachers and academics, but also many others too.
4. What to avoid in a theological education
a) an institution that majors on flexibility - if an institution is determined to give you what you want and to ask nothing of you, don't go there. Education in general has become a market, and students have become consumers. This has been a not entirely welcome change - because true education actually asks us to become disciples and to submit to a process of learning from authoritative teachers.
b) an institution that makes sure you don't meet other students
c) an institution that doesn't have ministry in view as the goal of theological education - not just professional ministry of course, but the ministry that all Christians share in.
d) an institution that doesn't care or cares little about academic standards.
5. What to look for in a theological education
a) is the whole Scripture central and authoritative in the institution?
You can't claim to be studying the knowledge of God if you aren't taking the Scriptures with utmost seriousness, or if you are prizing other sources.
b) is it theological?
I object to the term 'bible college' because the purpose of theological education is not to know the Bible better: it is to know God better. The word 'theology' indicates that study of the texts is the means and not the end. It also indicates that there will be a prayerful integration of the curriculum, and that the confessions and creeds of church history will have their place.
c) are the original languages emphasised?
Not every Christian or even every Christian leader needs to learn Greek and Hebrew to have an effective ministry, but I don't theological study is really serious if it does not ask you to learn at least one of these languages. Given the choice, most people would NOT learn even Greek. Don't take the easy option - because serious study of the Scripture by someone who would teach God's people demands the harder path!
d) are Church History and Ethics and Philosophy a part of the course?
These subjects are all auxiliaries to the study of Theology in a way. But without them the theological task is scarcely complete.
e) is community life emphasised?
The nature of theological knowledge is that it is a shared knowledge - learning it on your own is counter to the kind of knowledge it is.
f) is there regular corporate worship and prayer?
Goes without saying.
g) are the practical ministry subjects taught in a theological way?
You aren't going into theological education to learn secular counselling methods, or bits of pop psychology.
h) is the theological curriculum calibrated for ministry and mission?
I would asking why a theological curriculum does not address itself to the context in which those who are studying it are going to have to work. These days, it is simply not enough to say 'we teach the theology stuff, you work out how to put it into practice where you are'.
A clue is to ask current or recent students about their studies. If they say 'it was hard, but it was good' - then I think you have found a good place. If they say 'we had a ball' - I'd be worried. Proper theological education ought to be an uncomfortable exercise - it ought to stretch the student and challenge the student in ways that are sometimes unpleasant!
But having said that: there ought to be a joy in theological education. The knowledge of God ought to be joyful because it is the knowledge of God - the God of all mercies. There ought to be many many glimpese of his glory in the experience of theological education!
I wanted to conclude with something Kamal Weerakoon said:
Why theological education? Because our natural pride makes us think we know everything. The best kind of theological education broadens the mind appropriately: not to accept error, but to appreciate the riches of other people's reflections on the bible, both in the past and present.'
1. Theological education - meaning 'tertiary level academic theological study' - is under attack, from forces both within and without the church. It is seen by some as too expensive. Other see it as too impractical and too inflexible, in that theological education providers cannot give them the educational setting they would like in an area where online degrees and part-time study is proliferating. It is too academic and therefore too unspiritual in the eyes of some. And it is too slow for impatient young church planters or would-be church leaders who don't want to waste valuable gospelling years in the study.
2. Why do we need theological education?
a) for the spiritual health of churches, and the Christians in them. Knowledge and learning are not the whole of what it means to grow spiritually in the NT, but they are certainly major components of spiritual health and growth. Paul spends three years teaching the Ephesian elders, for example. Jesus gives the apostles 40 days - Peter's Acts 2 sermon didn't come out of nowhere!
b) for effectiveness in mission Once again, being well thought-through and informed is not the be-all and end-all of mission. But it sure helps! Paul is determined to 'take every thought captive' for the sake of the gospel of Christ (for example). And if we believe that the gospel applies accross cultures and times then we commit ourselves to the difficult work of contextualisation.
3. Who needs theological education?
The short answer: all Christians need to see themselves as learners and in the market for some theological education of whatever kind. And this means that church leaders - pastors, bible study group leaders, lay preachers - are in particular need of a more concentrated level of theological study. It is also the case that those who have particular opportunities to witness in their workplaces would benefit enormously from some higher level theological study - especially teachers and academics, but also many others too.
4. What to avoid in a theological education
a) an institution that majors on flexibility - if an institution is determined to give you what you want and to ask nothing of you, don't go there. Education in general has become a market, and students have become consumers. This has been a not entirely welcome change - because true education actually asks us to become disciples and to submit to a process of learning from authoritative teachers.
b) an institution that makes sure you don't meet other students
c) an institution that doesn't have ministry in view as the goal of theological education - not just professional ministry of course, but the ministry that all Christians share in.
d) an institution that doesn't care or cares little about academic standards.
5. What to look for in a theological education
a) is the whole Scripture central and authoritative in the institution?
You can't claim to be studying the knowledge of God if you aren't taking the Scriptures with utmost seriousness, or if you are prizing other sources.
b) is it theological?
I object to the term 'bible college' because the purpose of theological education is not to know the Bible better: it is to know God better. The word 'theology' indicates that study of the texts is the means and not the end. It also indicates that there will be a prayerful integration of the curriculum, and that the confessions and creeds of church history will have their place.
c) are the original languages emphasised?
Not every Christian or even every Christian leader needs to learn Greek and Hebrew to have an effective ministry, but I don't theological study is really serious if it does not ask you to learn at least one of these languages. Given the choice, most people would NOT learn even Greek. Don't take the easy option - because serious study of the Scripture by someone who would teach God's people demands the harder path!
d) are Church History and Ethics and Philosophy a part of the course?
These subjects are all auxiliaries to the study of Theology in a way. But without them the theological task is scarcely complete.
e) is community life emphasised?
The nature of theological knowledge is that it is a shared knowledge - learning it on your own is counter to the kind of knowledge it is.
f) is there regular corporate worship and prayer?
Goes without saying.
g) are the practical ministry subjects taught in a theological way?
You aren't going into theological education to learn secular counselling methods, or bits of pop psychology.
h) is the theological curriculum calibrated for ministry and mission?
I would asking why a theological curriculum does not address itself to the context in which those who are studying it are going to have to work. These days, it is simply not enough to say 'we teach the theology stuff, you work out how to put it into practice where you are'.
A clue is to ask current or recent students about their studies. If they say 'it was hard, but it was good' - then I think you have found a good place. If they say 'we had a ball' - I'd be worried. Proper theological education ought to be an uncomfortable exercise - it ought to stretch the student and challenge the student in ways that are sometimes unpleasant!
But having said that: there ought to be a joy in theological education. The knowledge of God ought to be joyful because it is the knowledge of God - the God of all mercies. There ought to be many many glimpese of his glory in the experience of theological education!
I wanted to conclude with something Kamal Weerakoon said:
Why theological education? Because our natural pride makes us think we know everything. The best kind of theological education broadens the mind appropriately: not to accept error, but to appreciate the riches of other people's reflections on the bible, both in the past and present.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)