Categories
Hauerwas and Willimon Science & Technology Spirituality

Hauerwas and Willimon on the Christian Life: Confidence and Hope

In our Intro to the Christian Tradition course at Biblical Seminary, we’re reading Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon’s lovely little book Lord Teach Us: the Lord’s Prayer and the Christian Life.  Following are some portions of the journal I’m required to keep for the course as we read this book.

It’s somehow embedded in my spiritual consciousness that the “Christian life” is primarily an exercise in avoiding dangers. My posture, unconsciously, often has been one of defensiveness and fear. “We” need to be on constant vigil against moral laxity, heresy, “liberalism,” “secular humanism,” and other threats. If there were something like the “Homeland Security Threat Meter” for spiritual things, in many of the settings in which I’ve lived, it would constantly have been on “Red.”

Hauerwas and Willimon present instead a faith that recognizes its own weaknesses. As they note at the start of the Introduction, “[b]ecause of the nature of the Christian faith, all of us, no matter how long we have been around Jesus, are always learning anew how to ask the right questions. No one of us ever becomes so faithful, so bold in our discipleship, that we become experts in being Christian.” They are able to make such a statement because they conceive of the faith “not primarily as a set of doctrines, a volunteer organization, or a list of appropriate behaviors.” It is rather “a journey of a people.” To be Christian, they say, “is to have been drafted to be part of an adventure, a journey called God’s kingdom. Being part of this adventure frees us from the terrors that would enslave our lives if were not part of the journey.”

Why is it that we often unconsciously or consciously think of the Christian faith as something that brings slavery to terror? My Christian commitment was in some important ways born of fear – the fear of Hell. As a young teenager, fire and brimstone preaching motivated me to think, do and say the right things. We lived under the cloud of the Great Tribulation, the scourge of Antichrist followed by eternal flames, from which only proper faith in Christ could rescue us. The vast majority of the human race was on a fast train to Hell, and only a small remnant of us who got things just right would escape.

Thankfully, there were other influences on my faith besides those fire and brimstone prophecy preachers. There were youth leaders, college professors, family members and friends who really did catch the “adventure” of Christian faith. And there was a kernel of truth in the pulpit thumping – Jesus himself, after all, was the source of the imagery of sheep and goats, good soil and rocky soil, Abraham’s bosom and Gehenna.

Yet, even now, it’s hard for me to fully assimilate the truth that the Christian faith is fundamentally “a prayer that [we] must learn to pray” rather than “a set of beliefs.” I’m baffled sometimes when I meet former Roman Catholics who have gotten “saved” and joined evangelical churches. Their testimonies uniformly concern freedom and security: they traded what they perceived as a rigid system of doctrines, good works, guilt and penances, for the blessed assurance of simple faith in God’s grace. I suppose they just haven’t realized that in many of our evangelical churches, particularly for those of us who have grown up in the church, the system of doctrines, works, guilt and penances is just as rigid as it is in any version of cultural Catholicism – and perhaps it’s more insidious because it’s under the surface. Scratch the skin of many life-long evangelicals and you’ll find the same iron blood as that which flows through the most traditional of Catholics.

So, when I read Haurewas and Willimon’s meditation on God as “Our Father,” it banishes some of those old demons and encourages the whisperings of better angels: “It is comforting to know that even though you don’t always feel like a Christian, though you do not always act like a Christian, much less believe like a Christian, your relationship as a friend of God is not based on what you have felt, done, or believed. Rather, you are a friend with God because of God’s choice of you in Jesus through the church.”

Indeed! Yet – “through the church” . . . . This is our fundamental weakness as “independent” evangelical churches. How do my Catholic friends who embrace and live their Catholic identities know they are accepted by God? Why don’t they suffer from the same guilt and fears as those ex-Catholics I know who left that faith for evangelicalism (or, more likely, for no faith at all)?

I think it’s because they’ve learned to receive the blessing of the Church. They’ve learned to recognize that their friendship with God is far bigger than their own personal strengths and weaknesses. Sure, they realize the need for a vibrantly personal faith, but it’s a faith that’s far more than “personal,” and that therefore is far stronger than their personal weaknesses. And here, they can more readily grasp the significance of Hauerwas and Willimon’s thoughts on the fact that “Our Father” is “in Heaven”:

“You may not be good with words. Don’t worry. George Herbert, St. Francis, and Teresa of Avila pray with you. You may not have your head straight on Christian doctrine. Go ahead and pray with confidence. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and Georgia Harkness pray with you. You may find it difficult to make time to pray. Pray as often as you can. Your prayer joins those already in progress by Dietrcih Bonhoeffer and Dorothy Day.”

We may demur for any number of reasons to the authority of Popes and Cardinals or Metropolitans. Maybe those reasons are good ones rooted in the Reformation, or maybe at this point they’re still born of the fear of change, or maybe there’s some of both at work. Regardless, it’s vital that our “personal relationship with Christ” be far more than “personal.” We thrive as we’re ingrafted onto the vine of Christ, rooted in soil that is thousands of years deep, in communion with branches spread across time, place and history.

Categories
Uncategorized

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-09-27

  • Even dunkin donuts is slow at 6 am #
  • Golf outing #
  • Teaching torts: the reasonable person standard. #
  • Beautiful autumn day — soccer and marching bandm #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Categories
Historical Theology Martin Luther Spirituality

Martin Luther on Suffering and Freedom

Reading through Martin Luther’s classic On the Freedom of a Christian, this passage struck me:

This is a spiritual power, which rules in the midst of enemies, and is powerful in the midst of distress.  And this is nothing else than that strength is made perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all things to the profit of my salvation; so that even the cross and death are compelled to serve me and to work together for my salvation.  This is a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and mighty dominion, a spiritual empire, in which there is nothing so good, nothing so bad, as not to work together for my good, if only I believe.  And yet there is nothing of which I have need — for faith alone suffices for my salvation — unless that, in it, faith may exercise the power and empire of its liberty.  This is the inestimable power and liberty of Christians.

Categories
Books and Film Eastern Orthodoxy Historical Theology Humor Science & Technology Spirituality Theology

Light from the Christian East: Speaking of God

In my “Intro to the Christian Tradition” class at Biblical Seminary, we’re discussing James Payton’s Light from the Christian East:  An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition.  In Chapter 4, Payton describes how Eastern Orthodox Christianity historically has emphasized God’s ineffability to a greater degree than Western Christianity.  As a result, Eastern Orthodox theology tends to stress “apophatic” or “negative” theology — speaking about God primarily by emphasizing what God is not like — over “cataphatic” or “positive” theology.  Here was one of our classroom discussion questions and my response:

1. How do you respond to Orthodox theology’s understanding that speaking of God is “a hazardous enterprise,” and that language is unable to fully convey God’s nature? (p. 59)

This is a very helpful reminder for those of us raised in evangelical independent church traditions.

In some circles, I think our ways of speaking about God have become “scholastic.” We are very keen to make logical arguments brimming with “evidence that demands a verdict.” Our in-house arguments tend to focus on the precise meanings of terms in carefully drafted “Statements of Faith.” These arguments and Statements may have a place, but it’s helpful to remember that they don’t really begin to grasp or contain God. I believe God is concerned with our fidelity to Him, and that this involves the transformation of our minds and the ability to “teach sound doctrine.” However, God is so far beyond our ability to articulate who He is that I think we dishonor Him when we make doctrinal precision the sine qua non of the Christian life. In fact, I agree with John Franke’s book “Manifold Witness” that some degree of difference in doctrinal articulation is part of God’s design for the Church. This need not be disturbing when begin to realize that God truly is ineffable.

It’s also helpful to remember that we cannot fully explain God’s ways. Often, we display enormous confidence in our own ability to discern exactly what God is doing in the world. Perhaps we assume automatically that AIDS, or genocide, or a financial crisis or natural disaster, is a clear message from God about someone else’s sin. Perhaps we assume equally quickly that our own “success” is evidence of God’s blessing. It’s true, of course, that God does discipline and punish sin and that we do experience His blessing as we follow Him. Yet, it’s helpful to remember that our primary posture must be one of humble, kneeling humility and gratitude. In fact, one of the blessings of faith, I think, is the ability to leave such tangles in God’s hands. If His love, justice and grace ultimately are beyond us, it is not for us to circumscribe how and when He must act with regard to others. It is for us simply to seek to be faithful with what He has given to us.

Categories
Uncategorized

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-09-20

  • Monday night football – go Pats! #
  • Brady looks rusty. Ouch. #
  • Yikes this game is ugly. #
  • Fumble!!! #
  • Touchdown!!! #
  • Pats win (whew!) #
  • Prepping for my intellectual property debate with Adam Mossoff (and already savoring the beer Adam will owe me when I’m crowned victorious). #
  • Teaching torts: negligence balancing test #
  • At cub scouts #
  • Garrett soccer game #
  • Watching monster trucks on tv w garrett, getting ready for church, then the boy’s soccer games – life is good! #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Categories
Historical Theology Science and Religion Theology

Man vs. God? The Wall Street Journal on Faith vs. Science

The Wall Street Journal recently featured essays by Richard Dawkins and comparative religion scholar Karen Armstrong titled “Man vs. God:  Two Prominent Thinkers Debate Evolution, Science and the Role of Religion.”  Dawkins’ contribution was his usual blend of scientism and utter misapprehension of theology.  Armstrong’s supposed defense of theism was even worse.  According to Armstrong,

The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making.

Armstrong goes on to conclude that religion nevertheless is valuable because it makes us feel nice.

What a shame that the Journal didn’t find space for the many contemporary — and ancient — thinkers who have endeavored to take both science and faith seriously.  It seems that neither Dawkins nor Armstrong realize that the problem of evil was not invented by contemporary science.  Great Jewish and Christian minds have wrestled with it for millennia.  Contemporary theologians continue this tradition and extend it to our amazing knowledge of natural history.

For example, consider Christoph Cardinal Schonborn’s Cathechetial lecture on “Suffering in a World Guided by God.”  As Schonborn notes,

St. Augustine wrestled intensely with this question: “I inquired into the origin of evil but found no solution” (Confessions, VII, 7). After long searching and after making various detours and false starts he found the One who alone has conquered evil, sin, and death (cf. 385).

The ultimate end point of any Christian discussion of evil is the cross.  Armstrong simply ignores this long tradition in Christian thought.

Worse yet, Armstrong distorts the Christian understanding of “creation” by converting “natural evil” into a kind of genocide.   Consider Amrstrong’s anthropmorphic and loaded term “racial extinction” as a description for the replacement of species in natural history.  Are we to hold that the insectoid predecessors of today’s mosquitos perished in a holocaust?

Finally, Armstrong naively buys into the claim that only a “perfect” creation could have been made by God.  Unfortunately, this kind of argument is often promoted by well-meaning Christians who lack sufficient grounding in either the natural sciences or historical theology.   Cardinal Schonborn handily dispels this kind of misconception in his cathechetical instruction:

I notice again and again how widespread a certain deep-rooted misunderstanding is: if God has created this world, He can only have created it as perfect. Any defect that is noticed seems to speak against an “intelligent creator” and His intelligent plan. The chaos in the genetic code is an example of this. One likes to say that no reasonable engineer would construct a machine in this way. A classic example of this argumentation is the human eye. Naive believer in creation that I am, I would say that it is an incomprehensible wonder which makes us marvel at the Creator. Not at all, say the experts in evolution: no oculist would construct the lens, the reflection, etc. as we find it in the present human eye. Before I go in to the underlying misunderstanding let me offer one retort. It may be that the human eye could be put together better. But it is thanks to this construction that we can become oculists, engineers, and the like, indeed that we can all experience of marvel of seeing (unless the defect of blindness hinders us). And further: in spite of all our splendid technical prowess, no one is capable of constructing a functioning, living human eye.

But let us come to the heart of the matter: must God, when He creates, create a perfect world free of any defect? Do we face this alterative: either there is a perfect creation or else there is a world that is the product of sheer chance? When God creates does He have to create a world that is already completely finished, a world in which everything possesses from the beginning its perfect form, its unchangeable state of actuality?

But what if creation involves a beginning that is followed by a process of becoming and that finally reaches an endpoint? In this case the Creator who “in the beginning made” the world has set it in motion along a path on which it is still moving towards a goal that is not yet reached. In such a world there would have to be constant becoming, which would also involve a constant passing away. For nothing material that comes to be and develops is able to last; it always passes away. It necessarily follows that in a world of becoming there is perishing, destruction, and death. The Catechism puts it like this: “With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world ‘in a state of journeying’ towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection (310).”

The problem of evil, including the problem of “natural evil,” is no small problem for theology.  Christians need to acknowledge this, rather than trying to invent alternative “scientific” theories in which all natural evil somehow is entirely a very recent and immediate result of human sin.  Yet, like many “problems” in theology, the question of natural evil has spurred beautiful reflection about God’s providence, the ultimate purposes of creation, the meaning of the cross of Christ, and redemption.  The very least people such as Armstrong could do is to engage with this deep tradition.

Categories
Uncategorized

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-09-13

  • Ignoring the urge to work on a holiday #
  • Teaching torts today: intentional torts and consent #
  • Prepping and teaching torts class: defense of self and others. #
  • Heading to St. Thomas Ip and religious thought round table. #
  • Heading home from an enjoyable conference #
  • Church and two soccer games: my Sundays till Thanksgiving. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Categories
Science & Technology Science and Religion Theology

Alister McGrath on Science and Religion

A post on Biologos with one of my theological heroes, Alister McGrath, speaking on science and religion.

Categories
Uncategorized

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-09-06

  • Working on a family budget, getting suitably depressed, and about to hang in the hammock reading Moltmann. #
  • Prepping Torts class: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress #
  • Heading to U.S. Open tennis. #
  • Over 40 soccer #
  • Prepping Torts class: trespass and conversion. #
  • Missions committee meeting #
  • Another beautiful day for torts. #
  • Orange tilapia #
  • At Intrepid with the boys #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Categories
Academic

The Smell of the Stacks

Getting a book from my law school’s library today, I realized how much I love the sort of musty paper smell of library stacks.  It reminded me of my freshman year in college, twenty-five years ago, holing up in the library’s abandoned bell tower, getting lost in my Roman History text.  Once a book hound, always a book hound.