Month: July 2011

Categories
Biblical Studies

Dressage and Israelite Chariots

I noticed this description of a new book from Eisenbraun’s.  The author is an ancient near eastern scholar who participates in dressage and is writing about the archeology of the use of horses and chariots in ancient Israel.  Combining two elite, esoteric interests into a book project — now how cool is that?

Almost every book in the Hebrew Bible mentions horses and chariots in some manner, usually in a military context. However, the importance of horses, chariots, and equestrians in ancient Israel is typically mentioned only in passing, if at all, by historians, hippologists, and biblical scholars. When it is mentioned, the topic engenders a great deal of confusion.

Notwithstanding the substantial textual and archaeological evidence of the horse’s historic presence, recent scholars seem to be led by a general belief that there were very few horses in Iron Age Israel and that Israel’s chariotry was insignificant. The reason for this current sentiment is tied primarily to the academic controversy of the past 50 years over whether the 17 tripartite-pillared buildings excavated at Megiddo in the early 20th century were, in fact, stables. Although the original excavators, archaeologists from the University of Chicago, designated these buildings as stables, a number of scholars (and a few archaeologists) later challenged this view and adopted alternative interpretations. After they “reassessed” the Megiddo stables as “storehouses,” “marketplaces,” or “barracks,” the idea developed that there was no place for the horses to be kept and, therefore, there must have been few horses in Israel. The lack of stables, when added to the suggestion that Iron Age Israel could not have afforded to buy expensive horses and maintain an even more expensive chariotry, led to a dearth of horses in ancient Israel; or so the logic goes that has permeated the literature. Cantrell’s book attempts to dispel this notion.

Too often today, scholars ignore or diminish the role of the horse in battle. It is important to remember that ancient historians took for granted knowledge about horses that modern scholars have now forgotten or never knew. Cantrell’s involvement with horses as a rider, competitor, trainer, breeder, and importer includes equine experience ranging from competitive barrel-racing to jumping, and for the past 25 years, dressage. The Horsemen of Israel relies on the author’s knowledge of and experience with horses as well as her expertise in the field of ancient Near Eastern languages, literature, and archaeology.

Categories
Law and Policy

Joseph Singer on American Ambivalence About Government

A nice quote from Harvard law professor Joseph Singer, from the Cornell Law Review of all places:

Americans reflexively oppose “big government” but support the myriad regulations and social programs that government enacts.  They do not want regulations, but they do want laws that protect them from unsafe products and workplaces; laws that protect them from polluted air and water; and laws that regulate land use to prevent factories from being located in the middle of residential subdivisions.  They do not want government to interfere with the free market but they do want government to protect ‘hard working Americans’ from losing their homes.  They are skeptical of big government but just as skeptical of big business.  They like the idea of small government but not the practice:  when hard times strike, they demand government action.  This suggests that the American people embrace both sides of the libertarian / progressive split.  It turns out that we are deeply ambivalent about the relationship between law and economics.  It also means that we we have a similar ambivalence about property rights.

Categories
Science and Religion

Patterns, Mind Games, and the Supremacy of Science?

There’s an annoying book review in today’s Wall Street Journal of Michael Shermer’s latest attempt at reductionism, The Believing Brain:  From Ghosts to God and Politics.  As the review glowingly summarizes the book, people are hard-wired to find patterns in random events, and “there’s a neurological upside to pattern-finding: When we come across information that confirms what we already believe, we get a rewarding jolt of dopamine.”  Ergo, “God is simply the human explanation for pattern-making and agency on an epic scale,” along with “aliens” and other “things unseen.”

The reviewer, Ronald Bailey, who is a correspondent for “Reason” magazine, notes that

it is science itself that Mr. Shermer most heartily embraces. “The Believing Brain” ends with an engaging history of astronomy that illustrates how the scientific method developed as the only reliable way for us to discover true patterns and true agents at work. Seeing through a telescope, it seems, is believing of the best kind.

It doesn’t take much “reason” to wonder how “science” or “the scientific method” have escaped the long tendrils of the wish-fulfillment and confirmation bias Shermer and Bailey descry in every other area of human belief.  Perhaps Bailey and Shermer enjoy a “rewarding jolt of dopamine” upon observing the “patterns” of naivete among the vast unenlightened masses of human history?  Does the observed “pattern” of correlation between dopamine levels and belief confirmation really determine the truth of their theories, or are the theories underdetermined projections upon the “data?” Is belief in the “scientific method” — belief that there is even a simple and definable “scientific method” — just another instance of blind faith in “things unseen?”  (Can “the scientific method” be observed in a telescope?)

If Shermer is correct, one could never know.  We are then each trapped in prisons of epistemic reflexivity, doomed to repeat an infinite feedback loop of unknowing from which there is no escape.

Categories
Beauty of the Christian Faith Theology

The Beauty of the Christian Faith: Introduction: The Nature of Doctrine: Protestantism

I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.  I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done.  Here’s the sixth part of the introduction.  Prior posts can be accessed through the Beauty of the Christian Faith Page.

Doctrines:  Second Order Statements Derived from the First Order Sources of Theology

Doctrines are propositional theological statements that summarize claims to knowledge about God.  A “propositional” statement is simply a discrete statement of claimed fact, such as “water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.”  Doctrines historically have been collected in summary statements such as creeds and confessions.

The manner in which doctrines function as theological authorities is the subject of some debate among different types of Christians.  The debate relates to the relationship between scripture and tradition and also to the nature of scripture in relation to doctrinal propositions.  The next sections discuss how this relationship is understood in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions.  You should understand, however, that there is considerable variety even within each of these traditions.  The models discussed below are intended as broad and general illustrations of key themes and differences.

Protestantism

Protestant approaches to the nature of doctrine are quite diverse.  In general, protestants emphasize scripture as the final “norming norm” (norma normans) of theology and doctrine.  Most Protestants therefore would argue that doctrines are not in themselves basic sources of authority.  Instead, doctrines are “second order” statements because doctrinal propositions always derive from the basic sources of theology (scripture, tradition, reason and experience).

Protestants do not always agree among themselves about precisely how the first order sources of theological authority relate to second order doctrinal propositions.  Many Protestants think scripture contains or is the immediate source of some direct, propositional doctrinal statements.  For them, many doctrinal propositions are effectively irreformable because they are derived directly from scripture.  Some Protestants argue that scripture is not fundamentally propositional in nature, or that scripture can only be understood dynamically as the Holy Spirit makes its meaning clear, and that doctrinal statements therefore in principle are always reformable.

These two different types of Protestant views can be illustrated as follows:

Figure 3 illustrates a model in which scripture supplies direct or nearly direct doctrinal propositions.  In this model, reason, experience and tradition mostly serve to aid in the understanding of scripture.  Reason and experience are grouped together because they are understood as related sources.

Another model for Protestant construction of doctrine is illustrated in Figure 4:

This model is labeled “Wesleyan Postliberal / Postconservative” because it reflects the pietist streams of Protestantism, particularly as led by John Wesley and by the Anabaptists before and after Wesley, and because it also reflects a contemporary effort to overcome the breach between “conservative / fundamentalist” and “liberal” theologies that erupted in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

John Wesley was a great evangelist and reformer who lived in the eighteenth century.  He emphasized personal piety, including the experience of conversion, the devotional practices of prayer and Bible reading, and abstinence from cultural practices thought to be damaging, such as consuming alcohol.  The four sources of authority we have discussed in this Module – scripture, tradition, reason and experience – are often called the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” because they were emphasized by Wesley in contrast to the more “intellectual” approach of the Calvinist Reformed churches.  Wesley also rejected the Cavlinist doctrine of “double predestination” – the belief that God chose in advance who will and will not be saved – and taught that salvation is available to everyone.  In fact, the differences between Calvinism and Wesleyanism continue to represent one of the major dividing points in the history of American evangelicalism.

“Anabaptist” refers to various Protestant groups that dissented from the Calvinist-Reformed churches on various matters starting in the fifteenth century, including on the nature of baptism.  Calvinists baptized infants, whereas Anabaptists held that only adults should be baptized.  Anabaptist also held that even people baptized as infants should be re-baptized as consenting adults.  “Ana-“Baptist literally means “re-“baptize.  Anabaptists emphasized personal piety, including the direct illumination of the individual conscience by the Holy Spirit.  The Anabaptists often were ferociously persecuted by Calvinists, including punishments such as burning at the stake.  Most independent Evangelical churches in North America follow Anabaptist beliefs about baptism, although such churches usually are disconnected from other typical Anabaptist teachings (most Anabaptists, for example, were and are pacifist).  Many Charismatic and Pentecostal practices also bear some relationship to the Anabaptist emphasis on direct illumination by the Holy Spirit.

Because both Wesleyans and Anabaptists focused more on personal experience than intellectual knowledge, they were less attuned the particularity of doctrinal statements.  This does not mean they ignored doctrine, but it does mean that their approach was closer to the “post-conservative / post-liberal” approach described below.

Meanwhile, Model 3, the “Protestant-Propositionalist” model, was the dominant approach in the Calvinist-Reformed and, to a certain extent, in the Lutheran-Reformed churches, until the mid-Nineteenth Century.  In the 19th Century, in connection with various philosophical, cultural, and other changes, “Liberal” theology began to challenge all notions of religious authority.  In many cases, Liberal theology eventually relegated all theological claims – including basic claims such as the divinity of Christ – to the realm of private emotional sentiment.

Some branches of Protestantism, including Fundamentalism and some varieties of Evangelicalism, clung (and still cling) ferociously to the Protestant–Propositionalist model, in an effort to avoid the specter of Liberal theology.  These theologies, however, tend to make claims that cannot be sustained about what the Bible is or how it should be interpreted.[1]  Moreover, more often than not, this approach simply produces profound, basic, and irresolvable disagreements about what doctrinal propositions the Bible actually is thought to state.[2]

In recent decades, many Protestants in both “Mainline” and “Evangelical” circles, wary of the excesses of both Liberal theology and Fundamentalism, have focused on theological methods that appreciate the divine-human nature of scripture and the contextual-historical nature of doctrinal statements, while recognizing the importance of continuity and stability.  Figure 4 is one way of thinking of this relationship.[3]

Since Figure 4 is a Protestant model, scripture is the central source of theological authority.  Reason, Tradition, and Experience are also sources of authority, which inform how scripture is read and understood, but which are also subject to scripture as a final norm.  Unlike in the Protestant-Propositionalist model, however, scripture is not here understood primarily as a direct sourcebook of doctrinal propositions.  Although scripture does contain direct doctrinal statements, the texts of scripture are for the most part not given in the form of creedal statements.  Instead, scripture is given to us in the diverse forms of narratives, stories, poems, songs, letters, visions, and so on.  Doctrinal propositions derive from scripture (along with and informed by reason, tradition, and experience), but scripture is not essentially a rational-propositional sourcebook.

This is an important point, because it helps situate doctrinal propositions as fallible, human statements.  We do not worship “doctrine” – we worship the living God.  In an effort to understand and explain what we know of God, we engage in the process of formulating doctrinal propositions from the basic sources of knowledge God has made available to us.  This perspective helps us engage the scriptures and the other sources of theological authority with greater humility.  It also encourages patience and dialogue when we disagree with each other.

This does not mean that faithful Christians are free to modify at will the essential meaning of basic doctrines that have been passed down throughout the history of the faith.  This also is a vitally important point.  A central core of Christian doctrine has stood the test of time because of its deep connection to the first order sources of Christian theology.  This is the case with the Nicene Creed, which is the doctrinal statement that forms the backbone of this class.  To depart substantially from this central core of doctrine is to think in a way that is less than fully “Christian.”  We study the Nicene Creed to explore how its propositions tie together the first-order sources of theological authority in a way that is coherent, satisfying, beautiful, and unifying.  When we recite the Creed, we proclaim publicly that its propositions express essential truth about God and the world.

Nevertheless, we recognize that even great doctrinal documents such as the Nicene Creed are second order statements.  Our purpose is not merely to study and recite historical words.  Our purpose is to participate more deeply in the living faith the Creed proclaims.  In the next Module, we will begin to explore the contours of that living faith through the articles of the Creed.

 

[1] An example of this is the effort in some circles to read the ancient texts of the Bible as modern “scientific” documents.

[2] An example of this are the deep disagreements between Calvinist and Dispensational conservative evangelicals, about matters as basic as the nature of human free will, Divine predestination, and the economy of salvation.

[3] Many contemporary Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians would adopt a similar model, somewhat in contrast to the more “traditional” models in Figures 1 and 2, but perhaps with a different relationship between scripture and the other sources of authority.

Categories
Beauty of the Christian Faith Theology

The Beauty of the Christian Faith: Introduction: The Nature of Doctrine: Catholicism and Orthodoxy

I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.  I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done.  Here’s the seventh part of the introduction.  Prior posts can be accessed through the Beauty of the Christian Faith Page.

Doctrines:  Second Order Statements Derived from the First Order Sources of Theology

Doctrines are propositional theological statements that summarize claims to knowledge about God.  A “propositional” statement is simply a discrete statement of claimed fact, such as “water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.”  Doctrines historically have been collected in summary statements such as creeds and confessions.

The manner in which doctrines function as theological authorities is the subject of some debate among different types of Christians.  The debate relates to the relationship between scripture and tradition and also to the nature of scripture in relation to doctrinal propositions.  The next sections discuss how this relationship is understood in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions.  You should understand, however, that there is considerable variety even within each of these traditions.  The models discussed below are intended as broad and general illustrations of key themes and differences.

Roman Catholicism

In general, Catholic Christians understand the teaching authority (“Magesterium”) of the Roman Church to provide the final interpretation of scripture, often in the form of doctrinal propositions stated by official Church councils or in documents issued or authorized by the Pope.  Certain doctrinal propositions are part of sacred Tradition and, having been stated with the necessary authority, are irreformable.  We can illustrate this relationship as follows:
As the key on the left indicates, scripture is understood in light of experience and reason and is authoritatively interpreted through the Magesterium (Tradition) in the form of doctrine.  In a sense, doctrine in Catholic theology represents the point at which scripture, experience, reason, and tradition converge.

Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern Orthodox Christians do not make sharp distinctions between scripture, tradition, reason and experience.  Many Orthodox theologians speak of all these sources together simply as “the Tradition.”  This does not mean that Orthodox thought simply equates reason and experience with scripture.  For the Orthodox, scripture remains uniquely inspired by God.  But Orthodoxy pictures scripture like the spinal cord of a living organism.  The organism is an indivisible whole, which functions because its constituent parts work synergistically together.  For the Orthodox, it would make as much sense to separate scripture from the life and experience of the Church as it would to cut the spinal cord out of a person.  This relationship can be illustrated as follows:

 

[1] This does not mean that the Eastern Orthodox churches exhibit a centralized structure under a single teaching authority, as is the case with the Roman Catholic Church.  There are a number of different denominations that would fall under the banner “Eastern Orthodox,” and in general, within these denominations local churches are accountable to regional Bishops, but not to any central over-Bishop or Pope.

Categories
Beauty of the Christian Faith Theology

The Beauty of the Christian Faith: Introduction: Sources: Experience

I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.  I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done.  Here’s the fifth part of the introduction.  Prior posts can be accessed through the Beauty of the Christian Faith Page.

Introduction

The sources of Christian theology are scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.  Every variety of Christian theology draws on each of these sources.  One of the first decisions we must make when thinking theologically is how to understand the nature of, and relationship between, these sources.

Experience

“Experience” is lived, relational knowledge.  For Christian theology, “experience” includes our encounter with Jesus Christ; the movement of the Holy Spirit in individual persons, in the Church, and in history; and the forms, practices, words, images and sensations in and through which we have known God.

Christianity is not an “idea.”  Rather, Christian faith is at heart a relationship with the living God.  In scripture, authentic knowledge of God is often compared to intimate sensual experience:  sexual love, a boisterous feast, sweet perfume, resounding music, cool water, warm bread, fragrant wine.  “Taste and see that the LORD is good,” says Psalm 34.

“Experience” is connected to the “practices” of Christian faith.  “Practices” are ways of doing things that have developed and become standardized over time.  Piano players, for example, are taught to use a certain sequence of fingers in order to play the notes of a given scale.  The practice of using this particular sequence of fingers has become the standard way to play a scale because, over time, it has proven an effective means of reaching and producing all the notes in the scale.

Christians have always engaged in two central practices:  baptism and the regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist.[1]  Both of these are tactile ways of entering into the reality of the presence of Christ and of the common experience of the Church throughout history.  In baptism, we quite literally “see” God’s goodness as the old life of slavery to sin is washed away and we are raised clean and new, a member of a people sealed with grace; and in the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist, we quite literally “taste” the provision of Christ’s body and blood in the yeasty tang of the bread and the sharp tannins and round fruits of the wine.

Other vital Christian practices include prayer, scripture reading, meditation, fasting, and corporate worship.[2]  In prayer, we bring our requests to God and we seek and wait for His wisdom.  Scripture reading is the practice of reading the text of the Bible in order to hear what God wishes to say to each  of us personally through the text (in some churches this is called lectio divina).  When we mediate, we focus intentionally on a particular portion of scripture or a scriptural thought or image.  Fasting involves voluntarily forgoing something we desire for a defined period of time.  Prayer, meditation, and fasting are intertwined because they are often practiced together.  Corporate worship is the practice of joining together with other Christians in a designated place and time for communal song, prayer, scripture reading, and partaking in the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist, with an orientation towards exalting God for who He is and remembering what He has done for us.

When we participate in these practices, we learn about God through experience.  Often, this sort of knowledge cannot adequately be expressed in rational logic or even in words.  A person who has lived with God for many years often possesses insights that escape quantification.  To return to our analogy of music, it is like a pianist who can perform a Mozart sonata with exquisite beauty and nuance because she has lived with the music in a way that transcends technical study.  Good theology is thinking about God that has been lived and experienced.


[1] This is not a full list of all the “sacraments” in every Christian tradition, but these two sacraments are common to all Christian traditions and are recognized by all Christians to be central.

[2] Similarly, these are not the only devotional practices in every tradition, but they are common to all traditions.

Categories
Beauty of the Christian Faith Historical Theology Theology

The Beauty of the Christian Faith: Introduction: Sources: Reason

I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.  I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done.  Here’s the fourth part of the introduction.  Prior posts can be accessed through the Beauty of the Christian Faith Page.

Introduction

The sources of Christian theology are scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.  Every variety of Christian theology draws on each of these sources.  One of the first decisions we must make when thinking theologically is how to understand the nature of, and relationship between, these sources.

Reason

“Reason” is the application of the tools of the intellect, including language, observation, logic, and rational argument, to the available data.

The relationship between “faith” and “reason” is a rich and sometimes contentious area of reflection in the Christian tradition.  Christians have always been aware of the limitations of human reason.  Some of these limitations are “natural” – humans cannot know and understand everything that God knows and understands, precisely because we are human creatures and not God.  Some of these limitations are the result of sin.  Because of sin, apart from God’s grace humans tend to ignore and distort many basic truths.[1]  Nevertheless, Christians have always agreed that theology must be informed by human reason.

Perhaps the most profound statement of this relationship comes from the 11th Century theologian St. Anslem:  “faith seeks understanding” (“fides quaerens intellectum”).  Right “understanding” – the correct application of reason – presupposes faith.  This is true even for a person of no religious faith at all.  In order to believe that reason is a reliable process, we must at least assume that the universe we observe is in some sense real, orderly and predictable.  If the observed universe were an illusion brought about by a feverish dream or a malicious demon, for example, or if the laws of nature were radically different in the past than they are today, there would be no basis upon which to believe that our beliefs about things like cause and effect are true – we could not make any inferences from our observations of the world.  But there is no way to prove for certain that the observed universe is not a grand deception with a false history – for if it were a grand deception, we would be deceived in our attempts at any such proof!

This problem is called “Descartes’ Demon,” after Renee Descartes, a brilliant 17th Century mathematician and philosopher.   Descartes sought an indubitable foundation for rational knowledge.  As he reflected on this problem, he realized that, at the very least, he must really exist – or else he could not reflect on the problem of his own existence!  The fact of his own existence, he believed, was beyond doubt, because to doubt that fact is to presume a “self” capable of doubt.  This led him to make his famous statement that “I think therefore I am” (“Cogito ergo sum”).  Descartes believed that from this sure foundation of self-knowledge, using observation and reason, he could establish many other facts for certain.

Most contemporary philosophers recognize that, even if the Cogito is correct, it fails to provide the sort of firm foundation Descartes sought.  Perhaps self-consciousness is itself an illusion.  Perhaps what appears to be “conscious” thought is really an epiphenomenal delusion based in entirely mechanistic biological processes.  Some modern neuroscientists believe precisely this about the human mind.[2]  And even if self-consciousness cannot reasonably be doubted, the “self” might be deceived about what kind of “self” it is, and about what exactly it is capable of perceiving and what kind of mental tools it can apply to those apparent perceptions.

In fact, over a thousand years before Descartes, St. Augustine made a similar observation about self-knowledge and the certainty of one’s own existence.  Augustine, however, was more attuned to human fallibility than Descartes.  When Augustine peered into his own soul, he saw an enormous capacity for rebelliousness and self-deception, along with a yearning for God.  Augustine therefore understood self-knowledge as a springboard to faith in God.[3]

This exercise shows that everyone must employ “faith” as a basis for reason.  Even people who claim to believe nothing but that which can be rationally “proven” must rely on assumptions that cannot be proven about their own minds, their own perceptions, and the universe we inhabit.  “Rationalism” is self-defeating.

It is tempting at this point to discount reason entirely in favor of faith.  Some Christians and other religious people take this approach, at least in some areas of their lives.  For example, some Christians continue to follow certain “health and wealth” preachers even when those preachers are exposed as cheats and frauds.[4]  This is the opposite error to “rationalism”:  “fideism.”

Christian theology is neither rationalistic nor fideistic.  “Reason” is an important source of Christian theology because we are informed by faith commitments about God, ourselves, and creation.  These include that:  God exists; God is the creator of all things; God is a reasonable being; God created humans in His image, with a capacity for observation and reason; creation bears the characteristics of order and intelligibility because creation proceeds from and depends upon God’s will; and God is not a deceiver and is the author of Truth.  We might summarize it this way:  “all Truth is God’s Truth.”  Faith and reason are not at odds; they are in fact necessary to each other.

 

 


[1] The precise manner in which sin distorts human reason is a subject of intense debate across different Christian traditions.  Christians in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions tend to hold a “higher” view of human reason, even though affected by sin, than Christians in the Protestant traditions.  Among Protestants, Calvinist-Reformed Christians tend to hold a “lower” view of human reason than those informed by the Arminian-Wesleyan-Pietist streams of the faith.  We will explore these differences in more detail in the module on “Humanity as Creation.”

[2] This claim, however, is self-defeating.  How could a neurobiological machine with no true consciousness “believe” anything?

[3] Augustine’s reflections on this process are contained in his Confessions – a classic of Christian spirituality and of Western literature.

[4] The point here is not to suggest that God never miraculously heals or miraculously provides for people today.  We have many reasons to believe God sometimes acts today in ways we must call “miraculous.”  Moreover, God is always the source of every good thing we receive.  Nevertheless, it is sadly the case that there are many false “health and wealth” preachers seeking their own gain, who prey on gullible, desperate, and poor people throughout the world.

Categories
Beauty of the Christian Faith Historical Theology Theology

The Beauty of the Christian Faith: Introduction: Sources: Tradition

I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.  I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done.  Here’s the third part of the introduction.  Prior posts can be accessed through the Beauty of the Christian Faith Page.

Introduction

The sources of Christian theology are scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.  Every variety of Christian theology draws on each of these sources.  One of the first decisions we must make when thinking theologically is how to understand the nature of, and relationship between, these sources.

Tradition

Tradition is the historical teaching, reflection, and worship of the Christian Church.

For Catholic, Orthodox, and some protestant Christians, some documents produced by Church leaders throughout history are given special status.  At various times, Church leaders met in “councils” to deal with controversial questions.  When these councils included Bishops from both the Eastern and Western parts of the Church and were convened by a sovereign political authority (an Emperor), they were called “ecumenical” councils (“ecumenical” means “worldwide”).

During its first few hundred years, the Church faced vital and difficult questions about the nature of God and Christ.  How do the Father, Son and Holy Spirit comprise one God?  Was Christ fully God?  Was he also fully human?  These questions went to the heart of the Christian story.  In a series of ecumenical councils, the Church hammered out statements and definitions relating to these questions.  These included the First Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, which led to the creation of the Nicene Creed – the basic text for our study in this class.

After this period, differences between the Eastern and Western branches of the Church became more pronounced and difficult.  There were numerous reasons for these differences, which included genuine theological debate as well as geography, culture, politics, and even war.[1]  By 1054 A.D., the Eastern and Western branches of the Church had definitively split, with the Western branch adhering to the central authority of the Bishop of Rome – the Pope.  There were numerous other councils held after this split both in the East and in the West, which the Catholic and Orthodox Churches respectively continue to take as authoritative.  However, there were no further ecumenical councils that produced any statement, such as the Nicene Creed, that would win broad acceptance in all branches of the Church.

As mentioned in the section on “Scripture,” the Reformation of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries represents another significant break in the broad stream of Church history.  The Eastern churches had split with the West over the primacy of the Pope and other matters, but the Eastern Churches continued to understand themselves as existing under the authority of the line of Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome) extending directly from the Apostles.  The Reformation became something far more radical:  for many (but not all) of the heirs of the Reformation, it led to the complete rejection of the kind of authority historically given to the Bishops by both the Western (Catholic) and Eastern churches.  The rejection or redefinition of “apostolic succession” perhaps is the most significant legacy (for good or ill, depending on your perspective) of the Reformation.

Scholars of the Reformation today debate whether the Reformation’s key early figures – people such as Martin Luther and John Calvin – really intended the massive schism their movement produced.  Luther, for example, at first hoped for more subtle changes within the Roman church, and some scholars today suggest that he hoped for reconciliation with Rome well into his later life.  In any event, these “Magesterial” Reformers did not reject “tradition” out of hand.  To the contrary, they accorded high status particularly to the early history of the Church, including the ecumenical councils.  They believed that their movement was entirely consistent with the teachings of those early ecumenical councils.

In addition to documents from official Church councils, “tradition” includes the Church’s historical reflection and worship.  Christianity produced many of the most brilliant minds in the history of Western civilization.  Writers such as Irenaeus of Lyon, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Karl Barth, and many others, have left us with a rich legacy of theological literature.  Christianity also produced beautiful art, architecture, liturgies, music, poetry, and mystical writings.  All of these resources are part of our “tradition.”


[1] The city of Constantinople, the historic seat of the Eastern churches, was sacked and pillaged by Crusaders under the authority of the Pope in 1203 A.D.  The attack on Constantinople was not part of the Crusaders’ original mission and may not have been intended by the Pope, but it nevertheless sealed the split between East and West.

Categories
Beauty of the Christian Faith Spirituality Theology

The Beauty of the Christian Faith Faith: Introduction: Sources: Scripture

I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.  I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done.  Here’s the second part of the introduction.  Prior posts can be accessed through the Beauty of the Christian Faith Page.

Introduction

The sources of Christian theology are scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.  Every variety of Christian theology draws on each of these sources.  One of the first decisions we must make when thinking theologically is how to understand the nature of, and relationship between, these sources.

If you grew up in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, for example, you might have believed that Christianity is all about “tradition.”  If you grew up Protestant, particularly in an independent evangelical church, you might think “scripture” is the only source that matters.  In fact, these poles are distortions.  Neither pole properly reflects the interplay of sources in the historic Christian faith.

It is true that Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants have had very different views about the role of scripture and tradition in relation to each other, and that this remains one of the basic differences between these streams of Christian faith.  But properly understood, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism each emphasize both scripture and tradition as sources of theological authority, and each also in different ways draw on reason and experience.  The perspective we will develop in this section is broadly Protestant, but we will also interact with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views.

Scripture

Scripture is the canonical text of the Bible.  By “canonical” we mean those texts that Christians historically have recognized as authoritative.  The Latin term “canon” means “rule.”  The “canonical” scriptures therefore are the “rule” or standard for our faith and practice.  For Protestants, this includes the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.  Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians also include some other books, some of which were written during the “intertestamental” period (between the Old and New Testaments).[1]

The canon of Christian scripture was formed over an approximately three-hundred year period following the birth of the early Church.  It included the portions of the Old Testament traditionally recognized as canonical by the Jewish people, as well as additional books written after the death and resurrection of Christ.  Leaders of the early Church evaluated texts for inclusion in the canon based on whether the texts were “apostolic” and consistent with the “Rule of Faith.”   “Apostolic” meant that the book was believed to have been written by one of the twelve Apostles of Jesus (including Paul, who became an Apostle after Jesus’ death and resurrection).  The “Rule of Faith” was a basic summary of Christian belief that emphasized the divinity, death and resurrection of Christ.

This process of defining the Biblical canon took hundreds of years partly because there was not always full agreement on which texts met these criteria.  This is an important point, particularly for those of us from independent Protestant churches:  we only possess a “Bible,” a canon of scripture, because the Church patiently evaluated different texts based on a tradition.  The “story” of Jesus – of his death and resurrection and his founding of the Church – predated the “Bible” and in fact defined the “Bible.”

Christians of various traditions agree that the Bible is not merely a human book.  The Bible is “inspired” by God – it is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).[2]  Exactly what the “inspiration” of the Bible implies is a matter of debate, both within and across the different Christian traditions.  Most Christians throughout history have always recognized that, although the Bible is “inspired” and is therefore not merely a human book, it nevertheless is indeed a product of human authors and editors (“redactors”).  Modern Biblical scholarship continues to uncover the fascinating ways in which the cultural settings of the Bible’s human authors and redactors informed their writings.  Nevertheless, Christian theology asserts that because the Bible is “inspired” by God, it is uniquely trustworthy and reliable as the Church’s text.  The Bible is “scripture,” which means that we must read it, understand it, and apply it in a way that differs from a merely human text.

As mentioned in the Introduction, even with this broad agreement about the Bible as “scripture,” Christians of different kinds agree that the Bible is a key source of theological authority, but we do not all agree on the precise nature and role of the Bible as an authority.  All Protestants are heirs of the Reformation, which was an enormous and diverse theological, social, and political movement sparked in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.  A central feature of the Reformation was an emphasis on “scripture alone” – “sola scriptura” – as the final source of authority for Christian faith and practice.  This emphasis was part of the Reformation’s break from the traditional authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sola scriptura means that there is no source of theological authority that is higher than the Bible.  It does not mean there are no other sources of authority – the slogan is not “solo” scriptura.  But it does mean that, for Christians in the Reformation tradition, there is no court of appeal beyond scripture, and that no Pope or other person or institution can issue a finally binding statement about Christian faith or practice.


[1] A useful summary of differences among Christian denominations concerning which books are part of the Biblical Canon can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

[2] The Greek work in 2 Timothy 3:16 is theopneustos.  Theo is the root for the word God (theos) and pneustos comes from the root for the word “breath” or “spirit” (pneuma).  This term is not used anywhere else in the Bible (scholars call this a “hapax legomenon” – literally, “a word that is said only once”).  It is also a relatively rare term in classical Greek literature.

Categories
Beauty of the Christian Faith Spirituality Theology

The Beauty of the Christian Faith: Introduction

I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.  I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done.  Here’s the first part of the introduction.

Welcome

Welcome to “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.”  In this class, we’ll explore together the contents of the historic Christian faith.  In formal terms, this class is an introduction to Christian “theology” and “doctrine.”  Our goal is to grow together in knowledge and wisdom so that our hearts are moved deeper into worship of the God who made us and loves us.

“Theology” and “doctrine” are dusty, intimidating words.  So why do we call this class “The Beauty of the Christian Faith?”  When we say something is “beautiful,” we mean that it is pleasing to experience, possesses symmetry and balance, and stirs up emotional responses of wonder, awe and delight.  As you begin to study Christian theology and doctrine, you’ll come to understand that our faith is, indeed, “beautiful.”

Of course, theology and doctrine are not always easy to understand.  Quite often, the study of theology and doctrine disturbs settled assumptions and old ways of living.  This sort of “holy disruption” is sometimes how God draws us closer to Himself.  You will also find that, although most Christians historically have agreed on many things, there have always been areas of significant, unresolved disagreement.  This tension invites us to remain humble, and teaches us to love others.  In fact, with patience, diligence, prayer, and community, you will see that even these unsettling aspects of our faith are part of its powerful beauty. You will also learn to develop your own perspectives, within the broad stream of historic Christianity, so that you can faithfully commend the truth of Christ in mission to the world.

What is Theology?

“Theology” is the human effort to think and speak about God.  In a sense, everyone is a theologian.  Everyone must in some way answer the question whether there is a God.  The act of answering this question is an act of theology, even for someone who concludes there is no God.  Anyone who believes God exists inevitably must have some ideas about what God is like.  This, too, is theology.  Theology is an unavoidable human practice.  It is, in fact, part of what makes us “human.”

“Christian theology” is the discipline of thinking and speaking about God with the community of the Christian Church.  Each of the components of this definition is important.

Christian theology is a human act of thinking and speaking.  All theologies are constructed with the limitations of the human mind and human language.  This doesn’t mean that all theologies are equally valid, but it does mean that all theologies are in some way provisional.  It doesn’t mean that we discard or reinvent the concepts and definitions received from the past, but it does mean that we continually return to those concepts and definitions with new context and seeking fresh insight.  Faith always seeks understanding.

Christian theology is a communal act.  No one can practice authentic Christian theology alone.  The community with which Christian theology is practiced is the Christian Church.  We say that theology is practiced with the Church to emphasize that no individual stands above the Church.  We are each, as followers of Christ, members of his community, his “body” (Ephesians 5:30).  We learn from each other and support each other, and all of us together stand in the presence of the “great cloud of witnesses” who have gone before us (Hebrews 12:1).

We also say theology is practiced with the Church because Christian theology is an act of worship.  The purpose of Christian theology is not to win debating points or to impress others with our knowledge.  The purpose of Christian theology is to exalt and adore and wonder and grow in faith, hope and love, in the presence of our good and beautiful God.

Finally, Christian theology is a discipline.  It takes effort and practice and study.  It doesn’t always come easily.  Its apprentices are many and its masters are very few.

Sources of Christian Theology

 Introduction

The sources of Christian theology are scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.  Every variety of Christian theology draws on each of these sources.  One of the first decisions we must make when thinking theologically is how to understand the nature of, and relationship between, these sources.

If you grew up in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, for example, you might have believed that Christianity is all about “tradition.”  If you grew up Protestant, particularly in an independent evangelical church, you might think “scripture” is the only source that matters.  In fact, these poles are distortions.  Neither pole properly reflects the interplay of sources in the historic Christian faith.

It is true that Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants have had very different views about the role of scripture and tradition in relation to each other, and that this remains one of the basic differences between these streams of Christian faith.  But properly understood, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism each emphasize both scripture and tradition as sources of theological authority, and each also in different ways draw on reason and experience.  The perspective we will develop in this section is broadly Protestant, but we will also interact with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views.