Author: David Opderbeck

Categories
Spirituality Theological Hermeneutics Theology

Always Reforming?

Good post from Jamie Smith on the uses and misuses of the slogan “semper reformanda“:

There are strains of the Reformed tradition which like to emphasize that they are “always reforming,” invoking the Latin semper reformanda as a motto. But if one analyzes when and how this is invoked, one will notice something very slippery: that under the banner of “reforming” what we get is really just an agenda for “updating” the faith. And such an “updating” project is far from what was envisioned by the Reformers.

Indeed, such “updating” is more like the mid-century stream of aggiornamento advocated by Catholic theologians who were trying to get the church to “go modern”–to “update” the faith by conforming it to the new regnant standards of what counted as rational, true and just. But such a project of “updating” is ultimately correlationist (as I use the term in Introducing Radical Orthodoxy): it locates the standards for what we ought to believe outside the faith–in the supposedly neutral, objective findings of economics or sociology or evolutionary psychology. This puts Christian faith back on its heels, in a stance of deference to the canons of extra-Scriptural authorities.

But such “updating” is not reform; or, to put it more starkly, to be “always updating” is not the equivalent of semper reformanda. To be sure, Christian faith pushes us to value careful attention to empirical realities and thus requires us to grapple with our unfolding knowledge of our material and social world. Without question. In equal measure, the church, in order to be faithful, is called to be always reforming, not sitting on its laurels as if it has arrived at the truth. Since such a pursuit is an eternal vocation, it would seem odd to think we’ve arrived.

However, the call to be always reforming is not simply a matter of “updating” the faith according to current trends and fads; nor is it even a matter of “correlating” the faith with the supposedly secure findings of other authorities. To be “always reforming” is to be engaged in the hard work of being a tradition, which includes the difficult labor of arguing about what constitutes a faithful extension of the tradition (I have something like Alasdair MacIntyre’s account of “tradition” in mind here). This difficult work of reform differs from “updating” because it retains the center of gravity in the tradition (which, of course, includes and prioritizes the “founding document” of the tradition–in this case, Scripture).

This is merely a sketch to watch the “codes” at work when “always reforming” is invoked, and to urge a kind of semantic caution that under the banner of “reforming” language what we often get is a progressivism that is animated by a chronological snobbery which is a far cry from the task of reform, let alone the Reformers.

Categories
Campus Ministry Spirituality

Youth Groups Ruin Kids' Lives

Well, not exactly, but here is a great post from David Fitch about the dangers of contemporary youth ministry.  With  kids in junior high and high school youth group, I often worry about the things Fitch mentions here.  I’m grateful that my church’s youth ministries focus on some of the things Fitch mentions, particularly missions.  But I do worry about the kind of spirituality a large youth ministry imparts in virtue of its being large.  In fact, I worry sometimes even about the emphasis on missions.   Is there a model for what most of these kids will eventually do in life — work at “ordinary” jobs and raise “ordinary” families somewhere in the U.S.? Or is the message that “real” Christians are “super-Christians”:  missionaries and pastors?  There’s lots of emotion, but is there enough depth to help kids move into the challenges of college and adult life?

Categories
Theology

D'Costa on Christianity and World Religions

This is the second post in my series on Gavin D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions.  The first post is here.  In this post I’ll jump to the last chapter of the book to consider D’Costa’s proposal regarding the salvation of the unevangelized.  (Note:  this post is also up at Jesus Creed).

As a Roman Catholic theologian, D’Costa is constrained by the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salas – “There is no salvation outside the Church.”  Catholics mean by this that the visible Roman Church is the only vehicle of salvation, although after Vatican II this is broadly interpreted.   Protestants are not constrained by this doctrine in exactly the same way.   A central tenet of the Reformation is that the Church is an “invisible” body based on the inner life of faith.  Nevertheless, traditional Protestant teaching continues to hold that salvation is inaccessible Extra Ecclesiam – that those who are saved must belong to the Church, albeit the Church reinterpreted as an invisible body based on inward faith.

For some Christians in earlier centuries, Extra Ecclesiam was perhaps not as vexing a problem as it appears to us today.  Many assumed that Christendom covered most of humanity.  D’Costa recognizes the problem Extra Ecclesiam presents today:  “the assumption . . . that the entire world is confronted with the gospel . . . is no longer tenable as we now know that, throughout Christian history, there have been billions of people and cultures who have not heard the Gospel.”  He resolves this problem with reference to the “Limbo of the Just” and with an important move concerning the nature of participation in Christ.

The “Limbo of the Just” is a concept found in very early Christian tradition.  It is rooted in the “descent” passage of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6.  The early Church Fathers recognized that many apparently good and just people had lived before Christ, including the Old Testament saints and some of the Greek philosophers whom they admired.  Some of these early Christian thinkers supposed that the preaching of the gospel to the dead described in 1 Peter 4:6 (“for this reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead”) referred to the opportunity for these pre-Christian people to recognize that the good towards which they strived in life was fulfilled in Christ.  The time spent by Old Testament saints and “holy pagans” in the Limbo of the Just allowed them to expurgate their sins in preparation for coming to saving faith in Christ at the time of Christ’s descent.

For the Early Fathers, the Limbo of the Just was emptied on Holy Saturday.  It was not an option for people living after the Resurrection, although the concept of an Infant’s Limbo eventually was developed to deal with the problem of unbaptized infants.  However, D’Costa lists three reasons why the “Limbo of the Just” tradition might provide resources for the contemporary question of the unevangelized:  (1) it explains how some people who did not know Christ in life could come to know him and his Church; (2) it unites the ontological experience of living a life marked by truth and the good with the epistemological status of knowing Christ as the source of all that is true and good; and (3) it provides for the fact that even those who are in some ways true and good before epistemically knowing Christ may require some degree of purification for sins committed in the flesh.

D’Costa does not suggest a simple restatement of the Limbo of the Just tradition with all of its ancient speculative cosmological baggage.  He notes that “we must not imagine this solution as a celestial waiting room under the earth, but a conceptual theological datum based on the tradition that provides an answer uniting the ontological and epistemological to explain the case of [the salvation of the unevangelized.”  This dense statement points towards another key to D’Costa’s proposal:   a participatory ontology in which temporal, situated human beings participate in the life of the eternal, cosmic Christ. This participatory ontology is one way in which D’Costa explains how the descent of Christ on Holy Saturday can be effective for unevangelized people living in the dispensation of the Church, after the Resurrection.

More on participatory ontology in my next post.  For now:  Can we make use of a theological method in which traditions not explicitly mentioned in scripture inform our thinking?  Does that fact that the early Church Fathers wrestled with the problem of “good” or “just” pre-Christian people, and devised a solution, help in your wrestling with problems such as the fate of the unevangelized?  Are you surprised at how the first few generations of Christians interpreted 1 Peter 3-4?

Categories
Photography and Music

I Wanna Dance

Here’s a ridiculous little dance track I produced messing with my synths this morning.  Enjoy!

Categories
Science and Religion Theology

What is Sin?

Good post by RJS on Jesus Creed, which incorporates some thoughts of mine:

This post is part 7 of a series The Fall and Sin After Darwin. We’ve been looking at the essays in a book Theology After Darwin centered around a simple question: What are the implications for Christian theology if Darwin was right? In conjunction with this we are also looking at three articles in the recent theme issue of the ASA Journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (v. 62 no. 3 2010) Reading Genesis: The Historicity of Adam and Eve, Genomics, and Evolutionary Science.

In the last post in this series, Did God Create Us Sinful?, we looked at the question of theodicy – wrestling with the concept God’s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil and the questions human nature and human impulses. The nature and understanding of sin is a big piece of thie discussion. In the course of the discussion I quoted from Dr. Schneider’s article summarizing some of the reasons for the conflict between evolution, common descent, and the traditional view of sin as he sees the issues interacting.

The main point is that recent phylogenetic or cladistic analysis convinces many genetic experts that these detailed similarities of self-serving behaviors can hardly be coincidental—they look like a genetic legacy that has been passed on from one species to the next, including to our own. Domning endorses this as, by far, the best explanation: “The selfish acts of humans are homologous; that is, similar because derived from a common source.” And in any event (so we add, lest one resist that explanation), the traits are genetically common to every individual in all animal species. As members of a species, we are programmed, as it were, or powerfully disposed, to engage in our own genetic self-interest and advantage. We need not endorse the theory of common ancestry in order to respect the force of all this evidence and to begin pondering its implications for theology. (p. 202)

Natural biological response does not need to be limited to the negative of course. Virtue can also be argued to be merely natural biological response. Schneider discusses, not only sin, but also altruism and behavior for the communal good rather than the individual good.  He continues after the quote I have above:

It should be noted that geneticists observe, too, that we also share with animals “virtuous” traits involving love, genuine sympathy, and care. If this is selfishness, it proves that selfishness is the source of not only vice, but also virtue. If animals engage in genuinely unselfish acts-disinterested in the general survival of their own germinal DNA—then that is extremely interesting, to be sure. It is nevertheless clear that many animal “virtues” show self interest in a manner that benefits other nonmembers of the species, too. Domning calls this behavior “amoral selfishness.” As for deliberative human altruism (if there really is such a thing), it requires, writes Domning, “an intellect and will of a caliber that does not and cannot exist in the simplest life forms.” The clear implication of the science is that, at the dawn of human consciousness and its moral awareness and capacities for such virtue, altruism was the challenge for humanity in the future, not the original primal condition of human beings in the past. (p. 202)

Recent observations of chimpanzee gangs and food sharing by bonobos are used by some to bolster the argument. Human behavior is simply deterministic and natural. This idea has serious consequences for Christian theology.  Much of Schneider’s article is dead-on, insightful, and worth serious consideration. But his emphasis on sin and a sinful nature as equated with “natural” biological urges and tendencies is something of a problem.  It strikes me that we have here a serious misunderstanding of sin – and of the relationship between natural biological response and sin. We can not understand Adam, Paul, or the Christian faith if we cannot get a handle on the nature of sin. So I put up the question for consideration:

What is the relationship between sin and natural biological response?

 I was planning to post on this topic – but was beaten to the punch in the comment section of the last post. David Opderbeck made the key point early in the comment stream (#16) – and I agree with him here.

Schneider makes some excellent points and his pointing towards Job on the theodicy question is exactly right.

However, he is fundamentally and I think dangerously mistaken about the reduction of “sin” to biology.

“Sin” is not merely a natural inclination, and “selfishness,” or better, “self-regard,” is not in itself sin.

When my dog takes food off the kitchen table, she is being a “bad dog,” but that is not “sin.” She’s just doing what dogs do. If I were to steal food from my neighbor’s table, that would be “sin,” even though I’m inclined by my “selfish” instincts to hoard food. Why is it “sin” for me and not my dog? Because I possess a capacity of “will” or “agency” or, if you will, “soul,” that my dog does not possess.

In fact, Augustine noted this distinction well before the challenge of biological evolution. It was the “soul” that, for Augustine, allowed human beings to regulate their impulses in ways animals cannot. This is very important: Augustine and the other Fathers wrestled with this problem of “natural” inclinations, free will, and moral culpability long before evolutionary biology. Contra Schneider, this is NOT a new problem at all, and there are rich resources in the tradition for thinking about it.

The only way in which it could be a new problem is if hard-core sociobiology is right: that is, if human beings have no free will or agency at all — if all our actions could be traced entirely to “hard wired” evolutionary causes. Very few scientists actually think this is true. In any event, I doubt it’s ultimately a “scientific” question rather than a “metaphysical” one.

Christian theology asserts that human beings possess agency such that we are morally accountable for our actions. Christian theology also asserts that God is not the author of evil. IMHO, these are fundamental truths that cannot, and need not, be compromised.

Later – as I was pondering this post and constructing my argument David put up comment in response to the argument that the continuity between animal and human behavior might undermine the concept of sin – and especially Original Sin.  It comes down, not to inherited response and biological structures, but to the intrinsic reality of free-will and human agency. (Comment 90)

As to “continuity,” I agree with you, we’ve inherited from our forebears all of the stuff from which our minds emerge. These include the mental structures that support culture making and morality. They also include the mental structures that support behaviors we may deem “immoral”.

I reject any view, however, that reduces what it means to be “human” merely to those inherited structures. I reject strong versions of neurobiological determinism. I believe human beings possess genuine agency. I believe the human mind, with its apparently unique capacities for agency, is an emergent phenomena that exerts downward causality, and therefore that human agency isn’t reducible to biology.

I also reject any view that reduces what it means to be “human” even to biology plus the emergent phenomena of mind. Humans are “spiritual” and “soulish” in ways that other creatures apparently are not. The “mind” and the “soul” are not exactly the same thing. This is a datum, I believe, of revelation, but it also accords with the experience of self-consciousness and God-consciousness.

Finally, I reject any view in which these various aspects of what it means to be “human” — (1) our biological and neurobiological and sociobiological inheritance, (2) our capacity for true agency through the downward causality exercised by the emergent phenomena of “mind”, and (3) our spiritual and soulish nature — are conceived of as divisible. Sort of like the Trinity, the layers of our being interpenetrate and coinhere with each other. We are not dualities or trialities — “body and soul” or “body, mind and soul”. We are integrated creatures though our ontology involves multiple layers.

As to “sin,” that begins not in layer (1), but rather is a product of the willful misuse of human capacities at layers (3) and (2) — and thereby it affects layer (1) (e.g., in the stress and anxiety that are produced when we intentionally harm others and break relationships). Certainly the structures of layer (1) make “sin” possible, but they do not dictate that “sin” must happen. A bodily behavior is only “sin” when the “soul” and “mind” have willfully directed the person to improper ends.

Human agency and free-will, creative, abstract, aesthetic thought. These are really the key ideas. Human beings can respond, create, and imagine – and the results of these processes have a reality that extends beyond the merely chemical, physical, and biological.  There is also evidence that human response can intentionally influence the biological ability for response. This came up when I posted last year on an article on the Science of Sin (part 1, part 2,). While it is clear that there is an undeniable connection between human response and natural impulse there is also evidence for an element of control or feedback in human response, albeit imperfect. One of the researchers quoted in the popular level article commented regarding the response in the brain “this network provides us with the evolutionarily unprecedented ability to control our own neural processing – a feat achieved by no other creature.”  There is an element of our very being, an element consistent with the idea of humans created in the image of God that is not merely reducible to animal instincts and biological encoding.  We can (in theory) choose and we can (in theory) change. This is true of the impulse for altruism as well as for the impulse for envy and self-aggrandizement.

Sin then – and the universal reality of sin – relates to an abuse and perversion of this capacity for agency. I posted last May on an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS 107, 4499, 2010) that dealt with the materialist argument against free will with suggestions for the criminal justice system (Is Free Will Anti-Science?).  Christian understanding of reality runs counter to this purely materialist view of action and responsibility. Agency, not just in Adam but in all of us, is a key part of the puzzle. The incarnation and the Christ-centered gospel is not about a return to an “natural-urge-free” existence, but about the ability to stay in proper relationship with God, to make proper choices, and the consequences for making improper choices. The most significant of these choices are relational – first and foremost relationship with God, and then with each other in community extending to the world in which we’ve been placed and in the context of the mission we’ve been given.

Categories
Biblical Studies Spirituality

Curt on the Vibrant Dance

My pastor writes on his time at the Vibrant Dance conference and the need to break down barriers between our faith and the natural sciences.  I’m proud of Curt for engaging this and blessed to have him as a pastor.

Categories
Culture Spirituality

The Day Metallica Came to Church — Part 2

This is the second and final part of my interview with John Van Sloten, author of The Day Metallica Came to Church.  The first part of the interview is here.
 
Dave: So let’s talk a bit about theology for a moment.  In Chapter 3, you use the term “co-illumination.”  What are you getting at here?  How does this idea relate to the classical locus of authority for Protestant Christians — sola scriptura?

John:  Co-illumination occurs when either of God’s two books (creation or the Bible) shines light onto the other; resulting in a fuller/deeper understanding of God’s truth. The underlying assumption is that we need both books, synergistically co-illumining one another, in order to fully understand what God is revealing. While the Bible uses words to describe how the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 19), the Hubble Space Telescope gives us a picture of what one of the 100 billion galaxies in our known universe actually looks like. Once we’ve seen Hubble’s amazing images the psalm can never be the same. In fact it might even feel 100 billion times more powerful. Nor will looking at Jupiter while on Canada’s remote Galiano Island ever be the same. Because I know the truth of the psalm I now have more with which to see God’s face beyond the solar system’s sacred page. The revelation of God is most fully experienced as we read his words with both reading glasses and a telescope.    

For me, the experience of co-illumination has been the most amazing part of this theological journey.  I can read about God’s anger in the Old Testament, and I may be able to imagine what it is like.  But when I feel it, at a heart trembling 120db at a raging Metallica concert, as the band gets angry about the same things God does, I’m totally blown away.  I can read Psalm 34:8 and get a sense of what the psalmist is talking about, but there was something about the amazing Persian meal I shared with friends’ last night that really helped me taste and see that God is good.  We are multi-sensory beings. And I believe that God means to engage all of our senses, via two books, both at the same time.

Sola Scriptura.  To me, the Bible is the book that best brings Jesus close. Through written words it clearly communicates the gospel. The message of Jesus is most perspicuous here. So I strongly believe in scripture as the final authority for faith and life, and that without it (as Calvin taught) I am unable to see God’s revelation in creation. But being the final authority doesn’t make it the only authority. So what Sola Scriptura brings to the ideas that I’m living with is a measuring stick, a ruler, and a compass. On any given Sunday in our church I always preach from both books (they keep each other honest). And if a creational truth doesn’t correlate with a biblical truth, then I need to keep searching for the connection.  If it’s not there, I back off.  My experience though, has been that the connection is most often there. In fact, I’m convinced that every biblical truth has a creational twin (several).

Dave:  Later on in the book you talk about one of those great theologian-sounding Latin terms, sensus divinitatus.  What do you mean by that?  How does it relate to what we might learn about God from culture?

John:  Simply stated it’s the sense of the divine that God has built into each of us; a homing beacon of sorts. According to Calvin, God has implanted an inherent understanding and awareness of himself into every person. This awareness, Calvin writes, is, “engraven indelibly on our very way of human being,” meaning that we “cannot open [our] eyes without being compelled to see him.” 

Often the sensus divinitatus is expressed through our yearnings and desires. God built desires into us that are meant to be ultimately met in Him. So when we yearn for a vicarious experience of glory through a World Series game, in a very real sense we’re being who God made us to be, although not fully.  We still need to get the to point where we realize that our ultimate glory comes as we vicariously enter into the victory that Christ has won for us. So the intense desire we see on all those October ballpark fan faces is indeed a God given desire. 

How does this help me learn to discern God’s truth through the culture?  Basically you identify the particular manifestation of the sensus divinitatus (a desire for victory, community, security, love, meaning, comfort, intimacy, beauty, peace, satisfaction, joy, justice, hope, unity, respect, rest, adventure, a sense of belonging, of mattering, or of being found) and you do three things. First, you name it as a God given gift; thereby honouring both that deeply meaningful and compelling yearning and God.  Second, you describe how God is the ultimate answer to all of our yearnings and desires.  God is victory, community, security, intimacy, etc… Third, you help people make the move from the mere foretaste that a World Series game, a good adventure film, or great sex can bring, to the real thing that is victory, adventure and union with Christ. 
 
Dave:  For me, one of the most interesting examples you give is from the world of fashion.  Fashion!  Whenever I’ve heard a preacher mention fashion — which is exceedingly rare! — it’s been with raised eyebrows and a reference to 1 Tim. 2:9.  And I think we have to admit, the world of fashion thrives on some of the deadly sins — Lust, Greed, Envy, and Pride.  How does sin factor in to your theological reading of culture?

John:  Yeah, the church has been good at citing Paul and forgetting Esther (who’s Persian haute couture saved a nation!). Why does the church always have to be known for what it is against? Shouldn’t we, as people of God, also be known for what we are for? Of course there is always a balance… with hemlines probably somewhere around the knee!

Where is the sensus divinitatus at work in fashion?  (I know, you didn’t ask Dave)  I see three of our deepest yearnings being expressed; the desire to be seen, to be beautiful, and to be perfect. God sees us (“You are the God who sees me” – Hagar). Through Christ we are beautiful in his sight and one day we will be perfect again. 

And what about sin?  It’s everywhere; perverting, twisting, polluting, and distorting God’s good creation. So the key in all of this reading culture stuff is discernment. I rely a lot on community for that; both within and outside of our church. But I think it’s important not to let sin have the final word in all of this.  Christ won right? Even though we’re in this now/not yet time, victory is assured.  And even though sin has infected everything, it doesn’t fully destroy anything or anyone (Augustine). The bible speaks its inspired truth through a cast of sin-infected characters. I’m thinking God is doing the same thing now. 
 
Dave:  Ok, to wrap up, back to praxis. You describe some of the “pushback” you’ve received as you’ve begun to preach from the book of culture.  Tell us a bit about that. What challenges might a pastor who wants to exegete culture face?

Over the past few years there has been lots of theological debate, many exit interviews and countless sleepless nights (on my part).  So you need thick skin and a hard head to do this.  You also need patience and grace. I’ve had prophetically judging phone messages, drive by Sunday morning shoutings, email threats and curses and quizzical looks from my mother, to name a few.  To me there are three challenges; psychological (people don’t like to change), theological (so far the vetting has gone well) and practical (how do you live these ideas out?).  These are still early days in terms of testing this worldview out. There are a few more books to be written on this idea. 
 
Dave:  Aside from your book, what are some resources you might recommend for folks interested in seeing how God might be working in culture (tell us, for example, about the TED talks….)?

TED talks have been a huge resource for me. World leading thinkers talking about the leading edges of what they are doing in fields of technology, entertainment and design; it’s all very stimulating and strangely very much in line with what we talk about in our church. 

To be honest I’ve not found a lot of contemporary writing on this issue, nothing that pushes the ideas as far as we do anyways.  Neal Plantinga’s, Engaging God’s World is wonderful, anything from Richard Mouw is great, Kuyper, Bavinck, Calvin, Augustine and Paul are also alright. 

Lately, a few online resources have been very helpful for me; Comment Magazine, Q Ideas, Catapult* Magazine.  In terms of seeing more examples of how this all plays out, I often send people to our church’s website.  We’ve got tons of video and audio of sermons based on films, bands, science, art, work, literature, nature, etc…  Beg, borrow and steal as much as you want.

Categories
Science and Religion

Daniel Kirk: The Reality of Adam and the Story of Christ

Daniel Kirk offers some useful reflections on the proleptic nature of the creation stories.

Categories
Science and Religion

Giberson on Modifications in Science and Theology

A good post by Karl Giberson:

Theologians from the first century into the present have reflected on the meaning of this defining event. Christianity is anchored, in many ways, to this history that constrains change. But Christianity as a religious tradition also involves an ongoing conversation with a changing larger world, an internal dialog constantly being refreshed, and continual reflection on the received wisdom. This conversation is dynamic and, like the scientific conversation, important changes occur from time to time.

Categories
Science and Religion

Teaching Science in Christian Colleges

A good video. I like Dorthy Boorse’s comments.