Categories
Biblical Studies Theological Hermeneutics Theology

Christian Smith and "The Bible Made Impossible": Comments on Some Reviews

The Englewood Review of Books today offers a good review by Michael Bowling of Christian Smith’s book The Bible Made Impossible.

When I first read Smith’s book, I thought he had nailed some important points, but that he had overlooked the important “theological interpretation” approach that animates a diverse group of contemporary readers (for example, the authors of the excellent Brazos Theological Commentary series). I was interested, then, to read Wheaton professor Daniel Treier’s summary in Books & Culture of the recent theological interpretation conference at Regent College, in which Treier briefly addresses Smith’s book.  Treier is a leading evangelical advocate of theological interpretation.

On the whole, I think Treier’s comments are good.  However, I think Treier is mistaken to attribute all the problems Smith observes to “sociological” factors. The issue is surely theological: the weak ecclesiology and nominalist / voluntarist God of much of Protestantism and particularly of modern evangelicalism.

Treier notes that Smith’s newly-adopted Catholic tradition also has its problems — a proposition no one could dispute.  But if, as Treier suggests, the celibate male Priesthood has caused problems (if Treier is referring here to the Clergy sex abuse scandals, the causal link in fact is unclear at best), then those are inherently theological as well.  (A pinched theology of sexuality?)

I believe Hans Boersma’s “Heavenly Participation” is on the right track.   (There is an excellent and friendly exchange between Treier and Boersma in the current Christian Scholars Review.)  Whatever the “Priesthood of all Believers” means, the individualistic heritage of the Reformation needs to be reformed and re-sourced.  And “sola scriptura,” practiced as it usually is as “sol_o_” scriptura, is neither theologically sound nor “Biblical” (see Acts 15) nor historically accurate nor — not surprisingly, as this always flows from theology — sociologically viable.

 

Categories
Beauty of the Christian Faith Spirituality Theology

The Ocean of Orthodoxy

If I’m honest, I have to admit that the word “orthodoxy” makes me nervous.  It conjures a long history of violence and oppression — inquisitions, burnings at the stake, religious wars, bonfires of the vanities, anathemas and counter-anathemas, and the more subtle manipulations and exclusions of the various petty tyrants, troglodytes and buffoons who are stock characters in anyone’s experience who has lived in any branch of the Church for a while.

But if I consider it more carefully, “orthodoxy” in the best sense is like the sea.

My family has vacationed at the New Jersey shore for over forty-five years.  If I stand on the beach, at the edge of the sea, if I breath slowly and deeply, I participate with every sense in the beautiful, untamed life of this amazing planet.  Sunlight warms my face and illumines my gaze; sand and water scrub and cool my feet; moist, salty air fills my nose and lungs; the rhythmic surf washes over my ears and stills my mind.  I am contented with the givenness of this creaturely space, gazing on its boundless horizon, contemplating its incomprehensible lifespan, participating in the gift of fecund being.

The same is true if I come to the Creed in wonder, seeking understanding.  The reality narrated in the Creed, like the sea, is given, a gift.  It provides the grammatic, incarnational structure for contemplation of the incomprehensible Triune God, complete and at peace, creating, self-emptying in incarnation, giving fellowship and community, restoring, healing, re-creating and making things right in love.  It summarizes the experience of countless others who have stood at the shore of this magnificent sea, and invites me to participate in the very life of God — where the Father brings life from nothing, the Son speaks Wisdom to chaos, the Spirit hovers over the womb of the world.

This is why “orthodoxy,” in this best sense — the sense of the heart of a story shaped by the God who gave Himself on the cross — is a gift to be welcomed.  Here, I rest, I explore, I marvel, I am freed from my self to find myself in life beyond my self.  Here, I glimpse the simple unity of faith, hope, beauty, truth, and love.

Categories
Poetry Spirituality

Poem: Morning Walk, Dec. 26, 2011

Turning East on Hill Street, heading home.
Wind chimes sound along the way.
It blows as it will.  I can’t make it happen,
can’t stop it, can’t tell it to go somewhere else
or keep it from gusting all around the neighborhood,
tipping trash cans and rattling branches.

Above, sunlight traces a too-brief arc in winter sky,
seeing, warming, cleansing, for a moment,
the faces of the just and the unjust.
Here the wind whips cold, there silence suddenly marks its absence,
but the Sun is out, the air is alive,
and I am breathing deeply.

Categories
Spirituality

Ekklesia Project: "Slow Church"

I really appreciate the Ekklesia Project.  So much of what they’re about embodies my own sensibilities concerning faith, Church, scholarship, community, and polis.  Their theme of “slow church” is much needed today.  As one Ekklesia blogger notes,

there is no substitute for the slow, sometimes painful growth that comes through disciplined habits of practice shaped by the crucified and risen Christ.  One does not become an excellent piano player, painter, dancer, carpenter, or baseball player overnight; neither does one learn to become a Christian overnight.  We can’t know Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God, in five quick easy lessons accompanied by an inspirational DVD.  One needs teachers and mentors and a community of friends, and one needs to practice over a long period of time.

….

There are some things, and Truth is one of them, that can be understood rightly only if we understand them over time.  The very essence of Truth is that it can only be known slowly, in bits and pieces that are chewed on, meditated on, reflected over, talked about, practiced and then practiced some more with others living with the same Truth.

Gradually, as we come to know the Truth of Jesus Christ, we may be dazzled.

Amen.

Categories
Theology

Voluntarism, Nominalism, and God's Will

“God can do ANYTHING he wants.”  So say Preston Sprinkle and Francis Chan in their book “Erasing Hell.”  It’s fair to say that this proposition is the cornerstone of Sprinkle and Chan’s theodicy of Hell.  “Won’t God get what he wants?”  So asks Rob Bell in his book “Love Wins.”  It’s also fair to say that this question, along with the belief that God wants everyone to be saved, is the cornerstone of Bell’s theodicy of Hell.

Both Sprinkle / Chan and Bell focus on God’s will.  But is there something missing from their theodicies?   Theologically, the question concerns the relation of God’s will to His nature.  Philosophically, the question relates to whether “universal” substances exist apart from their particular instantiations (“universals”), or whether substances are merely names for particular instances of things (“nominalism”).

Consider an apple.  What is an apple?  Is this particular apple on my kitchen table one instantiation of the substance “apple” – a substance with some sort of universal metaphysical  (“beyond-“ or “above-“ physical) properties that are shared by all apples?  Or is “apple” simply a name I apply to this object before me as a result of some observable similarities with other objects (other things we also call “apple”) that have no metaphysical connection to the “apple” on my table?

For many who claim a modern scientific worldview, there are only particular objects called “apple,” which are more or less related to other particular objects in morphology and chemical composition, all of which are categorized as “apples” for the sake of convenience.  What is “real,” in this view, is merely chemistry and physical laws, not any substance “apple.”  In contrast, for those who believe in universal properties, “apple” implies properties that are real and transcendent of any one apple.  This apple on my table has properties such as “red” in common with other apples because those common properties transcend any one particular apple.  (For a good overview of the problem of “universals,” see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

The modern nominalist view of “nature” derives from and is related to nominalist and “voluntarist” views of God in late medieval philosophy.  The medieval scholastic philosophers wrestled with this question:  Is God’s will a product of God’s rational nature, such that God only calls things “good” that are substantively “good”?  Or is God’s will utterly unconstrained, such that God is free to call “good” whatever He desires to call “good,” without any limiting principle (referred to as “voluntarism”)?

One of the key figures in the development of these ideas was the monk and philosopher William of Ockham (c. 1288-1348).  Ockham took a strong – some would argue extreme – view of Divine sovereignty in relation to morality and ethics.  Here is an example of Ockham’s voluntarist approach:

I say that although hate, theft, adultery and the like have a bad circumstance annexed de communi  lege [“by the common law”] so far as they are done by someone who is obliged by divine precept to the contrary, nevertheless, in respect of everything absolute in those acts they could be done by God without any bad circumstance annexed. And they could be done by the wayfarer even meritoriously if they were to fall under a divine precept, just as now in fact their opposites fall under divine precept . . . But if they were thus done meritoriously by the wayfarer, then they would not be called or named theft, adultery, hate, etc., because those names signify such acts not absolutely but by connoting or giving to understand that one doing such acts is obliged to their opposites by divine precept.  (Ockham, Various Questions, Vol. 5 (emphasis added)).

For Ockham, then, there was no “absolute” notion of “the good.”  “Good” is just a word we apply to whatever God commands.  The parallels to both Sprinkle / Chan’s and Bell’s theodicies are obvious.

This sort of view sounds humble and pious.  Who are we to question God?  The problem, however, is that it begs the question of who “God” is.

Before the rise of nominalism, Christian theology generally held that God’s being and will are inseparable.   God is “simple” and does not have separate “parts” such as “being” and “will.”  This means that God wills and acts as He is.  If God acts in ways that are “loving,” it is because  in His Triune being, “God is love” (1 John 4:8); and if God acts in ways that are “just” it is because in His Triune being God is just.

To be sure, Christian theology has always held that God’s essential nature is fundamentally unknowable by human beings, because God is radically other than His creation.  However, many of the Church’s great thinkers believed we could know about God either through His “energies” in creation (e.g., many of the Eastern Fathers) or by “analogy” to the being of creation (e.g., Thomas Aquinas).  At the very least, the apophatic theologians held that we can speak about what God is not like.

Nominalism and voluntarism, in contrast, divorced God’s will from His being, and thus drastically limited the role of theology for ethics.  As theologian John Milbank notes,

In the thought of the nominalists . . . the Trinity loses its significance as a prime location for discussing will and understanding in God and the relationship of God to the world.  No longer is the world participatorily enfolded within the divine expressive Logos, but instead a bare divine unity starkly confronts the other distinct unities which he has ordained. . . .  This dominance of logic and of the potential absoluta is finally brought to a peak by Hobbes:  ‘The right of Nature, whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that break his Lawes, is to be derived, not from his creating them, as if he required obedience as of gratitude for his benefits; but from his Irresistible Power.’”  (John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, at pp. 15-16 (quoting Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.))

Catholic philosopher Edward Feser recently summarized the fruits of Ockham’s reductionism as follows:

the Renaissance humanists’ revolution in culture, Luther’s revolution in theology, Descartes’ revolution in philosophy, and Hobbes’s revolution in politics also have their roots in Ockhamism.  With the humanists this was manifested in their emphasis on man as an individual, willing being rather than as a rational animal.  In Luther’s case, the prospect of judgment by the terrifying God of nominalism and voluntarism – an omnipotent and capricious will, ungoverned by any rational principle – was cause for despair.  Since reason is incapable of fathoming this God and good works incapable of appeasing Him, faith alone could be Luther’s refuge.  With Descartes, the God of nominalism and voluntarism opened the door to a radical doubt in which even the propositions of mathematics – the truth of which was in Descartes’ view subject to God’s will no less than the contingent truths of experience – were in principle uncertain.  And we see the moral and political implications of nominalism in the amoral, self-interested individuals of Hobbes’s so-called “state of nature,” and in the fearsome absolutist monarch of his Leviathan, whose relationship to his subjects parallels that of the nominalist God to the universe.

I might not agree completely with Feser’s hasty appraisal of Luther.  Note, however, Feser’s reference to judgment by “the terrifying God of nominalism and voluntarism – an omnipotent and capricious will, ungoverned by any rational principle….”  If the governing principle of a theodicy is that “God can do ANYTHING he wants,” how does that theodicy avoid the capricious, irrational god of nominalism and voluntarism?  How could even someone presently confident of his election to salvation have any reason to believe that his election will not be suddenly and arbitrarily revoked on the last day?  Why should God keep His promises?  At the same time, if the governing principle is that “God always gets what he wants,” how can human beings retain any moral freedom or responsibility?

Note also Feser’s linkage between nominalism, voluntarism, and ethics.  If law and ethics derive from God’s commands, and God’s commands are the product of pure, ungoverned power and will, then what principle can check the tyranny of earthly rulers who claim absolute and unquestionable power on the basis of Divine right?

Finally, note Feser’s reference to epistemology.  This relates to the broad question of universals versus nominalism, because a belief in metaphysical universals suggests that God first conceives of and then brings into existence by His commands a reality with stability and purpose.   For Augustine and Aquinas, universals were Ideas in the mind of God, and so to investigate the order of things was to learn something of God.  For Ockham, there was no reason for any similarity between things other than God’s choice.  This lead Ockham to conceive of “science” as a strictly empirical and logical investigation into particular things, a move that led to the sort of empiricism in which God is no longer a necessary “hypothesis” (ala Pierre Simon-Laplace and Richard Dawkins).

As Protestant theologian Hans Boersma notes in his recent book Heavenly Participation:  the Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry, after voluntarism and nominalism, “nature, now separate from reason, became fundamentally unintelligible,” and “the link between divine will and divine knowledge, between God’s goodness and his truth” was severed.  The result was skepticism about any ability to reason about truth claims and “an emphasis on predestination in which God appeared to take arbitrary decisions about the eternal salvation and damnation of human beings.”  The response to this sort of problem is to recapture the deep theological resources of our faith, which begin and end in the being of the Triune God.

 

Categories
Law and Policy Theology

The Relationship Between Doctrine and Ethics

This is a new post I have up over on Jesus Creed.

It has been a while since I posted on Nicholas Wolterstorff’s  books Justice:  Rights and Wrongs and Justice in Love – life and work have been busy!  Today I return to the theme of “justice.”   However I will take a diversion from Wolterstoff’s particular thesis to address a question that underlies, and I think in some ways animates, his project:  the relationship of Doctrine to Ethics and Justice.  This seemingly arcane issue is timely and relevant because it goes to the heart of contemporary Evangelical debates such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism, the doctrine of final judgment and Hell, and gay marriage.

The question is this:  do Ethics serve as a control on Doctrine?  Or does Doctrine serve as a control on Ethics?  Or do Doctrine and Ethics stand in a perfectly harmonious relationship?  Or do Doctrine and Ethics stand in some more complex sort of relationship?

Rob Bell’s book Love Wins at times seems to suggest that Ethics control Doctrine.  That is, if our ethical beliefs are offended by some construction of the doctrine of final judgment, then that doctrinal construction is wrong.  Francis Chan’s book Erasing Hell and Mark Galli’s book God Wins at times seem to suggest that Doctrine controls Ethics.  That is, if the doctrine of God’s sovereignty says “God can do whatever he wants,” and the doctrine of scripture says God’s word is inviolable, then the doctrinal belief that God has ordained the damnation of the majority of humanity cannot be questioned, even if this offends our ethical beliefs.

So who is right?

A helpful sketch of the options can be found in Alan Torrance and Michael Banner’s introduction to the excellent volume The Doctrine of God and Theological Ethics.  Torrance and Banner trace the modern influence of the “Doctrine controls Ethics” theme to Emmanuel Kant.  For Kant, who sought to establish ethics on the foundation of “pure reason,” “[e]ven the holy one of the Gospel must be compared with our ideal of moral perfection, before he is recognized as such.”  The problem with this approach is that “God” becomes reducible to human reason – and thus ceases to be God.

Torrance and Banner cite Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonheoffer as champions of “Doctrine controls Ethics.”   Barth famously rejected any “natural theology” and therefore refused to locate ethics outside of dogmatics – “dogmatics itself is ethics,” Barth said.  Torrance and Banner do not mention Cornelius Van Til, whose presuppositionalist apologetic holds significant influence over American neo-Calvinists and many other Evangelicals.  Van Til thought Barth was a heretic, but he was cut from the same mold as Barth concerning the priority of Doctrine over Ethics.  The key difference was that Barth’s doctrine of revelation was Christological – for Barth, Christ was the ground of revelation and of ethics – whereas Van Til’s doctrine of revelation was Biblicist.  The problem with the “Doctrine controls Ethics” approach is that “Ethics” become reducible to the pure exercise of power – and thus cease to be Ethics.

As Torrance and Banner note, however, a “control” relationship between Doctrine and Ethics is not the only option.  Many great Christian thinkers have held that Doctrine and Ethics, properly understood, stand in a perfectly harmonious relationship.  This was the view of Thomas Aquinas, whose theory of “natural law” remains the basis for contemporary Roman Catholic social teaching and also informs many contemporary Evangelical ethicists.  For Aquinas, the “natural law” is part of the created order, which flows from the very being of God.  Natural law, as part of creation, is knowable through natural reason.  But the proper exercise of reason is never “pure reason,” apart from faith.  Reason is rather a preparation for contemplation of the deeper truths of faith, which enrich and go beyond, but never contradict, the truths of reason.  A problem with this approach is that it can tend to discount the effects of sin on nature and the consequent need for grace to overcome the corruption of nature.  (This perceived priority of nature over grace was a key point of disputation between Martin Luther and the the Catholic apologists who opposed him).

It is also possible, Torrance and Banner suggest, that Doctrine and Ethics could simply occupy entirely different spheres of knowledge.  In this heuristic, “Doctrine” is essentially the mystical contemplation of a God who is rationally unknowable, and Ethics represents what is necessary to get by in the material world.  Torrance and Banner cite the Germen pietist and Anabaptist quietist traditions as examples of this approach.  The emphasis for ethics here is withdrawal from the corruption of the world.  We might add that some Eastern Orthodox and Pentecostal approaches fit this mold.  (There is also, I think, a significant pietist / quietist strain in Mark Galli’s recent books, along with a “control” strain).

Finally, Torrance and Banner offer a hybrid approach, to which they clearly are partial:  “the relationship – or better, relationships – between doctrine and ethics are more various and subtle than can be represented by any one of the positions thus far mentioned, taken in isolation.”  This final position, they say, “will not simply reject these accounts; indeed it will think it likely that these accounts were founded on certain insights or seeming insights which must, in turn, be accommodated or accounted for in any satisfactory treatment of this matter.”

It probably would be no surprise to anyone who has read any of my essays and blogs that I tend to agree with this hybrid / dialectical approach, which of course must be carefully developed.  But what do you think of this sketch of different approaches to the relationship between Doctrine and Ethics?  How might a better understanding of the relationship between Doctrine and Ethics help inform our present debates about Calvinism, Hell, and social issues such as homosexuality or the welfare state?

 

Categories
Spirituality

A Psalm for Turning 45

I turn 45 tomorrow.  Birthdays don’t usually bother me, but this one is getting to me.  This morning, I flipped to Psalm 45, in anticipation of this birthday, and was encouraged by it as a prayer for the second half of life:

For the director of music. To the tune of “Lilies.” Of the Sons of Korah. A maskil. A wedding song.

My heart is stirred by a noble theme
as I recite my verses for the king;
my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.

You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.

Gird your sword on your side, you mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.

In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in the cause of truth, humility and justice;
let your right hand achieve awesome deeds.

Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.

All your robes are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia;
from palaces adorned with ivory
the music of the strings makes you glad.

Daughters of kings are among your honored women;
at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir.
Listen, daughter, and pay careful attention:
Forget your people and your father’s house.
Let the king be enthralled by your beauty;
honor him, for he is your lord.

The city of Tyre will come with a gift,
people of wealth will seek your favor.
All glorious is the princess within her chamber;
her gown is interwoven with gold.
In embroidered garments she is led to the king;
her virgin companions follow her—
those brought to be with her.
Led in with joy and gladness,
they enter the palace of the king.

Your sons will take the place of your fathers;
you will make them princes throughout the land.

I will perpetuate your memory through all generations;
therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.

Categories
Science and Religion Theology

Dallas Willard and Bill Hurlbut on Science and Faith

Here is Part 1 of a fascinating conversation between philosopher Dallas Willard and Stanford neurobiologist William Hurlbut, sponsored by the Trinity Forum.

Categories
Spirituality

Roger Olson on Thinking for Yourself

Roger Olson offers some wise thoughts on thinking for yourself and follows up with some more thoughts.

Categories
Justice Law and Policy

Richard Stearns / World Vision on Foreign Aid

In today’s Wall Street Journal, World Vision President Richard Stearns writes:

One objection that I often hear from evangelicals is that while aid is good, it is not the government’s job. Yes, individuals and churches play a vital role in aid and development. But governments play a unique and vital role that private organizations cannot. The poverty-focused programs in the foreign-aid budget are facing cuts of between $1.2 billion and $3.2 billion from 2010 levels. In comparison, the largest American Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, has a budget of $308 million for its missionary and aid organization.

We cannot let others suffer simply because times are tough in the U.S. All Americans must understand the urgency of the human need and the effectiveness of our government’s aid programs.

Excellent.