Categories
Biblical Studies Theology

Origen on Gospel Harmonization

Mike Bird at Euangelion posted this quote from Origen’s Commentary on John.  What I love about snippets like this is that we can see how great pre-modern Christian thinkers wrestled with concerns that continue to confront us in Biblical studies today, and we can see that what are sometimes criticized as post-modern approaches in fact are rooted deeply in the Tradition:

“The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works. Those who accept the four Gospels, and who do not consider that their apparent discrepancy is to be solved anagogically (by mystical interpretation), will have to clear up the difficulty, raised above, about the forty days of the temptation, a period for which no room can be found in any way in John’s narrative; and they will also have to tell us when it was that the Lord came to Capernaum. If it was after the six days of the period of His baptism, the sixth being that of the marriage at Cans of Galilee, then it is clear that the temptation never took place, and that He never was at Nazara, and that John was not yet delivered up. Now, after Capernaum, where He abode not many days, the passover of the Jews was at hand, and He went up to Jerusalem, where He cast the sheep and oxen out of the temple, and poured out the small change of the bankers. In Jerusalem, too, it appears that Nicodemus, the ruler and Pharisee, first came to Him by night, and heard what we may read in the Gospel. “After these things, Jesus came, and His disciples, into the land of Judaea, and there He tarried with them and baptized, at the same time at which John also was baptizing in AEnon near Salim, because there were many waters there, and they came and were baptized; for John was not yet cast into prison.” On this occasion, too, there was a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with the Jews about purification, and they came to John, saying of the Saviour. “Behold, He baptizeth, and all come to Him.” They had heard words from the Baptist, the exact tenor of which it is better to take from Scripture itself. Now, if we ask when Christ was first in Capernaum, our respondents, if they follow the words of Matthew, and of the other two, will say, After the temptation, when, “leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea.” But how can they show both the statements to be true, that of Matthew and Mark, that it was because He heard that John was delivered up that He departed into Galilee, and that of John, found there, after a number of other transactions, subsequent to His stay at Capernaum, after His going to Jerusalem, and His journey from there to Judaea, that John was not yet cast into prison, but was baptizing in Aenon near Salim? There are many other points on which the careful student of the Gospels will find that their narratives do not agree; and these we shall place before the reader, according to our power, as they occur. The student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their truth is not to be sought for in the outward and material letter.”

Categories
Spirituality Theology

The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism

Ok, I know it’s maybe a bit too snarky, but those of us who grew up in certain kinds of churches will greatly appreciate the Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism.  (Let me say, sincerely, that I offer this having laughed warmly, and not angrily, as I read it.)

Categories
Humor Theology

The Heresies of Evangelicalism

I’m too busy at work to comment in detail, but I stumbled on an excellent series by David Congdon at The Fire and the Rose on the “Heresies of Evangelicalism” this morning.  I would suggest that “evangelical” theology is changing in many ways that address some of these “heresies.”  Nevertheless, Congdon articulates almost perfectly a number of concerns that have nagged at me for years.  I also particularly appreciate the spirit in which Congdon offers the series: “Let me remind my readers that this series is not intended to condemn the church but to prod it toward maturity in the faith. We live in an age in which the line between piety and idolatry is very thin indeed. We must be diligent in weeding out “everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles” (Heb. 12:1), but never at the expense of Christian charity toward all, especially toward those with whom we most disagree. Toward that end, I offer this series in the hope that churches in America will proclaim the gospel with clarity and integrity.” Amen.

Categories
Historical Theology Spirituality Theology

Bird on Wright and ECT

Michael Bird offers a great post about whether N.T. Wright’s views on justification are encouraging protestants to become Catholic.  Bird’s summary of the varieties of difference on something even as important as the doctrine of justification is enlightening:

Part of the problem is that some folks want to reduce the debate to “Geneva” versus “Rome” as if they are the only two games in town: they are not! For a start, there is a lot of diversity among the residents of Geneva. The Westminster and Augsburg confessions disagree on what is imputed, Melanchthon and Luther disagreed on whether good works are necessary for salvation, John Calvin was also able to hold together justification and sanctification through union with Christ in a unique way, Martin Bucer held to a two-fold imputation for the impious and the pious, the Puritans weren’t exactly monolithic on justification either as a comparison of Richard Baxter and John Owen shows, I think it was George Joye (like Ambrosiaster from the Church Fathers) who saw God’s righteousness as his faithfulness rather than as a righteousness imputed from God, etc. Then look at Rome. Yes, we have Trent that was reactive and heavy-handed, and therefore, given to a theology born out of polemics. But read some modern Catholic commentators like Joseph Fitzmyer and I remain confused as to how his Romans commentary which is sooo protestantesque in places was ever granted nihil obstat. D.A. Carson tells a story of how he asked Joseph Fitzmyer what did he believe: his Romans commentary or the 1993 catechism which is solidly tridentine when it came to justification? Then there’s a guy like Scott Hahn who is a better and more consistent covenant theologian than some Presbyterians I know. Then what about the Barthians who have a more christocentric approach to the matter that is speaking a different language altogether? Hans Kung saw in Karl Barth a bridge between Protestants and Rome. Not forgetting the post-Bultmann Lutherans like Ernst Kasemann and Peter Stuhlmacher who don’t fit neatly into any precise camp with their view of justification as transformative in the sense of God both declaring and making the sinners righteous. Then go east young man with the Orthodox theologians who can integrate justification closely to their leitmotif of theosis. Now suddenly the multiple-choice theology of Geneva or Rome seems highly simplistic doesn’t it? Wright’s critique of Reformed interpretation, overstated and full of generalization I often find it!, can only cause folk to go to Rome if they are caught in this Geneva or Rome dichotomy. In other words, if you ingrain into people that Geneva (or one suburb of Geneva) and Rome (= Trent) are the only two options, once they question some of their Reformed heritage, you haven’t left them with any other option.

I personally don’t have a dog in the “New Perspective” fight. I wish I had time to study it, but I don’t.  But what this highlights for me — and I’m not really sure this is exactly what Bird intended — is the limited and contextual nature of all theological speech.

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

Light from the Christian East: Speaking of God

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Historical Theology Science and Religion Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Science & Technology Science and Religion Theology

Alister McGrath on Science and Religion

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

Categories
Science & Technology Spirituality Theology

Test of Faith: Faraday Institute for Science and Religion

The Test of Faith documentary looks like a superb new resource from the Faraday Institute.  Here is the trailer.

Categories
Epistemology Historical Theology Law and Policy Martin Luther Theology

Martin Luther: Freedom

“A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.”

— Martin Luther, “The Freedom of a Christian”

Categories
Humor Theology

Migliore on the Entailments of Faith

This is from Daniel Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding:  An Introduction to Christian Theology.  I think Migliore’s discussion of what Christian “faith” entails is a highlight of this wonderful systematic theology.

Christian freedom is the beginning of a new freedom from the bondage of sin and for partnership with God and others.  This fresh start has its basis in the forgiving grace of God present in the new humanity of Jesus with whom we are united by the power of the Holy Spirit.  He is the perfect realization of being human in undistorted relationship with God.  He is also the human being for others, living in utmost solidarity with all people, and especially with sinners, strangers, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed.  He is, further, the great pioneer (Heb. 12:2) of a new humanity that lives in radical openness to God’s promised reign of justice, freedom and peace.  In his total trust in God, Jesus acts as our great priest, mediating God’s grace and forgiveness to us; in his startling solidarity with all people, and especially with the poor and outcast, Jesus acts as our king, bringing us into the new realm of justice and companionship with the ‘others’ from whom we have long been alienated; and in his bold proclamation and enactment of God’s in-breaking reign, Jesus is the prophet who leads the way toward the future of perfect freedom in communion with God and our fellow creatures for which all creation yearns.  To be Christian is to participate by faith, love and hope in the new humanity present in Jesus.