It's been a while

Ok...it has been a long while...I have done a lot of work since my last post, so maybe it is time to post some of it here. I will make an attempt as soon as this semester breaks. If you are reading this you should comment here...it will encourage me to keep publishing.

Narrative Ethics/Theology

I have recently been having significant problems understanding how the narrative ethics and interpretive method that I have been studing falls in line with my interest in the historical Jesus studies of N.T. Wright. Finally James Wm. McClendon has helped me do that. As one of the main proponents of narrative theology, McClendon finds the need to explain what it means in the opening volume of his systematic theology, which is interestingly, "Ethics." His illustration is that narrative requires three elements: character, social setting, circumstance. He explains this way. "The king died and then the queen died" does not give us the character of either of the participants (or for that matter, the social setting). "The king died and then the queen died of grief" begins to explain the character of the queen and the social setting that made her die. This properly explains our narrative of the queen's situation: character, social setting, circumstance (Ethics, Rev. Ed., 329).

When we allign this with the thesis of his entire work on ethics, we see that the three "strands" of Christian ethics lines up with this narrative framework. (1)Christian Ethics is incarnational/embodied ethics. What we do with our bodies matters. What we do with sex matters. What we do with hungry people matters. (2) Christian Ethics is communal. We cannot understand who we are as Christians without understanding who we are as members of the body of Christ. Here he seems to depend on Hauerwas' "Community of Character." We are to be a body of Christ followers who live out our Christian faith in dialogue and interaction with other Christians. We are a member of a body politic, namely the church. This point would require more extensive work than what I will give it here considering our individualistic/capitalistic soceity. (If you are interested, See: McClendon's 'Ethics' or Hauerwas' 'Community of Character.') (3) Christian ethics is eschatalogical (McClendon calls is 'resurrection ethics'). We are constantly to live as if the Kingdom of God (ie. 'heaven') has already started...because it has. 1. embodied (our character) 2. communal (our social setting) 3. eschatological (our circumstance)

With this in mind McClendon explains that the task of this narrative theology/ethics is to "discover, understand, and transformation of a shared and lived story, one whose focus is Jesus of Nazareth and kingdom he claims--a story that on its moral side requires such discovery, such understanding, such transformation as to be true to itself" (331).

This makes sense of where the historical Jesus work comes in. We must do the historical work because Jesus' story is our story. His character should be our character. To understand his character, we must understand his social setting (ie. historical Jesus studies). To understand how to live that character, we must understand our social setting (the failure of many Christians) and our circumstance...that the Kingdom has already been inaugurated.

Thank you to McClendon (God rest his soul).

I have been wondering for some time how this historical Jesus work fit into the narrative theology. I have known that we need to understand our ethics in light of his situation, but what does that mean for someone who lives in this situation.

Primarily it means reading the Scripture from behind the text not in front of it. For this to make sense I will use a modern hermenuetic problem. Many feminists look back on the Bible with a "hermenuetic of suspicion" and see a document reflecting its patriarchal soceity. They call in to question the authority of the Scriptures based on the great revelation of our "enlightened" age that men and women are equal. However, when we look not back on the Bible from our present social setting, but instead forward to the Scripture from their social setting we get a different picture. When Paul proclaims that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave or free(see Gal. 3:28), he does so from a social setting that would not have affirmed any one of those statements. Paul makes a radical claim that all people are equal in the sight of God. His readers would have been somewhat shocked. Of course slaves aren't equal, because they aren't people, they are property (under Roman law).

When we look forward from the text to see it within its social setting, it gives us a vision to look forward from our social setting to witness to a Kingdom that has already been inaugurated.

Narrative ethics/theology. I am one step closer to being able to explain this.

The Church is a Social Ethic

The following is a paper that responds to the statement: The Church is a Social Ethic. Much of how I understand the church is found here. Let me know what you think.

Again, the footnotes are deleted in the copy and paste. I am willing to give you where some of these arguments can be found if you are looking for further research.




Alasdair MacIntyre convincingly argues in his After Virtue that the Enlightenment’s ethical project has failed. Whether one bases their ethical program on the foundation of the existence and nature of God or a desire to alleviate pain, these ethical programs eventually end in emotivism. The most important failure of these systems is not, however, their failure of a priori reason to discern ethical practice. Certainly these ethical systems are relatively rational, for who can refute the categorical imperative on the grounds of its own logic. Kant was a wise enough man to anticipate questions and propose an ethical and logical solution to those who challenge him. According to MacIntyre, the real failure of the Enlightenment is that “Reason can supply, so these new theologies assert, no genuine comprehension of man’s true end.” The problem is not the logic or the conclusion of the ethical systems, for they all basically conclude on an ethics that looks very much like a Judeo-Christian ethic. The whole of their conclusions will surely not be doubted by those who hold to Christian virtue. However, what is lost is the telos of these ethical systems. When the direction of humanity is disconnected from the ethical systems that are created to obtain it, the ethical systems fail when brought against one another at points of contention.
The illustration of this point can be seen in American Protestantism. American conservative Evangelicalism, where I find my theological home, is based primarily on a deontological argument for the inerrancy of Scripture as a moral handbook. The common argument would consist of something like, “The Bible says, ‘Do not steal,’ therefore I must act ethically and not steal.” While the conclusion is actually quite like the ethical system that would guide humanity towards the Christian telos of peace within God’s created order, the sense of right and wrong has overtaken the purpose of the command, which is avoiding offense that will set man against man in warring conflict. On the other side of the American Protestant church is the mainline liberalism. This group proposes something like Mill’s utilitarianism when it argues that the consequences of acting unjustly is that people get hurt. Wendell Berry makes this point when he argues against war as a means to achieving peace. “Any victory won by violence necessarily justifies the violence that won it and leads to further violence.” While Berry may have reached a true conclusion, a logical argument can certainly be made to the contrary. In either case, this ethics presumes that some kind of moral preference exists that desires peace rather than war. This preference can only be effective within a community-wide definition of the state that includes peace-making as the telos.
The hope that the church brings to the discussion of ethics is not a new ethical system, for the Enlightenment had many of those from which we can choose. The church offers a telos that an ethical system can attempt to realize. Stephen Long argues that “Ethics is always subordinated to theology, for it requires us to discern what the church is to be and do as we constantly seek to live into our baptisms.” Whatever the church decides on some particular topic, whether it be radical pacifism or just war, celibacy or marriage, or communism or capitalism, each of these decisions will be based on the telos that is worked out in the faithful community of the church. The nature of 21st Century denominationalism does not allow that these decisions be truly catholic in nature, for each community’s polity will provide a different means for understanding the telos. But, this does not prevent individual communities from performing the interpretive task that is the call of the Church universal. For the Roman Catholic church, the interpretive task falls to the authority of the papacy. For the Evangelical churches, the interpretive task often falls to the little popes called pastors. For the Presbyterians or Anabaptists, the interpretive task falls to some form of a democratic process. In any of these cases, the only effective social ethic derived will be the one that is lived out by the faithful community, no matter where the interpretive task is focused. If the telos is never undertaken by the community, then the force of the community is lost.
Once we understand the importance of a community-wide telos, the interpretive task must be more clearly defined for the sake of the interpreters. First, the telos must be understood and agreed upon. Second, the means of achieving the telos must be discussed and argued with some end in sight. This second of the tasks, the means, is at least partly accomplished in the proclamation of the telos. This is to say, for a Christian to proclaim that life and justice are Christian virtues that must be our telos, the goal has already been set before the entire Christian community, hopefully with some influence on those outside of the community because of admiration of the Christian’s moral accomplishments. With the clear telos in mind, some might conclude that justice will require war, while others might conclude that life will require peace. Certainly the means to achieve justice are important and the goal of the interpretive task is to find a means that can be agreed upon by the community, but agreeing upon the telos does not necessitate that the community will agree upon the means. Even in the proclamation of the Christian values of justice and life something of the telos has been achieved.
With this in mind, we turn towards the telos of the church. As Stanley Hauerwas has said, “there can be no separation of christology from ecclesiology, that is, Jesus from the church.” The telos of the church is found first in Christ, specifically in the proclamation of the coming Kingdom of God. In the cross of Christ, the Church finds not only the hope for victory over death and the grave, but a model for all future cross-bearing activity. This is the first installment of the promises of the coming Kingdom. The Church is called to realize the eschatological vision of the Kingdom in its communion with one another and with God. The Church does this with the understanding that full realization is only in the parousia. By recognizing that fulfillment of the Kingdom is only found in eschatology, the ethics of the Church are freed from looking to effectiveness as a measure of faithfulness. Hauerwas argues,
Service is not an end in itself, but reflects the Kingdom into which Christians have been drawn. This means that Christians insist on service which may appear ineffective to the world. For the service that Christians are called upon to provide does not have as its aim to make the world better, but to demonstrate that Jesus has made possible a new world, a new social order.
Even as Hauerwas argues that changing the world is not the aim (telos) of Christian service, he does not deny that we can hope and pray that this change will occur. The telos of this kind of living is demonstrating the Kingdom of God to the world, not just making converts to this way of living, but we must certainly hope that the whole world will see that this is a better way of life. In summary, a christological ecclesiology demands that the church demonstrate the Kingdom of God that Christ inaugurates on earth, while recognizing that this Kingdom is only fully realized in the eschaton.
Now we must turn to the second aspect of the interpretive task, which is the means by which the Church will demonstrate the Kingdom of God. Within 21st Century denominationalism, I reluctantly conclude that no catholic understanding of demonstrating this ethic can be reached. In fact, I am belligerently confessing the previously stated christological ecclesiology in light of the fact that the denominational church has no means for even agreeing on this essential telos. The most that can be hoped for at this juncture is a communal agreement of both Christology and the means of demonstration. By this I propose a particular community, primarily the local congregation, must work out this Christology and means within their context. This follows from my understanding of the Incarnation. If Christ came to a First Century Jewish world as a First Century Jew, then we must do the same in inner-city Chicago or American suburbia or the rural south. This is not to say that the story of the historical Jesus is irrelevant to 21st Century American ethics. In fact, understanding Jesus in his First Century Jewish context becomes all the more important in this incarnational understanding. How Jesus responded to Roman imperialism must inform how an American Christian responds to American imperialism. What Jesus said about the institution of marriage and family has significant impact on how we understand marriage and family in America (which is, incidentally, relatively little other than to say that the family of God takes priority even over biological families). How Jesus responds to the economic oppression of First Century Jews by the Roman occupation should inspire us to take action in the ghettos of South-side Chicago. None of these statements are meant to say that we should try to do exactly what Jesus did in any of these situations. Jesus never took a wife or encouraged his disciples to marry, for example. But, it might be that 21st Century American Christians most faithful demonstration of the Kingdom of God is to embody the relationship between Christ and the Church in selfless marital relationships.
In what way does the Church or a congregation embody the Incarnation within its context? This is the interpretive task that I must admit will not be universal or catholic until the Church recognizes a mechanism to work these things out as a community. For the medieval church this mechanism was ecumenical councils. Maybe this is an option that the catholic Church can explore again. Until this mechanism is found or created, the community of the local congregation is the place this work will be done. And, I do suppose that a Christian can have some faith that the Holy Spirit will work as that catholic mechanism, though this has not been realized since the Protestant Reformation. These voices can also be in constant conversation with one another. This is to say that Congregation A might have something to add to the Christology and demonstrative means of Congregation B and vice versa. Only their conversation with one another can facilitate that exchange of ideas.
A proper proclamation of this ecclesiological ethic must recognize the weaknesses of the system. First, I would argue that the inability to agree upon central tenants of the telos and the means is debilitating to the influence of the ethics, as I have already argued above. But, as Hauerwas reminds us, the ethics of the proclamation and demonstration of the Kingdom is not dependant on effectiveness. Secondly, I also acknowledge that some will understand this as a sectarian ethic. Certainly this accusation has been leveled at Hauerwas, McClendon, and Long. Since I follow them closely, I anticipate the accusation will be thrust towards me. I answer with this: the communal nature of ethical practice and agreement does not necessitate separate living. I can interpret the telos and means of my ethical system in a relatively small community and yet live out this ethic in the public sphere. This is precisely what I am suggesting. The same transformative nature of the Jesus narrative that attracted me to Christ and Christian living can be found in the narrative of the Church that demonstrates the Kingdom. This transformative narrative can change society to be like itself, but even if it does not it has not lost its telos, therefore it has not lost its ethical identity.

Christian Marriage: An Image of the Church

The following is a disputation I wrote on Christian marriage. The form is like Aquinas' Summa. If you are unfamiliar, only the "I answer" section and below are my arguments. The previous are common arguments that I am in discussion with.
The footnotes are lost in the copy and paste from my word processor. If you would like the full document, then just comment in this post with an e-mail address.

Whether it is better for a Christian not to marry

Argument 1 It would seem that it is better for a Christian not to marry. The ascetic practice of celibacy is considered not only an act of worship unto God, but also prevents the body from becoming dependant on lustful desire. Denying the body of pleasure seems to strengthen the spirit and bring one closer to God.

Argument 2 Again, the goodness of procreation that is found in the command to be fruitful and multiply is not necessary for the Christian. New Birth has replaced the biological birth as entrance into the people of God. New Birth is how you entered the Kingdom of God and how all who will believe shall enter the Kingdom, therefore procreation is no longer necessary.

Argument 3 Again, as the Apostle has said, “the time is short” and “the world in its present form is passing away.” It is better for a person not to marry because the aim of one who is unmarried is to be devoted in both body and spirit. The married Christian is devoted to pleasing his or her spouse. The devotion of a Christian should be undivided.

On the contrary, marriage is one of God’s holy institutions founded at the creation of the world. It is good for a person not to be alone. For this reason, marriage is like a sacrament of the Church. For in marriage the grace of God is shown in and through the marriage partner. Marriage has three goods: the restraint of sexual lust, faithfulness is nurtured and grown, and procreation and the blessing of children. It follows that it is better for a Christian to marry.

I answer: Christian marriage functions as a smaller and more intimate form of the Church in both mission and function. When God created man He said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” He created woman and brought them together so that neither man nor woman would be alone, and He said that the two should become one flesh. It is also written that “the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” God had created them in perfect union with one another in such a way that no enmity was between them. When the created choose to sin, the consequence was that perfect fellowship was broken. For God spoke to woman, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” It is also written, “God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” Therefore, God created humanity with a desire that they would be in close community with one another and those relationships would be a blessing to them.
God instituted the church to be the reconciling agent in humanity. For the Lord Jesus Christ said, “by this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” The relationships that Christians have with one another would be a great testimony of God’s love for the world. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, “let (the) Kingdom (of God) come on earth, as it is in Heaven” and He said “the Kingdom of God is at hand,” He proclaims that the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated and that is still to come. The Kingdom of God is here, and the Kingdom of God is yet coming. The perfect restored Kingdom of God on earth would have creation in perfect harmony with itself, as in the Garden of Eden story. This New Heaven and New Earth is the blessed hope of all who call Jesus “Lord.” He is coming to make all things new. If the Kingdom of God is yet coming, in what way is the Kingdom of God already at hand? This is the role of the Church in the earth. The Church is to be loving one another and trying to achieve that perfect fellowship of God’s created order. As God’s chosen communion, the Church is to be a reconciling agent of God and a witness to God’s love.
In the same way, marriage is to function as a witness to God’s perfect love for the church. For the Apostle said, “For this reason a man should leave his father and mother and be united to his wife--the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the Church.” God’s plan for marriage is to be like a small cell of the church that gives testimony of God’s love. Where the Church gives testimony to the whole world, it is surely flawed and will surely give testimony to the sinfulness of humanity as well. The marriage has a smaller witness, for it is limited to those who know the man and the wife, but the small is able to be greater, for the intimacy of the marriage is greater than that of the Church. The husband and wife are able to trust one another more fully and give themselves to one another more wholly, for “there is one flesh, there is also one spirit. Together they pray, together they prostrate themselves, together they fast, teaching each other, exhorting each other, supporting each other.” Even our local congregations recognize a need for greater intimacy to give a more full testimony of God’s love, for we continue to make smaller and smaller groups in which the church is represented, so that the levels of intimacy are greater. Where the modern church institutes small group ministries, God has already instituted the smallest group ministry of all, marriage.

On the first point: Ascetic denial of the body is acceptable for a time for the Apostle, to devote one’s self to fasting and prayer, but, unlike the Gnostic, the Christian professes the inherent goodness of both sex and the body. God created the body and he gave marriage for the two to enjoy perfect fellowship with one another. Only in this relationship can the two be truly “naked and not ashamed.” The sexual relationship of husband and wife brings glory to God as the two exist in perfect fellowship with one another.

On the second point: While it is true that the Kingdom of God no longer advances by the biological growth of the Church, growth is the inherent effect of a healthy, thriving Church. The telos of the Church is not growth, but rather loving one another and restoring that community that was lost at the fall of humanity. However, a healthy Church that is moving towards its end of loving each other will grow as an inherent effect of that healthy community. In the same way, procreation is the inherent effect of the healthy, thriving marriage. In modern times, certain people are unable to have children because of physical abnormality. This does not negate the good of the marriage, for its telos is love and witness. This inability to procreate is a consequence of the deterioration of creation that was caused by the fall of humanity. For some congregations, growth has become their telos, causing those congregations to lose their true telos. For some marriages, procreation has been said to not be a inherent effect of their relationship, denying the need for or blessing of children. Neither of the these positions participate in God’s full intention for the institutions of sacramental community.

On the third point: Celibacy is a viable option for the Christian, precisely because the telos of neither the Church nor marriage is procreation. As the Apostle has said, celibacy is a gift of God that allows the gifted the opportunity to give his or her whole self to the larger community. When the celibate gives themselves wholly to the community, the celibate fulfills the call to fellowship of marriage and the Church. The Apostle does not argue for celibacy so that the celibate can be alone for reasons of selfishness. Celibacy provides the celibate the opportunity to better serve the church, because the need is urgent. But, the Apostle recognizes this as a gift of some, not all. For he says, “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God.” In their service to the whole community, the celibate is also able to give witness to the world of God’s great love for creation. “Both marriage and monasticism are for sanctification; both involve a commitment to living with others in which one cannot escape being transformed.”

Mission

One of the things that has been most on my mind is the mission of the church. Most Assemblies of God people are very focused on the preaching mission of the church. I like this part and I think it is very important, but I think it misses the point. The lectionary reading that most protestant churches did this week was the story of the sheep and the goats from Matthew's gospel. Now, that story makes it clear that the way we will be judged on the final days has little to do with what we think and alot to do with how we treat others. I guess I need to learn a new way to live.

What does this mean for the church? To investigate, I will look at the Great Commission for a moment. Matthew 28:19-20 gives us our "marching orders." This verse is often mistranslated where I come from. I have even heard some preachers joke about how the Greek word for "go" in this verse should be translated "go." This is simply a failure to look at the text. Going, baptizing, and teaching are all participles. These are things that are done in order to accomplish the verb in the sentence: disciple (make disciples, NIV). Discipling is the point. In fact, I think I would even argue that "discipling all nations" is the point, but this nuance is the work of more able interpretors. In any case, I think the going is something that is just a part of life. As I walk through life, I encounter people who need discipling. I will baptize some of them into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. I will teach some of them about the things He has commanded me to do. In any case, these works shall disciple them. The point seems less about going, teaching, and baptizing as it is about discipling.

If disciple making is the point, then I think one of the ways I will fulfill that call is by living in the community and forming a community within the larger community that will give witness to God's good work in the world. Now this seems pretty simple. This seems like what the church was always called to do. We are to live in the world, but differently from the world. How is this productive?

I think we would have to live it out to understand. How would change someone's life for the better to see me being faithful. If someone observed me giving all that I have above my basic needs to people who need it more than me...if they saw me finding a sense of purpose in this act of kindness...if they saw me truly finding pure joy in that moment...would they be changed. I don't know. Would someone be changed by the witness you provide for the world? If someone observed your life, would they think "I wonder if that is what it was like in the Garden of Eden?" Would they think, "I bet that is what Heaven is like." I hope so.

Jeremiah

another update

I haven't updated this site in a long time. I started using LiveJournal to stay connected with friends who were using that site. You can check out "agpreacher" at LiveJournal for more of that. But that site is more personal. I want this site to be about ministry. I guess I will consider it something of log of my thinking about the church that I hope to plant in Peoria. I live in the Northern suburbs of Chicago now, but Peoria is still home. The next post that comes will be the beginning of some of my thoughts on that church plant.

Jeremiah

Generously Disciples

Prompted by Brain McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy, I have started a pretty intense study of many different denominations in hopes of gaining a bigger view of God and a bigger view of what it means to be the church. I start that study with the Disciples of Christ. Partly because they have in many ways been my arch-nemesis as an Assemblies of God guy in a vastly different world. I have often felt like Dorothy in the land of Oz. The rules are different here. Where I expect monkeys to hang in trees, they fly. Where I have expected the individual talking to me to be a human, he turns out to be a scarecrow. But a generous orthodoxy does not allow this to be only a dream that I will soon awaken from and find myself in Kansas. I find myself engaging this thinking head on and I have found something that is worthy of hanging my orthodoxy upon.

The Disciples of Christ was founded primarily on two principles: unity and biblical authority. Often times these two have a tendency to come in conflict with one another, precisely because we are not all unified on what the Bible says. Where conflict and disagreement exist, the Disciples have chosen to err to the side of unity. I think this is a valuable lesson for a Protestant church that would much rather just start another denomination as to work out disagreements and live with tension. Even when faced with what many would regard as blatant heresy, the Disciples have generally chosen unity. (There are a couple of splits in the history, so it wasn't that clean. But the group that now exists as the Disciples have generally been the split from rather than splitters.

Since the Enlighenment, the church has often been concerned with having right theology, a formidable and "biblical" challenge. The early reformers were often splitting into different groups based on theogical differences, political differences, and sometimes simple geographical/cultural differences. The founder of the Disciples, Thomas Campbell, found himself identified with a church that was carrying political differences that were twice removed from the New World in which he ministered. While a product of the Enlightenment himself, he chose to put off differences for the sake of unity. Frankly, Campbell thought that if everyone used the same rules of interpretation, then they would all come to the same conclusion about scripture. But, when this didn't happen, he and the early Disciples did maintain their commitment to unity.

Can the modern church exist with tension between those on different sides? I hope so. The Campbells main motivation comes from the prayer of Jesus for all the believers in John 17. He is motivated by the idea that a church united with itself and united to Him will be a powerful source of redemption and reconciliation to the world. The world will know that we are His disciples if we love one another. Some will cite the many times when the Epistles give instructions on how to deal with heretics and false teachers. I get that. I see those scriptures and I affirm their validity within the canon of inspired writings. What I question is where we can draw the line between heretic and the simply different? Just remember that the traditions that make up Protestantism were mostly rooted in some movement that at one time of another was considered heresy. Luther was a heretic. The Anabaptists were heretics. Arminean theology is heretical. But who decides what is orthodox...the church that is in power. In America today that is the conservative evangelical church. Sometimes I wonder if we are too busy condemning Martin Luthers. Where would the church be without the heretics of yesterday? ...I am not sure the church would be.

I imagine a church where Calvinists and Armineans, Charismatics and fundamentalists, liberals and conservatives, and Catholics and Protestants can worship together. Each celebrating their unique theologies and traditions and holding firmly to their own unique convictions. I think this church has some things to learn from the Disciples of Christ.

An evaluation of Thomas Aquinas

Here is a recent essay that I wrote on Thomas Aquinas. Essentially the subject is what were Aquinas' goals in writing and the presuppositions that guide his thinking and how did those things effect his theology of grace. I think this is appropriate to post here because many people often consider Aquinas as a rationalist thinker. While he is rational, he maintains that faith must precede reason.

All the page number references are from Aquinas On Nature And Grace. An edited version of Aquinas' Summa Theologica by A.M. Fairweather. If anyone wants the article of the Summa that is referenced in any place then I will be glad to look it up.


One assumption made by the classical theologians is that our faith is to be first, primary to reason. To begin theological inquiry without first presupposing the articles of faith is a mistake. Our investigation, according to Anselm is not to “arrive at faith through reason, but in order that (we) may take delight in the understanding and contemplation of the things which we believe." Aquinas begins by saying this in a more philosophical way. It is necessary that some things which transcend human reason be made know by divine revelation, because this gives direction to the man is in exercise of using his reason. A man reasoning about God with revelation before him will likely make errors regarding the true nature of God. Even those few who would arrive at proper conclusions by reason alone, would be drowned out by the many voices of those who are wrong, and their correct doctrine would mixed and lost with those which are wrong (36). These things which transcend reason are to believed by faith. Aquinas then goes on to say that there are two distinct divisions of theology: one based on scripture and one based on philosophy. Aquinas says that the type of theology that is based on Scripture should not be used to prove anything about Scripture itself, for this is impossible. But, if one does the articles of faith as contained in Holy Scripture, then the philosopher can argue from these articles to speak of things outside of them. If a critic of Scripture is willing to concede nothing at all, then there is no way to prove the articles of faith by argument, except to disprove those grounds which he brings up against the faith (45). It is proper for reason to clarify those points of doctrine which are not clear in Scripture, but that does not allow that reason should be in conflict with these (46). Sacred doctrine uses these reasonable philosophical arguments as supporting and probable, but it uses the canonical Scripture as the proper authority (46). Aquinas includes an interesting statement here considering the authority that the church has given to men like Aquinas. Sacred doctrine “uses other teachers of the Church as authorities from which one may indeed argue with propriety, yet only with probability” (46). The Catholic Church has often given as much weight to the words of Thomas Aquinas as to Holy Scripture. This is something that Aquinas himself would have seen as improper. These are the points which resulted in a splitting of the church during the Reformation. The modern church could learn something here as they solidify their theology to the point that they consider it nearly divine as well.
In what way grace presupposes nature is a more difficult task to understand. Human nature for Aquinas is the victim and the cause of original sin. However, Aquinas does not view original sin as completely destructive of the original good that was in man. Good is only diminished in man in an amount proportionate to his sin (128). It seems that Aquinas believes that man is still mostly good, but has a sickness in sin. This part that is bad is where grace moves in. Aquinas asserts, “The will of a man…is moved by good which already exists in things, but presupposes it, partially or wholly” (157). This view of man’s goodness comes forth again when Aquinas speaks of co-operative grace. In this section, Aquinas asserts that there is something in man that wants to and is able to work with God towards the salvation of a man’s soul (165).
All of this talk of the goodness of the man’s soul does not change the source of that goodness. Grace presupposes nature in the sense that God is the gracious source of any good that is in man. God has given to creation a certain kind of good. But, rational creatures have been risen up to partake in the divine good. This act is only by grace and is above the natural good. Aquinas explains, “To say that a man has the grace of God, therefore, is to say that there is something supernatural in him, which God bestows” (158).
Finally, how does perfection presuppose what is to be perfected. Aquinas understands that man does not have the ability to achieve eternal life in him. Eternal life and grace are of God and for man to achieve these would make him like God. Will God grant the effects of predestination to anyone based on merit (109)? Some have said predestination is dependent upon the works of some previous life. Others say that God predestined based on the works of this life. Still others claim that predestination is based on God’s foreknowledge of the works of those who would be predestined (109-110). Instead, Aquinas answers that the whole good which is in man to deserve any honor is contained in his predestination. Grace moves upon a man according to predestination and a whole series of good works is then given to his nature. These good works are then worthy of some merit, but these good works are dependant upon first being predestined. In this way, the perfect, God, presupposes what is to be perfected, man.
Aquinas seems to cause a difficulty with this formation of grace and predestination. On one hand, he says that nothing in a man is in any man worthy of being predestined and receiving grace. On the other hand, he says that a good nature is in all creatures and man as well. Here I must prefer the opinion that man is completely bankrupt and able to do no good except by grace. While some who follow Aquinas theology would insist that he maintains this doctrine in his understanding of grace presupposing nature, it seems to me that there is still conflict that he did not resolve.



After reading this work again I have decided that it wasn't well-written...at least not at the end. Maybe comments here can finish it up!!!

the upcoming topics

I will start a class tomorrow on the history of religion in America. This class combined with some recent reading from Brian McLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy has inspired me to do a bible study at the college. I will be covering a different denomination each week and presenting what I see as the most important contribution that they have made to Christianity. One of the most important aspects of Emergent theology is that we recognize that none of us have the last word on what is being said. Since the Reformation much of denominationalizing has been a process of finding out where you disagree with the other guy and then founding a new sect based on your differences. We will intend to find out what we agree on. We will also try to find out what the others have emphasized that we missed the boat on. I hope that we can all come up with a bigger view of God in the process.

a recent e-mail

This could be of interests to some. It is a recent e-mail coorespondence on defining the Emergent thinkers main point of thought. To be more precise, what are they trying to revolutionize. I think my conclusion was that it comes down to the certainty and completeness of the knowledge of God. Without context, some of this coorespondence may be out of place for you. I won't give the context (which was someone else's blog) mostly because the argument got a little heated and I don't want to promote that. Tell me what you think.

Jeremiah



Matt,
> I am an Assemblies of God minister who has a
> theology
> degree from a very liberal college. I have studied
> under liberals for about two years and I have been a
> conservative for alot longer than that. I feel that
> I
> can say with authority that Emergent is neither
> liberal nor conservative. I am not surprised that
> you
> consider it liberal, because it will consider the
> voice of the liberals...but to say that
> "liberals are usually all for inclusion of all kinds
> of perspectives, while conservatives typically are
> not
> so open to that. The reason being, liberals don't
> value doctrinal rigidity much, and so they don't
> care
> what positions you take on a lot of issues, they
> feel
> they can still collaborate."
> seems a little misinformed. Liberals are not
> interested in considering your viewpoint at all
> frankly. They reach a set of conclusions that are
> just as rigid as the conservatives, however, theirs
> are based on higher biblical criticism. Don't
> forget
> that the liberals father, Schleiermacher, also
> published SYSTEMATIC Theology. What the Emergent
> theologians are promoting is a deconstruction of
> SYSTEMATIC Theology in place of an expressive one.
> Emergent thinkers conclude that any one method of
> interpreting Scripture is not complete. Truth (yes,
> objective, unchanging Truth with a big T) is far too
> important to get only one opinion. (If you had a
> serious health condition, would you see only one
> doctor, just a thought.) Instead, we evaluate many
> different interpretations and take what can
> contribute
> something to our understanding of God. Emergent
> thinkers prefer theology to come in the form of
> narrative, novel, metaphor, poetry, prose, or art.
> (Some of which were popular methods of our Lord, by
> the way) If I am to say that the men who
> revolutionized much of Christianity in the early
> 20th
> Century with Pentecostal theology were completely
> right, then I lose the great contributions of men
> like
> Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli of your Reformed
> tradition. If I presume that Calvin somehow got it
> right, then I must assume that Aquinas (the great
> doctor of the Catholic church) missed the boat. If
> Aquinas was absolutely correct in engaging the
> Aristotilean thought of his day, then Augustine has
> no
> worth in his Platonic influenced theology. It seems
> much more valuable to look at how this great list of
> men have each contributed to our view of God and
> then
> try to engage our culture with each of them cheering
> us on from their privileged box seats at the feet of
> the Almighty.
>
> Let's not forget that the systematic theology that
> you
> hold dear was a response primarily to the
> Enlightenment...an attempt to engage what the
> philosophical culture was throwing at the world of
> theology (and I dare say a successful one, since we
> are still here theologizing).
>
> Matt says: "Everything that the "Emergent Church"
> wants to do has been done, successfully, for
> millennia. But all of a sudden that's not good
> enough,
> and we need new models. Just over the last 20 years,
> people have apparently fundamentally changed from
> what
> they were for the previous 2000"
>
> I could address everything that is "logically" and
> historically wrong with this statement, but I will
> (graciously,I hope) leave it at this. Augustine saw
> a
> world that was consumed with Platonic thought and he
> communicated the Truth within his context. By the
> time Aquinas writes, the church thinks Platonic
> influenced Theology is it, so Aquinas has to
> re-write
> the theology to engage the re-emergence of
> Aristotilean thought. The Enlightenment thinkers
> built their "scientific" systematic theologies to
> answer the materialistic rationalists, and did quite
> well. Today, you and I stand at the face of a
> changing philosophical landscape, and if the church
> will still be clothing the poor in 2 more millennia,
> then we must learn to follow in the footsteps of the
> saints who have walked before us.
>
> Maybe this helps. Maybe it makes you mad. In any
> case, I hope it makes us think, and I hope it
> encourages rather than destroys conversation.
>
> Jeremiah Gibbs



And now for Matt's response:

Jeremiah,
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Without systematic theology, how can I discern
> whether someone is
> teaching truth or error about God?
>
> Matt



And mine:



Truth or error is not the problem. eg. God is love.
Is this systematic theology? no. But it is true. The
point is that "God is love" doesn't tell us everything
about God, and neither do our systematic theologies.
It is not that they are wrong. They are just one
tracked. I will give you an example that I think will
be close to your heart, coming from a reformed
background. I know it is close to mine. Systematic
theology defined Arminean and Calvinists theologies
and said that they cannot both be true. Emergent
theology might say that they are both absolutely and
completely true...in the same way that God is both
three and one (two completely different things). We
don't have a problem with the idea of Trinity, but we
do have a problem with who made the choice in
salvation. In the same way that three and one are the
same, predestination and free-will are the same. It
is a mystery.
God bless.



And then it starts to get a little ugly:


1 John 4:1ff tells us to test the spirits to see if they are of God or
not, and then follows with the test, which is a test
of doctrine. We are commanded in the Bible to distinguish between
> > truth and error.
> >
Truth or error is totally the problem. The fact that you do not think
> > that it is tells me everything I need to know about
> > your view of "church".
> >
> > Matt




Matt,
> I don't want to get into an argument on this, cause
> I
> don't think I will change your mind. Truth is, I
> don't want to...cause I probably agree with you on
> most of your positions.. I just don't think that you
> or I have it all figured out. One little point of
> critical exegesis: the passage in 1 John...John
> says
> that all who acknowledge Christ as Lord are from
> God...think about that. The very fact that you have
> just equated our discussion with "church" tells me
> quite a bit about your view of "church" as well.
> Notice that neither of us mentioned church even
> once...we were discussing theology, yet you equated
> this to "church." If theology and church are the
> same, then how right does someone have to be to be
> part of the church. 1 John 4:1-4 makes it clear
> that
> we are both among the called out preisthood of
> believers, and so are the Emergent leaders...and I
> dare say that even the professors at harvard and
> yale
> divinity schools might even say that Christ has come
> in the flesh...maybe even they are among the
> "church."
> Jeremiah



> Jeremiah,
> You already got into an argument. I just love it
> when folks come along
> and insult my beliefs (my theological framework
> comes from the
> Enlightenment), and then say "I don't want to get
> into an argument."
>
> I never said I have it all figured out. I don't
> know any theologian in
> the history of ever who ever said that. That's a
> complete red herring.
> The fact is, you have a consciously antirational
> approach to theology,
> which will of course affect the way you run a church
> or preach a sermon
> or anything else. You can call my rational approach
> "Enlightenment" all
> day long, but it doesn't make it so. Augustine,
> Aquinas, Anselm, all
> had systematic approaches hundreds of years before
> the printing press.
> Were they "Enlightenment" too?
>
> If you've got a position, then stake it out and
> defend it. But don't
> come along, insult my position, then say yours isn't
> really different
> from mine. And if you take a position, you have to
> accept the
> consequences of that position, and if you take an
> antirational,
> anti-systematic approach, one of the consequences is
> that it becomes
> very difficult to identify heretics and false
> teachers, which is an
> obligation that Scripture has laid on us. It would
> be a lot easier if
> we could all just hold hands and sing songs, but
> Scripture doesn't give
> us that option.
>
> 1 John 4 doesn't say acknowledging Christ as Lord.
> It says "Jesus
> Christ is come in the flesh."
>
> What does that mean, "Jesus Christ is come in the
> flesh?" That's a
> doctrinal statement. Nobody said you had to agree
> with any particular
> 1200 page long tome on systematics. But the
> systematicians, God bless
> them, were just trying their very best to be
> faithful to God's command
> to test the spirits. Would that we all had their
> zeal for the truth of
> who God is, and what Jesus came here to do.
> Matt

Matt,
"But the systematicians, God bless
them, were just trying their very best to be faithful
to God's command
to test the spirits. Would that we all had their zeal
for the truth of
who God is, and what Jesus came here to do."

Amen--- This statement is the most coherent and
well-thought statement you have made in this brief
discussion. And just as the systematic theologians
were trying there best to test spirits...I am actively
doing the same. Just keep in mind that the Reformers
were called heretics in their day by those who had
decided they had cornered the market on
interpretation. My intention is not and was not to
insult your beliefs...I truly do hold many of the same
ones that you do, so I don't intend to insult them. I
am sorry. But, I hope you will read some of the
Enlightenment thinkers before you judge them so
harshly. Alot of what came out of the Enlightenment
did not acknowledge Christ had come in the flesh...and
should rightly be called what it is. But, some of
their thoughts are what have shaped ours...and
therefore should be considered. As for Anselm,
Augustine, and Aquinas...I have read all of them
extensively and they are rational...So am I (contrary
to what you think). Aristotle literally invented
logic and everyone was required to use rational
thought since his time...there is a difference between
systematic and rational. Do yourself a favor and read
Augustine's On The Trinity. Tell me if you think that
he thinks he is right or whether he has just given us
a bunch of different metaphors for a very mystical
concept.

Is it hard to identify heretics in light of this
acceptance of a very mystical faith? yeah...I think
about it every day. I haven't totally figured out
where we draw that line. But, I work towards the goal
of righteousness and purity in my life as well as my
theology.

Thanks for the discussion. I just want to let you
know ahead of time that I won't write again. I will
read your response if you have one, but I don't want
to embrace an argument that will cause a rift between
you and I when we stand before God in worship on the
other side. God bless.

Jeremiah

It may be a little hard to follow all of it. But it starts to illustrate some of the discussions that are being made.