Is theological education and ministry training in our church - ACANZP - in which most of my working days are invested (!!) deeply unfaithful to Jesus?
Jenny Te Paa-Daniels - a well-known theologian and prophetic figure in the life of our church, former staff lecturer and principal at St John's College - offers her view here.
I am not going to comment at length. What are your comments?
My brief comment is that it is plausible to have a caste of priests who look after the mechanisms of the church at worship ("every Sunday counts") and that the role of such priests is to teach the people of God the radical Jesus and spur each member of the church to take up the radical challenge of Jesus.
52 comments:
She is probably a lovely person, but I have never met her. My reply here is simply to the talk at the link.
Another light x on Side B of the graph that does not exhibit our understanding those on Side A. That is, the talk ignores the well-established moral psychology of human diversity (eg Jonathan Haidt), and its language encourages the arrogance that often overtakes people on each side who cannot empathise with the moral reasoning on the other. Conservatives who start to read will most not finish reading; liberals who devour every word may not understand anything a conservative says for a day or so. A whisper about a serious concern; a shout about some who do not see it.
Frankly, I worry about the faith, hope, and love of those who can only see our complex, challenging Lord through the lens of either Side A's fixation on stability (at any cost) or Side B's zeal for equality (at any cost). There is much more to Him-- and indeed to life and justice and goodness-- than that. And there is danger in enlisting the Creator of all to fight for one's own temperament against someone else's.
A temperamental bias can be tempered by working with a spiritual guide who knows scripture theologically and does not share the fault herself. Like all healing, this is a process lived in time, not an argument to accept or reject. Reading can reveal the illness, but is not itself the cure.
Those who hear only obstruction from Side A can learn to hear the rest of what is said by exploring their relationship to the Father in depth. Similarly, those who hear only impiety from Side B can hear their whole concern by exploring their own relationship to the Holy Spirit. We cannot be fully united to the Son without a good relation to both his Father and the Holy Spirit. We cannot be fully ourselves without a robust relation to all Three.
Please note that recovery of this balance is merely a remedy for the log-eyed mote-picking of those blindsided by temperament. Like any spiritual work, it will often turn up transformative insights about side issues that may matter more than the presenting illness. But one should not expect or fear that it will make a liberal into a conservative or vice versa. It certainly will not reduce one's godly desire to feed the hungry or guard against perennial human weakness. Rather, it will make one into a person who hears what others are saying with more empathy and less arrogance, rage, and despair.
BW
Thanks for this Peter. I think I encountered a real time warp moment reading this: it was the stuff of the 1960s New Left, grafted into another context, couched in 'Jesus' clothing.
My real fear is that neither she nor the presently established seminary curricula truly embody the Messiah of Israel and his authentic community.
Post Christian religion
It is the trap that has led the Church of Sweden and the Episcopalian Diocese of Washington DC into gender neutralizing liturgical language which is a step on the path to neutralizing the Christian Faith
The Un Charter does not have the same status as the 10 commandments and a priest ordained to lead in the celebration of the Liturgy is not supposed to be an apostle for the left wing cause du jour
Once you frame anything in the terms of "human rights" you can just about justify anything your heart desires but just because you want something doesn't mean it is Godly
It is not so long ago we saw an Anglican Bishop in this country taken to court because he refused to ordain an candidate he deemed unsuitable - the court action failed that time but eventually with enough hostile media attention and court actions the right to ordination after appropraite qualification criteria are met (framed in terms of examination results, not personal character) will be legally mandated
As Bowman (a.k.a) BW infers commenting without context of the person or knowledge of the institution itself is bound to be a little off centre... so my observations;
In Pacifica culture, of which I assume the Church is not uninfluenced by, there is a degree of violence towards women and children and male superiority I would dare to say more prevalent than in a pakeha and Maori NZ. I witnessed this as a trainee teacher whereby we did not let parents of Pacific Island nationality know if their children has mis-behaved at school as it would often result in a beating. Hence, I can understand there is much to be passionate about as a faithful Christian in this context.
In regards to St John’s and Patriarchy of the COE... well an institution is a product of it’s history and this does not alter overnight. And while the majority of men may be in positions of leadership and teaching I do not always read that to mean that these particular men necessarily ‘by into’ the ‘male dominance more.’ This will completely depend on each individual and their own convictions. I did have good friends who spent some time at St John’s around 5 years ago now and they weren’t comfortable with a lot of the approaches being taken theologically, however, my impression was this had less to do with conservative patriarchy and more to do with quite a liberal leaning (and perhaps internal conflict). I believe since St John’s leadership and structure has been changed and perhaps greater ‘order’ bought to bear? I have no bug-bear with more men being in leadership than women in any organisation so long as it is not to do with structural institutional inequality; I may be hung, drawn, and quartered now but I do think men seek and desire the responsibility and positions of leadership more frequently than women do, and for good reasons.
Jesus as a Social radical well it was in studying sociology (at that point not in the ‘church’) that even I thought that Jesus was the biggest social revolutionary there ever was. Talking with the women at the well, challenging the unequal distribution of wealth, talking and receiving hospitality from those ‘rejected’ by society - not always without good reason e.g. tax collectors... All however, of his social action, was tied in with the overarching message of transformative power of the gospel. So now I believe social action in a Christian context is best outplayed.
I know little about Jenny’s students but a few seem to have ‘caught’ this vision of Jesus I can think of; whether through theological teaching, mentoring by other priests or lay people or through the bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Justin Duckworth comes to mind and his action on restorative justice with Kim Workman, the debates on child poverty led by the church, those Christians who sat in parliament grounds in solidarity against the upcoming Euthanasia bill, and every unknown and unamed Christian who works in grass-roots social service.
Could we do more or be taught more or catch more of Jesus nature of justice in the context of the gospel. Probably always! Yet let’s be sure it is Jesus we are following not our own interpretations.
Hi Jean
Thanks for a comment sympathetic to the nuances of context!
As a matter of fact, Bishop Justin in his training before ordination was not a student at St John's COllege.
"She is probably a lovely person" - BW -
Having actually met Jenny and having some knowledge of her background I can assure Bowman that she is eminently 'lovely, loving and lovable' 0 but maybe not to those those who have no understanding of where she is coming from in this piece.
Having, myself, attended Saint John's College - first as an Anglican Franciscan Brother in the mid-1970's - I was struck by the 'family ethos' of the students at that time. Under the teaching of people like Raymond Pelly, George Armstrong and Terry Creagh - and JJ Lewis (Methodist co-Principal) - we were thoroughly grounded in the justice issues of the day (I well remember students marching against the Clyde Dam inequities). We mixed our theology with practical engagement with visits to marae and other public institutions that were considered relevant to our future ministry to and in the wider world.
From Jenny's perspective, it would seem that today's students are not so inclined (or directed) to further their academic skills in practical engagement with the local communities served by the Church.
I am personally disturbed that many local clergy in our diocese are being trained in foreign conservatively Evangelical institutions - such as Moore College - which seems to major more on Biblical Studies than the Humanities those studies are meant to serve. I don't su[ppose (m)any of the Apostles (except Paul) were privy to any other theological education than that which they received directly from the Teacher and Lord; whose own method of teaching was by personal example - of loving service of others and raising up the lowly and marginalised of society.
One thing I learned at St.John's College, Auckland, was how to live together with our differences; loving one another, despite our ingrained theological views - because our learning happened around the Chapel Worship, where we met with the Christ who nurtured us in our Faith - to become servants of others out in the world for which Christ died.
"...there is a direct correlation between Gospel truth and political activism."
Yes, everyday action according to the gospel has often provoked *political activism* against it.
In the legally segregated South of the US, my grandfather founded a church camp for children. City kids liked the forest and springs of that mountain ridge. Local merchants of the nearby town liked the money they spent all summer long on candy, ice cream, and post cards.
Now as God saves both black and white souls, both black and white children came to the camp. And then, indeed, there was political activism-- the local sheriff came around to fine the camp for the sanitation violation of having black children. Rather than pay the fine, my grandfather offered to close the camp and reopen it by another town in the next county. The sheriff left, and that was the end of that.
To the glory of God, the camp is still there today and the children who summer there are far more diverse than either my grandfather's dream or the sheriff's nightmare. Now I suppose my grandfather could have run for sheriff himself both to put down the mighty from his seat and also to exalt the humble and meek. But even assuming that he prevailed at the polls, would that sort of victory have glorified the God who was in Christ?
When *gospel* truth is actually the *godspell*, it is about what God is doing, not what we are doing. As Andrei rightly said several months ago, if a church acquires some moral influence in society, this comes from how it lives, not just what it says.
BW
Someday, Peter will opine on the *Jesus was a radical* trope with some NT citations, and then we can examine our prejudices concerning it.
My own is this: readers often blend the opposition of any traditional Jew to corrupt elites, pagan culture, and Roman power with Jesus's specific critiques of the Temple, the Sabbath, and the Pharisees to get an obsessively subversive figure more like some aspects of Dionysius or Shiva than the historical Jesus. This Jesus is a void that can be filled with any cultural content at hand. In a time of rapid social change, devotion to such a figure is appealing to personalities open to new experience, but repulsive to those afraid of nihilism.
BW
Hi Peter,
Both Bryden-@ 7.38 AM and B.W.@ 2.31 PM. are on the right track. This Jesus belongs to the 1960s with Spong and Geering. Sadly at the end of this tunnel, one finds "Jesus the man"; and not the Jesus of St. John: "In the beginning was the word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God.All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.In him was life;and the life was the light of man". John 1:1-4. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,[and we beheld his glory,the glory as of the only begotten of the Father],
full of grace and truth".v.14.
Contrary, to the claims of the progressive liberals,Jesus was not crucified because he was a 'radical activist' but because He was the 'TRUTH'. The Temple could not deal with the TRUTH.
Liberation Theology does not belong in the Church; but in the lives of Christian men and woman who are living out their lives in the world, as an example of meaning of the Sermon on the Mount eg. Wilberforce . To be in the world but not of the world; while at the same time, being a light to the world.
My wife's Gt. uncle, Rev Robert T. Haddon was a major factor in the Govt returning the control of his peoples land into Maori hands, Taranaki; and was also one of the few religious leaders whom Princess Te Puea accepted.
"Unlike predominantly secular societies which, to a great extent, have disentangled moral questions from the judgmental clutches of male church leaders, we of the Pacific have yet to free ourselves from these limitations."
Actually, predominantly secular societies have disentangled moral questions from the judgmental clutches of ALL church leaders, whatever their gender politics. And that may be a good thing. The God who sends rain on the just and the unjust wants, not just a faithful church, but also a civil society that is humane both to those who believe and to those who do not. When he wants human society to be like the Body, the Son will return to do this for himself.
Meanwhile, our postmodern societies may not have *public squares* for the debates she imagines our dear leaders joining. Richard John Neuhaus redefined the phrase years before the decline of journalism, the fragmentation of media, the polarisation of opinion, and the rise of fake news. Whether church leaders are from the left or from the right, such societies surely do not have thrones from which they are entitled harangue them.
Indeed, the harshest thing that many of my friends can say about someone is that "s/he feels so entitled." Faith that cannot make sense of itself apart from its old establishment, its ancient influence on polities that have finally stopped listening to it, is a shambling zombie, neither living nor dead. It seems wrong to fear and kill it, but one certainly should not follow it either.
When Constantine stepped down from his throne, that was the end of ideological Christianity, both left and right. Conservatives realise, I think, that the sort of society that they used to defend is gone, and so too is the whole idea of the church as a moral support for that lost world. This is why the best of them have gone on to discuss the Benedict Option for churches, while the worst have settled for a new role as tribunes of white ethnicity supporting authoritarians like Trump.
But liberals, perhaps because they like change more anyway, are still resisting the rude realisation that they too have lost all influence. They no more belong to the new majority of today than socialist Jews belonged to the new Russia after October 1917. (Some of the liberal fixation on That Topic is frankly nostalgia for the good ol' days when conservatives were just reactionary and liberals were leading the whole society upward and onward to a brighter tomorrow.) Whether right or left, Christians are disempowered and perplexed, not leading anyone anywhere right now.
Perhaps a proposal like the one at the link makes better sense on the blessed isles where everything is better. But here, the Episcopal Divinity School, our one seminary on that model, has lost its campus in Harvard Square and moved in with Union Theological Seminary in New York. It seems like Kubler-Ross's bargaining stage of dying to imagine that, if only seminaries will change their curricula to produce better philosopher-kings, civil society will again listen to churches.
If we want to do works of mercy, four rather different innovations may be wiser.
(1) Stop instrumentalising fellow believers for political ends. Instead, "be [in our churches] the change [God] wishes to see in the world" without any reliance on the state.
(2) Stop whining about the Bible. Instead, learn from those evangelical scholars who have found a biblical ground for work on justice and peace. They are the future and it is foolish to ignore natural allies.
(3) Stop loathing the Father. Instead, recognise the moral gulf between the conservatism of the powerful that rationalises privilege from the conservatism of the poor that supports the created meaning and fabric of their lives.
(4) Stop ignoring research into human needs. Instead, lose impotent militancy and embrace empirical understanding and nonpartisan wisdom.
BW
Hi Peter
Apologies my brain wasn’t quite in gear this morning, rather than inferring the reference was to Jenny’s students I was intending to say although I don’t know any of Jenny’s students, I do know Anglican Christian’s who through forms of formal teaching within the church have gone on to be advocates for social justice and the gospel of grace.
Hi Bowman
You mean to say Jesus wasn’t a Zealot - so disappointed! : ) ... I am not totally convinced things are always better in the Blessed Isles but we can live in hope! I was at a conference in the weekend where the American speaker, married to a kiwi, lamented that we Kiwi’s don’t seem to like American’s very much. Unfortunately I had to agree I probably judge American’s in the general sense quite harshly at times!
I think I may have liked your Grandfather : ) ... As for society no longer listening to the Church re morals or there being no place to debate in the public sphere; there are many ways of speaking and many forms of challenging. Fortunately here we don’t really have to also concern ourselves about religion as a political football (since any parties claim to Christianity is more likely to repel than attract voters).
Personally I think Jesus was radical and still would be today, however, his approaches or following his example may vary from what we perceive to be those of an activist, and I would not like to put his actions into the humanly constructed conservative or liberal boxes - or for that matter to dare to use His name for achieving a personal agenda. I mean what strategising activist would list going and have a meal at the house of a local pay day loan collector as a top priority for action (e.g. Jesus and the tax collector)? And then I think of a mayor here in NZ when convicted about the representation of Maori on his council got so much abuse (including threats) that he resigned; his response was not one of vehemence instead he acknowledged that he too once was judgemental in his attitude toward Maori so rather he went on a Hikoi (walk/pilgrimage) to Parehaka as a gesture of peace towards Maori (a place where a group of Maori who had taken up a non-violent stance to keep their land in the early days of NZ were killed by colonial soldiers). What a witness. This is the sort of thing I believe Jesus would support, this is the sort of radical I believe He is.
As for the 1960’s, sorry I wasn’t around then so I will have to leave that debate to others : ) ... Although Martin Luther King seemed to have got a lot right in terms of following Christ and speaking up against injustice. I love his book of sermons, Strength to Love. BTW that quote be the change was a phrase coined by Ghandi who both got his concept of non-violence from Martin Luther King Jr and also surprisingly visited Parehaka. So finishing with one of MLK Jr’s quotes; “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”
Have Christian males been historically judgemental. Oh yes, a dear friend in her 80’s was told when her husband left her due to his alcoholism, by her Priest no less, that it was her fault as she was the female of the species. We’re those attitudes independent from society at the time, probably not. Have they changed, very much so. Lesson or warning, be very careful one is following God’s path and teaching rather than what is considered ‘normal’ in our day.
Glen, I do agree with Christian’s living out the gospel within the Church being a most effective form of social justice, yet one must recognise Wilberforce was a politician in his own right. What he stood for in his position was most likely seen as quite scandalous by his fellow parliamentarians; he obviously lived out his faith life in his public life as well communally with Christians, which is a courageous thing.
Hi Jean
I don't think, "Ghandi who both got his concept of non-violence from Martin Luther King Jr and also surprisingly visited Parehaka." is quite right!
Gandhi was assassinated before MLK got going re non-violent resistance.
And neither ever visited NZ.
There is some evidence suggesting Parihaka was influential on Gandhi and I believe Gandhi was influential on MLK.
Hi Peter
Apologies again I totally mixed up the order of historical passive resistance there. For some reason I seriously did think Ghandi visited NZ in his early days while still a lawyer before becoming a Guru, but obviously not given the time-frames. And double apologies for spelling Parihaka incorrectly!
Jean, I think that--
intentionally dying on a cross is rather zealous, and
Jesus did this and other things to repair the Judaic ethos,
which he saw as proper to humanity, and
open to all.
This apocalyptic Jesus took his Father's Israel-project toward the new phase to which the law, Temple, and Sabbath had been pointing all along. As an ethos is the *root* of all social relations, there is nothing wrong with calling Jesus a *radical* for advancing one.
In contrast, however, the nihilistic Jesus is not only gleefully against law, Temple, and Sabbath as an end in itself, but also against anything we know that seems to us somewhat like them, which can be just about any norm in civilised life. Because Jesus the Liberator is read as tearing an ancient ethos down rather than as renovating an eternal one, he is rootless, having no commitments and making no promises. And likewise, his devotees are not great generators of meaning, often posing a choice between uncompromising justice and the commonalities of human life. He turns out in our time to be Jesus the Destroyer.
BW
Hi Peter,
The point I was making, is that both the Maori and the European in NZ would benefit by these modern intellectuals, actually learning from the "real men and women", who made this Nation; instead of following in thew footsteps of those who preach an eclectic mixture of Christianity,Darwinism and Cultural Marxism aka.Liberation Theology, which is neither THEOLOGY or LIBERATING.
I offered Robert Tahupotiki Haddon up as a man who not only crossed the divide of European- Maori,Parliament-The People,but also Christianity-other faiths.Michael King states in his book 'Te Puea': "The first non -Waikato Methodist minister to preach at the pa [Turangawaewae Marae, Ngaruawahia],
the Rev R.T. Haddon, was eventually accepted because of his persistence in the face of being ignored,and his willingness to participate in the evening Pai Marire karakia."page 186. "He was senior officiating minister at Te Rata's tangi [King], and at Koroki's coronation on 8 October 1933.Te Puea came to regard him as one her elders." ibid page 188. In the joint approach of Taranaki and Waikato of selecting a candidate for the Western Maori seat;
"A subsequent meeting at Ketemarae asked R.T.Haddon to accept the candidacy,
but he declinded saying 'I cannot reversr this collar I am wearing'." pg 54.
Hi Bowman
I mean Zealout as in Jesus’s time rather than zealous but I imagine your realise this...
Indeed as opposed to being ‘replaced’ or ‘destroyed’ the law was fulfilled, the temple re-built and the sabbath restored. I can’t say I agree with all social movements even some done under the Christian banner, however, I am afraid my intellect isn’t quite at your level yet. Can you give me an example of of nihilistic Jesus followers and their actions to further my comprehension...
Many thanks
Argh no I mean Zealot - I am really going to have to pay more attention to my spelling and typing errors!
Haddon sounds like an honourable man Glen, and yes substance or integrity of character are necessary traits in leaders for any authentic social justice to take place. And those one comes to most respect have often managed somehow to also respect those who have been on the other side in terms of stance. I always remember in reading Nelson Mandela’s “Long Walk to Freedom” about a most civil and ordinary man to man meeting he had with De Klerk before he went to prison. I remember it because of the perceived abscense of any personal blame or hatred between the two men. I am not sure, even with the knowledge of how one should act as a christian, if I could manage such an attitude.
I did enjoy some aspects of liberation theology once upon a time, however, that was perhaps when it meant what it says and perhaps the interpretation of liberal was slightly different than it is now!
Where would we be withouty Google - as our main source of information?
Hi Jean,
Parihaka, has many bitter/sweet memories for Gail and I; sweet because of the hours we spent there with Te Maringa Hohiai, working on the Taranaki issue; and being present when the report was released.
Gail was to start litigation against PKW Inc., a Maori Inc. which had received all of the "individulized land title;and wanted to sell large portions of it, to European farmers. She was joined by Rata Pue and Hori Manu. They bore the costs of fighting PKW. They were successful and stopped the sale. This was one of several litigations which Gail and Rata fought protecting the Turangiwaewae of their people.
So now the bitter memory of Parihaka;the last time we were there,was for the tangi of Rata; after he was killed spraying gorse on the Parihaka X block.
Hi Glen
I am glad for the good memories you hold of Parihaka and I am sorry for your loss, that is rough to lose a friend at such an age and in such a way. Now learning the anniversary of Parihaka’s invasion is the same date as Guy Fawke’s I now a closer and more meaningful as a Kiwi event to remember on the 5th Nov...
Go well.
Hi Ron
If we didn’t have google there might be a lot more mistakes when relying solely on ones memory (e.g. mine on this thread!!). All the same it is nice to have a break from it at times, eh? Amazing how many times a day one thinks, ‘I will google it!’...
Jean, I will have to think about how to answer your question about nihilism within the sensible rules of Peter. For now, it may be sufficient to say that while Christians rarely intentionally embrace nihilism as a philosophy, some do zigzag between a sentimental practice and a cold realpolitik. Both the zig and the zag are incompatible with faith in what God has revealed.
BW
"This Jesus is a void that can be filled with any cultural content at hand. In a time of rapid social change, devotion to such a figure is appealing to personalities open to new experience, but repulsive to those afraid of nihilism." BW @ March 6 at 2:31
One of the key things we may learn from the great late Robert W Jenson is the pervasive nature of nihilism in contemporary western societies. It has clear philosophical roots and clear public expressions. But if we are hell bent on avoiding either, then I guess the tragic result is inevitable - save again RWJ's beautiful emphasis on the God of the Gospel's Word of Promise!!
PS just read this week a lovely In Memoriam Article on RWJ in IJST by Bruce McCormack. Enjoy!
Thank you, Bryden, for the reference. Interesting to think that there was an occasion on which Bruce McCormack and George Hunsinger were agreeing on Karl Barth-- and that the occasion for this was their disagreement with Jens's famous paper on Barth's understanding of the Holy Spirit!
BW
Hi Peter,
Her blog establishes the old adage: "Those who can do, and those whop can't teach".
1.[Robert Jenson] said that when the ‘God is dead’ theologians were shaking up the theological world in the mid to late 1960s, he had found little sympathy with William Hamilton but that he felt Thomas J.J. Altizer was someone he understood well and with whom he shared a great deal. ‘Altizer did not want a disembodied God – and neither do I!’ The discussion that followed made it clear that Jens regarded it as a peculiarity of the Reformed (with their *extra Calvinisticum*) that they very much did want a disembodied God.
2. When I pressed him to find out what was at stake for him in his rejection of the *extra*, it quickly became clear that he was worried about the eternal (especially ‘primordial’) identity of the ‘Son’ or ‘Word’; whether the ‘Son’ was really Jesus or a *Logos asarkos* [bodiless Word] whose identity is fully complete apart from and prior to his (wholly contingent?) identification with the man Jesus and who was, as such, unknowable. Such an *extra*, I had to agree, led very quickly to agnosticism...
3. Jens’s theology was born out of conviction that the ancient Greek understanding of eternity as timelessness had given rise to a dialectic of sheer opposition which allowed for no historical realization of salvation. The goal was to escape history through willed approximation of one’s existence to the ‘God’ whose ‘being’ (as timeless) was characterized above all by impassibility and simplicity. Such a ‘God’ was, Jens believed, incommensurable with the God of the Bible, a God whose ‘being’ is his history with his people.
4. At the heart of the saving activity of God stood an eschatological event: the resurrection of Christ. It is eschatology, precisely in its relation to history (resurrection is, after all, an event in space and time) which overcomes the Greek dialectic of the opposition of eternity and time. The resurrection is a divine act of self-identification with the man Jesus – so that resurrection is both revealing and constitutive of who and what God is. Because Jesus is risen, he continues to be an ‘historical agent’ ( Systematic Theology, vol . 1,p. 173); one who continues to speak in the Spirit to and in the church and through the church to the world.
5. The fact that Jens understood the divine act of raising Jesus from the dead as constitutive of divine being allowed him to understand the being of God before this act as ‘anticipatory’ being (Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 66). Jens never denied the existence of a *Logos asarkos*. He simply insisted that talk of the ‘pre-existent’ Logos had to be of the Logos identified with Jesus – and so, of the Jesus Christ who would be raised.
6. The attempt to reduce the divinity of the Logos to a primordial being without a relation to Jesus fails to grasp the fact that the being of God flows from the future into the past. It is that being of God from the future which invaded our world in the resurrection – which is why we can speak of a primordial God at all.
7. But the less said about that, the better. Talk of primordial being always distracts our attention from the future of God and ultimately deprives it of its power to effect change in our world. That this has enormous ramification for how we think of the Trinity should be obvious. It is, in fact, the reason why Jens was never satisfied with the fathers' reduction of trinitarian ‘persons’ to modes of origin.
8. Much more could be said. We could speak of how the risen Christ is present in preached word and in sacrament. The risen Christ is made tangibly present in the bread and the wine; that was the beating heart of Jens’s spirituality.
9. What intrigues me is that those who are most forceful in their agreement with Jens’s sacramentology (and the ecclesiology which it nourished) will be among the first to raise questions about his doctrine of the Trinity! And those deeply sympathetic with his doctrine of the Trinity may (like me) hesitate a bit at the door of his sacramentology! But there is a complete fit between these two things. And you have to wonder whether either could be had without the other.
Excerpted from Bruce L. McCormack. (2018) In Memoriam: Robert Jenson (1930–2017). International Journal of Systematic Theology 20, 1.
doi:10.1111/ijst.12283
Paragraph numbers and square-bracketed phrases supplied. Punctuation edited.
BW
Hi Peter,
Re Jean's comment about Gandhi coming to Parihaka - in about 2010 (from memory) Arun Gandhi (Mahatma's grandson) went there with Dr Lawrence Carter (from the MLK Jr Cultural Centre).
On second thought, Jean, the Wikipedia article on *nihilism* defines what it is fairly well. And like Robert Jenson, I find the disembodiment of the Body to be a corrupting form of it, both when there is an inadequate understanding of the Son and when Church is not done as his presence.
BW
Wow Bowman! Nice extracts! I'd both thank you and add this feature: the delightful hospitality of both Blanche and Jens, which Bruce details often. This too reflects Jens' notion that creation is but the Triune God making both time and room for creatures in his temporality and spaciousness (this a virtual combined RWJ quote). Hospitality reflects this glorious effulgence of generosity. Yet too within that gracious hospitality is Blanche's remark that she especially liked Bruce's clarity of thought: it enabled her to see clearly where she and he differed - and strongly!
Would that our lot here in these Isles were able to be clearer about their thinking and so not fudge the differences in the name of some disembodied abstraction termed "unity". We are tragically on a hiding to nowhere as a consequence .... and surely heading in the wrong direction, due to sloppy non-theological non-thinking. Such frankness too is but a reflection of the God who abhors das Nichtige aka "nihilism".
The counter to that nihilistic drive of ACANZ&P may also be Jensonian - if we dare!
"You wonder where the Spirit went" (1993), is answered beautifully by Robert Louis Wilken, "Is Pentecost a Peer of Easter? Scripture, Liturgy, and the Proprium of the Holy Spirit" (2000), in the Festschrift edited by Gunton. (FYI that weird word just means in Latin what makes the identity of the Spirit what the Spirit truly is.)
And in Jenson's beautiful rendering of things Trinitarian, the Holy Spirit is in the economy of salvation the downpayment guaranteeing God's Future Redemption, because Spirit IS UNBOUNDED FUTURITY ITSELF. Yet, fully and authentically related to both Incarnate Son and the Father from whom all 'familyhood' is derived (Eph 3:14-21), this is no hope against hope, no disembodied abstraction, but reflects only what is already latent in Jesus' death and resurrection and requires only the Holy Spirit's due realization. Nothing else, nothing less, nothing more! That should set us back on the Right Way .... DV, DG!
Hi Bowman
Thanks for your posts, I have been a bit distracted with other tasks... It was actually the definition of counter cultural on wikipaedia that I believe has helped me comprehend where we are lost in translation or talking past each other. In contemplating all I realise being a generation younger has meant my definition of liberal and counter cultural is quite different from the hedonistic, sexual revolution, moral upheaval, rejection of Christianity in favour of self knowledge and empricalism, and as you say the resulting disembodiment of Jesus trend of the 1960’s. Ironically when I think of counter culture it is actually counter the culture that was the product resulting from the ‘flower power’ decade. And I do not associate it either with the overthrow of the current societal institutions as per the 1960’s, more the reform of the present ones. No wonder my using the word radical Jesus engendered a response I could not understand.
Yet in all too there seems to have been a revolution of conscience in the 1960’s, with positive contributions for instance in terms of oppressive racist policies (Martin Luther King Jr), and gender inequality (a.k.a) not feminism per see but cultural aspects that contributed to subjugation of women as opposed to submission. Of course the baby boomers grew up and within a decade were faced with the more tedious realism of life such as bringing up families and holding down jobs and so resorted mostly back to the teachings of their childhood, except often not in the case of Christianity. And of course we never quite recovered from the sexual revolution. But I have learn one thing that being the reason hmm I might be sensored by Peter, let’s say Adult Only content movies are called Blue Movies. The first movie of this genre in the 60’s was called ‘Blue”...
I digress.... in simple conclusion I would not conceive of Jesus ever being out of the picture when I speak of social justice issues or Jesus as a radical (and I mean the flesh and blood Jesus and the Logos and Word).... and while social justice pushes my buttons it is secondary or probably more accurately now in my case it has the gospel and Jesus and both the reason and the way ...the source.
All the best.
Hi Mike, thank you for that note, it may have been in fact what my mind was trying to dredge up and hence my inversion of influence and time-lines. I am not confident enough to claim it was indeed that and not purely my mixing up my facts given a tired brain but I do appreciate the gesture.
Bryden, I ike the way you write in your last post. Such power in the expression of it.
Thank you, Jean, for your gracious and thoughtful reply. It is always good to understand a bit more of your perspective on things discussed here.
On the generations-- the gospel does correct each of them in some way, and each has its own rebellion against God. But as Bryden says, the suppositions of nihilism are in the culture itself. Therefore it is probably unhelpful to identify it with any single generation, however rebellious, as though the others were wholly free of it. I hope that I have not done that here.
BW
Hi Bowman
Not at all I was just curious as to why suddenly I couldn’t follow the discourse, and maybe a bit concerned my propensity for social justice and the terminology I use relatively frequently was somehow nihilistic! First I had to look up what nihilistic meant : ) ... my own definition without using a dictionary would have been self destructive. So.... understanding the history of the origins of a lot of the terminology came out of the period in the 1960’s and the meaning the words held then and why was helpful.
I was discussing the origin of words and the changes in meaning over time yesterday and my Aunt came up with an interesting one, how do you think today’s generation would interpret, “Be left to your own devices?”
As for generations yes no doubt you are right; nothing new under the sun. I still remain curious (a particular tendency of mine) as to where or how God was lost in the post WWII generation. Probably because I am a product of it!
Kia Kaha
No worries Jean; you're welcome. Glad to be of some help.
Like Bowman, I don't think we can lay it all out at the feet of the boomers. Glacial cultural shifts over decades, and in some cases even centuries, are what's at play here. And furthermore, because we are talking history of culture, no single plot line is adequate, but several woven together.
"I would not conceive of Jesus ever being out of the picture when I speak of social justice issues or Jesus as a radical (and I mean the flesh and blood Jesus and the Logos and Word).... and while social justice pushes my buttons it is secondary or probably more accurately now in my case it has the gospel and Jesus [as] both the reason and the way... the source."
Jean, this seems sane. In apologetics, after all, we say that the mere concept of justice in the mind is a shadow that points to a God who is just and more than just. The second article of the creeds should be interpreted broadly, albeit with close attention to what precedes and follows it.
With a grandfather like mine, I myself have never doubted that. I can recognise some things people say about Jesus as their own way of exorcising false notions of Jesus the Unconcerned. Justice here and now, they rightly want to say, is a religious concern, and one can talk about it in the Body.
Seven further notions shape the way that I imagine this justice on the ground--
(i) Life between the aeons (*zwischen den zeiten*). Although we nevertheless live in the time of the Fall, God's future for his creation, his forceful Spirit, is among us now.
(ii) The Body as second fruits. The Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is drawing the creation to himself. We as the Body exhibit to the world the earthly presence of that heavenly kingdom. The Church is not an institution of this world; it is the visibility to the cosmos of the Spirit's work both in and around the means consecrated by Jesus.
(iii) The priestly nation. Just so, it is the priestly nation that in the New Adam represents God's ultimate love for creatures and refers their praises to him as the old Adam should have done. (For example, consider the Orthodox priest who, on the monday after Pacha, blesses all the waters of the earth at the nearest stream or ocean.)
(iv) Vocation. As far as is possible in the present aeon, the Body and its several members are called to live out of the Spirit in doing the work that is given them among creatures. Work in the Spirit is motivated by a love for creatures that is God's own, and is enabled by a *healing of the passions* that not only lead to sin but deaden and conceal the true personality. This vocation determines our virtues (cf the Beatitudes) and the horizon of our choices.
(v) The human/divine Body. Being friends of God, his people have a free and playful life before him as their human nature approximates what it was in Jesus and will be when heaven descends to earth.
(vi) Creation and Fall, New Creation and End. The Father's will for the creation is dynamic, pressing on to something not realised in Eden even before the Fall.
(vii) Radical two kingdoms doctrine (R2K). Although blind to the truths of faith, the state has a commission from Christ to establish justice for all in the present aeon according to right reason. This justice shares the imperfections of all things of the flesh in this aeon. It is not for that reason to be disrespected by believers; but they are to live according to the Spirit. In those who believe, the very notion of what justice is can be more reasonable, and the means that we are given for acting justly are invisible to the flesh.
Cont'd
A lot could be said in application.
My main point tonight is that most of this is not applied at all in the church talk about "justice" that I have heard. Rather, one often hears a reduction of God's justice to only voting-- either in civil bodies or else in the church as a no less dark imitation of a civil body-- or else to imitation of the sort of rough justice appropriate to the blind state, but not to the Body.
One can sit in church pews all across America and hear the clergy haranguing their mobs to be good Democrats or good Republicans. Yet "trust not in princes and sons of men in whom there is no salvation." This servility to the powers of this world-- even those our social class may prefer-- looks like unbelief to that world and has understandably motivated the New Atheism.
And in all seriousness-- voting is not a sacrament of Christ; for the seeing Body to imitate the blind state is the inverted religion of the Sadducees; our opinions do not show God to the world. I empathise with those who are confused in the aftermath of Constantine's long reign. Nevertheless, in these reflexes, nihilism-- life as though God is loveless and the godspell is powerless-- threatens us.
Freed of that faithlessness, I want us to live more as my grandfather did-- being creative in the Spirit to do good things (eg illegal racially integrated camps for children) that show our just God's love and power.
BW
https://tinyurl.com/y79y9twx
BW
Hi Bowman
Thank you for this narrative... It resounds with me, the justice of God and us as his people through His spirit often differs in approach or has greater transformational power (depth) than the justice we may encounter in institutions political or otherwise. So while we are called as Christians to respect those in civil authority; in order to be effective witnesses to a different Kingdom we must first and foremost remain faithful to following that Kingdoms outworking of justice (and mercy) as opposed to merely taking on board, vocalising and adhering to what you term the ‘rough justice’ of the ‘blind state’. Otherwise, we in effectively cut God off at the knees, as people come to see the Church as but a reflection of society at large.
Am I on the right track? I can remember you read Shane Claiborne’s book the Irresistable Revolution, do you think some of his actions and ideas follow the same creative spirit of a just God’s love and power? When I first read it I was taken with how refreshing and confronting but not threatening was the way he went about applying the biblical mandate of creating a ‘just’ world. In his later books he has gone on to refer to the US state as “living in the belly of the Beast’ you may have a differing perspective on that : ) ...
I haven’t looked up the link yet but will do!
Take Care
P.S. I am going to add nihilism and nihilistic to my vocabulary!
Jean, the link concerns another perennial topic-- the biblical evidence for and against universal salvation. Nathan Eubanks concludes that St Matthew 5:25-26 warns that, absent reconciliation, sin against another incurs painful penance after death, but that eventual restoration to God is even then possible.
https://tinyurl.com/y79y9twx
BW
"So while we are called as Christians to respect those in civil authority; in order to be effective witnesses to a different Kingdom we must first and foremost remain faithful to following that Kingdoms outworking of justice (and mercy) as opposed to merely taking on board, vocalising and adhering to what you term the ‘rough justice’ of the ‘blind state’. Otherwise, we in effect cut God off at the knees, as people come to see the Church as but a reflection of society at large."
Exactly, Jean. And yes, Shane Claiborne, Stanley Hauerwas, and I are all trying to free the Body from a polarisation that begins in its members' spiritual captivity to social ideologies, both left and right, that are formulated around the state. Release from that captivity requires, among other things, recognition of some deep dissimilarities of church and state, and a restoration of the imaginary of the mind of Christ.
BW
Dear BW,
I'm afraid that sometimes I do get a little lost in your rhetoric here. It does sound quite a lot like England's reactionary 'REFORM' ideology.
e.g.: this:
" Release from that captivity requires, among other things, recognition of some deep dissimilarities of church and state, and a restoration of the imaginary of the mind of Christ."
I suppose that if one is constantly worried about the state that one calls home, then one should investigate the possibility of living elsewhere. Say, the Island of Patmos; where the imagination can run rife.
What on earth is this 'imaginary' of the mind of Christ?
"It does sound quite a lot like England's reactionary 'REFORM' ideology."
Is there anyone from REFORM here who cares to comment?
BW
Yes, Ron's advice sounds pretty good for all those who wish to reform the ACANZP now.
"And in all seriousness-- voting is not a sacrament of Christ; for the seeing Body to imitate the blind state is the inverted religion of the Sadducees; our opinions do not show God to the world." BW
"Otherwise, we in effectively cut God off at the knees, as people come to see the Church as but a reflection of society at large."Jean
Bull's eye, Jean! BB
"... all trying to free the Body from a polarisation that begins in its members' spiritual captivity to social ideologies, both left and right, that are formulated around the state. Release from that captivity requires, among other things, recognition of some deep dissimilarities of church and state, and a restoration of the imaginary of the mind of Christ." BW
I couldn't possibly comment, Bowman ... Though I will say this much. Anyone who spoke constantly in parables with such delightful wit and imagination - even if the barb was often sharp, and intended to catch one off one's guard - deserves my vote ...
Thanks Bowman and Bryden. Much to ponder now around seeing justice issues with Kingdom eyes..and the Church witnessing to ‘a better way’. Interestingly limiting God by lack of vision has come up a lot for me in the past few weeks. “Those without vision ...” : )
God Bless
So on Netflix is this little drama.
The reason for me bringing this show to your attention on this post is one of the major characters is a lesbian vicar living with a a Vietnamese girlfriend half her age
Eventually in the course of the show the Bishop becomes involved - naturally it is revealed he is homosexual with a live in lover of his own and according to him (the bishop) the problem of the vicar's companion is not that she was picked up by the police while off her face on drugs with drugs un her possesion thus attracting attention to the vicar and her living arrangements
And the vicars mental gyrations over what to do about this are something to behold but while the "good of the Parish" seems to feature in her calculations what God's will might be does not appear to.
Indeed the only mention of God from ti emerge from this character's lips occurs when another female character from this drama, who is deeply troubled, turns up to the vicarage for counsel and refers to God using the male pronoun
" I prefer to think of him as a her" the vicar responds
There is a good story buried within this well made SJW preachy polemic - but its purpose is to indoctrinate not entertain
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2018/03/left-meets-right/?
BW
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/still-evangelical-trump/554831/?
BW
Could any of these knives be Occam's razor?
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2018/03/oxford-dig-reveals-monks-wine-and-beer-habits/
BW
Dear Bowman, re your comment at 7.34 am. Did you stay with this Netflix drama right through to the end? I think I might not have been anxious enough to discover (or even build a theology upon) its denoument to keep it running. Can one's theology, for instance, be determined by what one is willing to watch on tele?
Fr Ron - that was me, Andrei not Bowman @ 7.34 am
And I did watch to the end - it is what it is glossy 21st century entertainment with a message!!!
There is much popular entertainment that is at variance with my political and/or theological views
Indeed there is this film Mother a film that is blasphemous
What do we do - dissassociate from the culture we live in like Old Believers or Amish. Or engage with it to confront it if required
I had a long discussion over skype with no 2 daughter over "Mother", only possible because I had seen it
Sorry, Andrei; and even more sorry, Bowman. Must be my senility working!
Like 'Tiny Tim' (Dickens, not pop idol) I say: "God Bless us, every one!"
Post a Comment