Credible theology: creation, contraception, charity

The search for a credible theology is getting quite urgent for conservatives, both Protestant and Catholic.

On the Catholic side the current Pope is beginning to be perceived as leading or presiding over a church hierarchy lurching backwards to a world previously experienced when, (say) the Catholic church tried to repress Galilean discovery of scientific fact or to pretend, in the Modernist controversy, that modern biblical scholarship was irrelevant to dogma. (In both cases the church eventually 'got it', but untold damage was done).

On the Protestant side a plethora of popes are leading their churches into a variety of side alleys, dark corners, and dead ends; and untold damage is being done to the progress of the gospel. Whether it is creationism, restriction of women in ministry,* supporting uncharitable agenda around imprisoning people, or, blandly offering as 'theology' talk that is indistinguishable from 'new Labour' philosophy, the future of Protestant Christianity as a faith which engages the majority, if not the whole of society is bleak. (Please note those last words carefully: one might, say, build a large and successful church today on the basis of creationism; but the impact on society as a whole will be almost zilch, with the exception of the USA, and even there I think we will find (in line with a bloke I cite in a post below) that within a generation any such success will be smoke in the wind). For the Anglican Communion in particular, attempts to lead Anglican churches towards a future as a 'confessional' church (in the most Protestant sense of 'confessional') are flawed as a missional strategy for reaching the whole of Western society.**

Funnily enough, for the future of Christianity outside of Eastern Orthodox lands,*** Protestant and Catholic Christianity need each other. Liberal tendencies in Protestant Christianity could do with reversing through imbibing Catholic strengths in adherence to creedal orthodoxy and offering a sacramental ordering of life's mysteries. Conservative tendencies in Catholic Christianity to think the future lies in anti-contraception, Latin Masses, and the like could do with reversing through imbibing Protestant common sense.

A credible theology for the twenty-first century has no room for creationism, anti-contraceptionism, and incredibilism which leads to perceptions of a lack of charity. I will try to explain why in succeeding posts.

*An explanatory note: I mention this not to reopen for discussion the merits, theological and scriptural, of women's full involvement in the ministry of the church (at least, not here, not at this point in time); rather I would argue that, whatever the strength of the case for restriction on women's ministry (e.g. in some Anglican contexts, excluding women from the presbyterate and the episcopacy), the long-term (50+ years) future of this approach is a cul-de-sac for those churches which maintain restrictions.

** Anglicans should take note of the respective strengths of Protestantism and Catholicism in the Western societies and recognise that both speak into the diversity of those societies. A missional strategy for reaching the whole of society will embrace both Protestant ('word') and Catholic ('sacrament') characteristic strengths. Anglicanism has the potential to do this, but not if it fights within itself for one to succeed over the other.

*** The future of Eastern Orthodoxy is something I am scarcely able to comment on: I am unsure of social and ecclesial dynamics in Eastern Europe. The phenomenon of the transition of Protestants to Eastern Orthodox churches in North America is interesting. But to the extent to which it is driven by dissatisfaction with Protestant Christianity it is likely to be a temporary feature. Either Protestant Christianity will rediscover its mojo or it will die. Either way there is a limited future for Protestant dissatisfaction.

Credible Theology

In many ways it's easier to nail down 'incredible' theology than 'credible' theology. A universal furore, such as the Roman Catholic church has experienced recently (see post below), is quite a good sign of incredibilism. But claims as to what constitutes credible theology will probably always generate an argument or two. For example, credible theology is not the reduction of theology to what we can experience indisputably and speak about perfectly rationally. The Resurrection of Christ, for example, cannot be experienced indisputably: if the initial experience of the disciples is disputed, how much more our own claims to experience the Presence of the Risen Christ.

Nevertheless it is worth pursuing a credible theology, not least because it responds to the instruction in 1 Peter 3:15, 'always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.' In turn, a credible theology lies at the heart of our participation in the mission of God. In that mission God announces joyful, good news to the world. Inherent in the message of the gospel is the supposition that the message is able to be understood, otherwise it is not 'news'. We have four gospels, not one, or, more accurately 'one gospel according to four different authors', I suggest, because the apostles and their communications team (i.e. Mark, Luke, etc) understood the need for a credible theology.

For a Roman audience, for example, Mark communicates differently to Matthew whose mind is focused on his Jewish audience. Intriguingly Luke also has a Roman audience in mind, yet feels that Mark can be extended and reshaped. (This difference could possibly be explained by thinking of a general Roman audience for Mark's Gospel and a leadership class audience for Luke's Gospel). John's audience is perhaps more difficult to confidently describe, but it does seem to be one with a strong awareness of Hellenistic philosophy, possibly combined with a distinctive Jewish theology.

Today we seem to misunderstand our audiences. What may be credible within the congregation is all too often incredible when simply repeated outside. We could take a leaf from the apostles' communication strategy.

Conservatism on the cusp of custardization?

The future of the Anglican Communion requires a common theology which binds us together. The future of the Christian faith requires (among other things) a credible theology. Part of the conservative approach to securing a common theology (among Anglicans) and a credible theology (generally) is an (underlying) argument that alternative approaches such as liberalism are flawed whereas conservativism is not, or, is at least less flawed than liberalism. The strength of the conservative approach, in a broad, sweeping judgement, is that there is an attractiveness to the theology offered, evidenced by numbers in conservative churches.

But there are potential problems in conservative Christianity, including conservative Anglicanism. It can turn to custard! One such problem is a tendency towards legalism, another is towards fundamentalism. When fundamentalism and legalism are combined then theology can become incredible (i.e. not-able-to-be believed) rather than credible.

A recent outbreak of incredibilism occurred in the Roman Catholic church when Brazilian church authorities excommunicated medics and the mother of a nine year old girl for permitting and performing an abortion on her while not excommunicating the man who abused and raped her. At least the Catholic church is recognising the absurdity of the situation. This comes, of course, on top of the absurd recognition of the Holocaust-denying Bishop Williamson via the mechanism of de-excommunication. [Postscript: and is followed up by silly assertions about the ineffectiveness of condoms in Africa, as Ruth Gledhill reports].

We are not quite there yet in the Anglican Communion. But the bemusing restraint of conservative Anglican blogsites to engage with the Archbishop of Nigeria's current burst of support for the criminalization of immorality suggests we are willing to entertain thoughts that an incredible theology is an acceptable outcome of conservativism.

Anyone for custard?

[Postscript: It could be worse than I am suggesting, in respect of Western evangelicalism. After penning the above I came across 'The coming evangelical collapse' by Michael Spencer, published in the Christian Science Moniter. It makes a bit of sense when he says,

"We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

WHY IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures."

Read it all here.]

Protestants protest. It's what we do. Apparently.

Archbishop Peter Akinola in recent days has come out in support of draconian Nigerian laws which would see gay people imprisoned for 'gay marriage' (and witnesses thereof also imprisoned).

Andrew Brown runs the story, with comment, in this way:

"If ever you think the Anglican church of Nigeria cannot get more incoherently bigoted about gay people, you're wrong. The latest proof comes in a position paper (pdf) submitted by the church to a parliamentary committee which is planning a law against gay marriage. Homosexuality is already illegal in Nigeria, of course, as is gay marriage. But the proposed law would provide three years in jail for gay couples who got married, and five years for any witnesses. Earlier drafts have proposed long jail sentences, also, for anyone who argues in favour of gay marriage.

If ever a law were a simple incitement to hate, this is it, and here is Archbishop Akinola of the Church of Nigeria cheering them on:

Same sex marriage, apart from being ungodly, is unscriptural, unnatural, unprofitable, unhealthy, un-cultural, un-African and un-Nigerian. It is a perversion, a deviation and an aberration that is capable of engendering moral and social holocaust in this country. It is also capable of existincting [sic] mankind and as such should never be allowed to take root in Nigeria. Outlawing it is to ensure the continued existence of this nation. The need for doing this is urgent, compelling, and imperative.

His statement also suggests that the penalties in the law be changed around, so that the happy couple be sentenced to up five years in jail, and individual witnesses to up to three years. If witnesses were to be charged collectively, the archbishop suggests, there should be a mandatory sentence for all of them of one year in jail.

Compare and contrast the resolution of the Anglican Primates, meeting at Dromantine in 2005:

We continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship.

Archbishop Akinola also signed up to that statement, which tells you all you need to know about his sincerity."

There is enough there, is there not for Protestant Anglicans to protest? An Archbishop who is inconsistent. An Archbishop who supports severe punishment for immorality, contrary to the teaching and the example of Christ.

But here is the rub, being noticed on various Anglican sites: where are the protesting Protestants?

They are hard to find.

Well, here is one. I protest Archbishop Peter. You have gone too far. You have not followed the wisdom of your fellow bishop Martyn Minns when he says on the CANA website (CANA Perspective #8):

"Every person is made in the image of God and deserves to be treated that way."

Pope Benedict XVI reaches out inclusively to the Anglican Communion

At least that is the implication of this extraordinary paragraph as he writes about recent events concerning the formerly excommunicated SSPX:

"Can a community leave us totally indifferent in which there are 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university institutes, 117 brothers, 164 sisters? Should we really calmly leave them to drift away from the Church? I am thinking, for example, of the 491 priests. The plaited fabric of their motivations we cannot know. But I think that they would not have made their decision for the priesthood, if next to some askew or sick elements there had not been there the love of Christ and the will to proclaim Him and with Him the living God. Should we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical marginal group, from the search for reconciliation and unity? What will then be?"

After all, who are Anglicans if not those with the love of Christ and the will to proclaim Him?

Read the whole here. Be moved by the soaring ecumenical vision of the Pope. Laugh (or cry) at the admissions of living in the world unaware of the power of the internet. Weep at some of the convoluted logic necessarily involved trying to reconcile all doctrinal commitments. Pray that one day we funny bunch of people, "Christians", can indeed be one despite our amazing differences!

Of that which we cannot speak we should be silent

Reading a book review by Andrew Barry in The Briefing on a book of essays Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques edited by David Gibson and Daniel Strange (2009) I find myself gobsmacked. Barry begins like this,

"While reading this selection of essays, I've also been reading the prophet Jeremiah. Both are stretching, edifying and hard going, and yet it has struck me that both deal with theological disagreement—that is, dare I say, false teaching—in very different ways."

OK. Got that. Barth is a false teacher. Barry knows Barth is wrong. To an extent his conviction is strengthened by the book being reviewed. Yet the book itself falls short because it is not tough enough on Barth.

"If the conclusions that most of the contributors reached are true, the weight of those conclusions seemed to be lacking. There was a lot of light, but not much heat; most of the essays tended to frame Barth's theology as being wonderful, but also inadequate or unsatisfactory, rather than pastorally dangerous."

Barth is Barth. Not quite kosher evangelical: not Stott nor Packer nor Piper. More N.T. Wright, evangelicals could say, than right. So able to be judged a false teacher, as well as pastorally dangerous. But what about Calvin? Is he ever deemed a false teacher by evangelicals? (No doubt some commenter will provide evidence, but I do not know of it). Yet Calvin's teaching has given rise to pastorally dangerous nonsense such as 'double predestination'. And, while I am on my high horse, there is a lot of pastorally dangerous nonsense around in the evangelical world that can scarcely be upheld by a plain reading of Scripture. But, as an aside, is it helpful to cast the label 'false teacher' around? Is theological disagreement not possible without incurring this denotation? Does our fellowship in Christ as fallible sinners improve with name calling?

Barth is incomparable, as human theologians go. He thinks, reflects, digests, and slowly, painstakingly shares his conclusions. So slowly that, as Barry rightly observes, 'Barth is an almost unassailable mountain'. At least he is a mountain when so much that passes for 'truth' in the evangelical world are mole-hills.

Barry takes Barth to task on the doctrine of election. "From almost every angle, it is Barth's view of election that is one of the biggest stumbling blocks. Barth's innovation is that rather than people being elect, Christ is both the elect one and the rejected one. Therefore, all humanity is given a ‘yes’ in Christ that negates our ‘no’ towards God. While the arguments are complicated, it is not hard to see that the trajectory Barth's theology follows leads to universalism (i.e. that all people will be saved)."

I wonder what Barry would say about Calvin and his doctrine of election - in its own way an immense stumbling block to many? This is no idle theoretical point about the high places of theology. When bad things happen to good people our hearts cry to God for an explanation. A doctrine of election provides such an explanation. But that explanation in the hands of some evangelicals can add to the terror of human pain rather than relieve it. Especially when it gives a sense, however unintentionally, that God authorises our torment.

Perhaps we should be silent about election and leave it as a divine mystery. That could leave us free to not speak when we have nothing to say that makes any sense when our world is shattered and we know not where God is.

The communion of the world

I guess it is possible to live through these months as though there is no crisis in the world's economic order. Shops still stock goods, so if one has steady employment, is not trying to buy or sell a house, and avoids reading the newspaper, then it could be business as usual.

I have been reading quite a few articles, and last night spent some time watching current affairs programmes such as the PBS News Hour. Part of my interest is personal (I like following politics), part is ecclesial (I am a member of our Diocesan Financial Team), and part is curiosity (what is actually going on? Is there a plan? Is Obama in action able to fulfil his potential as the greatest president since Lincoln?)

But all that is idle theorizing. Yesterday I met a friend and discovered that by the end of next week he will be out of work. Within this past week our local city, Nelson, has had announcements of lots of other jobs being lost in our major industries (fish, wood production). My friend will look for work, but his applications will be ones of hundreds.

Interestingly, our wood production job losses were explained like this: we pulp pine logs to make 'medium density fibre boards' which is shipped to China to make inexpensive furniture which is sold in the United States. The soaring unemployment in the States is a direct cause of soaring unemployment in Nelson, N.Z. So an interest in whether Obama and team have a way to draw the American economy out of the mirey clay is an interest relevant to daily life here. But do they have a way out?