Things have been a bit crazy. I went home for a time, which was nice. I got engaged, which was the best. I started my new job, where I'll be for at least a year, working at my church out in New Jersey, which has also been great. But now things are settling back into a routine and I've got a bit more time, so its time to start my summer reading plan.
This summer, I want to get more familiar with the people who made a significant impact on theology in the 20th century. I feel like this is a major gap in my understanding of the history of theology, and so I'm going to try to fill in the spaces a bit. This blog will provide a space for me to talk back to whoever I'm reading and give my thoughts.
I got a chance to read some Barth this year at school, and so I want to read some of his contemporaries. I'm starting with Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology. I'm through the first major section now, so that will be my next post. After that, hopefully I'll be able to read a little Bultmann and a little Moltmann, and then I'll see where I'm at.
All that to say that my blog has now taken on the New Being as found in Jesus Christ, and that maybe I'll explain that later when I get there in Tillich.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
I made it through finals
So, I haven't blogged in a while. I had my final papers and exams the last couple weeks, so I've been pretty busy. Now that I've finished spring long term, though, I should have more time.
Any blog about my time at PTS wouldn't be complete without mentioning my Doctrine of Election class with Bruce McCormack. Dr. McCormack is a well-respected Barth scholar, and his own unique contribution is in the area of election, so this is a fairly big-time class at PTS. I really had no idea who McCormack even was going into the class, so I was forced to get up to speed fairly quickly.
We covered much of the historical development of the doctrine, at least until the time of Barth, which was helpful. I was able to clarify Augustine's position in my own mind (more specifically the development in Augustine over the span of his life) and take a brief look at Aquinas. Calvin I had read already. Given the emphasis of PTS in general and McCormack in particular, it shouldn't be surprising that Barth was hyped as a sort of savior for the doctrine of election in the Reformed tradition. McCormack himself likes to tell about how he began as a Wesleyan-Arminian, became Calvinist for about three years in grad school, and then Barth "saved" him from Calvin.
I was thoroughly disappointed by what I found in Karl Barth. Not that his doctrine of election is bad; I think its really fairly good. He emphasizes God's election of Jesus Christ over discussion of individual destiny, which I appreciate. He reminds theologians that God's relationship and governance of individuals cannot be separated from the loving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which is also a helpful reminder. But when it came to his discussion of individual election, his position wasn't substantially different from previous options (at best), and maybe even incoherent (at worst).
Barth wants to emphasize that Christ has taken our punishment in the crucifixion. As a result, humanity is elect and Christ is reprobate. God has chosen to reprobate himself in Jesus Christ rather than punish humanity. He even makes claims such as this: "Not every one who is elected lives as an elect man... Perhaps he never does so... this fact does indeed conflict with his election, but it cannot annul it. ... His rejection may be attributed to him... only as a threat hanging over him... the threat which is rendered powerless by Jesus Christ." (CD II/2.321) Barth sets up a system where the inevitable conclusion of his calculus is that all are universally elect and therefore universally saved, but he doesn't want to go there, so he never quite makes the jump. The only other options that might be able to resolve the tension in Barth's system would be the Calvinist move of denying universal election, or the Arminian move of allowing the individual to ultimately resist election. Barth doesn't seem to offer some wildly attractive third option, unless that option is universalism (which I cannot accept since I can't justify it exegetically).
Things I took from this class:
1) The relationship between God's nature and God's will may be more complicated than simply sublimating one to the other. God is who God is (triune, etc.) because God freely chooses to be so. God chooses to be loving and triune based upon his nature as God. The two need not be mutually exclusive statements for an eternal being (maybe).
2) I don't like the idea of collapsing God's justice into God's sovereignty. This seems like a rank abuse of language. Surely when one speaks of God's justice, one is talking about a particular way in which God exercises his power, rather than the mere fact of his power. God's action provides the definition for justice, but that doesn't deny justice its character as distinct from sovereignty
3) A lot of useful historical data
4) I truly can embrace Reformed brothers and sisters as part of the Christian tradition. I didn't get a lot of sympathy as an Arminian/Molinist at a Reformed seminary, but I was able to gain an appreciate for the concerns which drive the Reformed perspective. I may not agree, but I do respect their underlying motives.
5) The Doctrine of Election can be a powerful, positive doctrine. It need not consist of a terrible, absolute decree coming from an unknown and unknowable primordial will of God. God has revealed himself as loving, and self-sacrificial, and as willing to take humanity's place in punishment. Before we can speak of man's election to relationship with God, we have to recognize God' election of himself to be a God for humanity in Jesus Christ. Nothing could be better news.
Any blog about my time at PTS wouldn't be complete without mentioning my Doctrine of Election class with Bruce McCormack. Dr. McCormack is a well-respected Barth scholar, and his own unique contribution is in the area of election, so this is a fairly big-time class at PTS. I really had no idea who McCormack even was going into the class, so I was forced to get up to speed fairly quickly.
We covered much of the historical development of the doctrine, at least until the time of Barth, which was helpful. I was able to clarify Augustine's position in my own mind (more specifically the development in Augustine over the span of his life) and take a brief look at Aquinas. Calvin I had read already. Given the emphasis of PTS in general and McCormack in particular, it shouldn't be surprising that Barth was hyped as a sort of savior for the doctrine of election in the Reformed tradition. McCormack himself likes to tell about how he began as a Wesleyan-Arminian, became Calvinist for about three years in grad school, and then Barth "saved" him from Calvin.
I was thoroughly disappointed by what I found in Karl Barth. Not that his doctrine of election is bad; I think its really fairly good. He emphasizes God's election of Jesus Christ over discussion of individual destiny, which I appreciate. He reminds theologians that God's relationship and governance of individuals cannot be separated from the loving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which is also a helpful reminder. But when it came to his discussion of individual election, his position wasn't substantially different from previous options (at best), and maybe even incoherent (at worst).
Barth wants to emphasize that Christ has taken our punishment in the crucifixion. As a result, humanity is elect and Christ is reprobate. God has chosen to reprobate himself in Jesus Christ rather than punish humanity. He even makes claims such as this: "Not every one who is elected lives as an elect man... Perhaps he never does so... this fact does indeed conflict with his election, but it cannot annul it. ... His rejection may be attributed to him... only as a threat hanging over him... the threat which is rendered powerless by Jesus Christ." (CD II/2.321) Barth sets up a system where the inevitable conclusion of his calculus is that all are universally elect and therefore universally saved, but he doesn't want to go there, so he never quite makes the jump. The only other options that might be able to resolve the tension in Barth's system would be the Calvinist move of denying universal election, or the Arminian move of allowing the individual to ultimately resist election. Barth doesn't seem to offer some wildly attractive third option, unless that option is universalism (which I cannot accept since I can't justify it exegetically).
Things I took from this class:
1) The relationship between God's nature and God's will may be more complicated than simply sublimating one to the other. God is who God is (triune, etc.) because God freely chooses to be so. God chooses to be loving and triune based upon his nature as God. The two need not be mutually exclusive statements for an eternal being (maybe).
2) I don't like the idea of collapsing God's justice into God's sovereignty. This seems like a rank abuse of language. Surely when one speaks of God's justice, one is talking about a particular way in which God exercises his power, rather than the mere fact of his power. God's action provides the definition for justice, but that doesn't deny justice its character as distinct from sovereignty
3) A lot of useful historical data
4) I truly can embrace Reformed brothers and sisters as part of the Christian tradition. I didn't get a lot of sympathy as an Arminian/Molinist at a Reformed seminary, but I was able to gain an appreciate for the concerns which drive the Reformed perspective. I may not agree, but I do respect their underlying motives.
5) The Doctrine of Election can be a powerful, positive doctrine. It need not consist of a terrible, absolute decree coming from an unknown and unknowable primordial will of God. God has revealed himself as loving, and self-sacrificial, and as willing to take humanity's place in punishment. Before we can speak of man's election to relationship with God, we have to recognize God' election of himself to be a God for humanity in Jesus Christ. Nothing could be better news.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
How wise are we, really?
I was reading 1 Corinthians this morning and I came across this verse: (1 Cor. 1:17) "For Christ did not send me [Paul] to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power."
I'm not even going to touch the baptism thing. What struck me was the idea that eloquent wisdom might empty the cross of its power. Now, I recognize that there is plenty going on in this chapter historically and culturally, but just go with me (original meaning is not the only meaning). It struck me that I normally think of "eloquent wisdom" as a very good thing, especially when preaching the gospel. Who would sign up for a pastor that sounded foolish compared to a pastor who was eloquent and wise? It seems like a no-brainer, and yet Paul seems to be saying that all our eloquence and wisdom can empty the cross of its power.
It also occurred to me that I'm at seminary, and we're being trained to be more eloquent and wise in our proclamation of the gospel. This idea was disconcerting. At what point does our learning and the application of our learning to the Gospel simply rob it of its power? In substituting our own wisdom and eloquence for God's, how quickly do we eviscerate our own ministry? "For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength." (1 Cor. 1:25) Is there a way we can use our learning to let God's foolishness speak more clearly, rather than allowing our wisdom to obscure it?
I don't think that Paul is advocating a completely unreasoning faith. After all, Paul commends the Corinthian church for having "been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind." (1:5) But there is definitely a danger here which Paul is warning us against, and I'd like to know how I avoid it as well. In this passage, the danger seems to be division (see 1:10-11), but I don't think that's the only danger involved. I'm not sure I know all the dangers involved in learning. But I know this: I don't want my "wisdom" to rob the cross of its power.
May God show me the dangers, and speak His foolishness through me.
I'm not even going to touch the baptism thing. What struck me was the idea that eloquent wisdom might empty the cross of its power. Now, I recognize that there is plenty going on in this chapter historically and culturally, but just go with me (original meaning is not the only meaning). It struck me that I normally think of "eloquent wisdom" as a very good thing, especially when preaching the gospel. Who would sign up for a pastor that sounded foolish compared to a pastor who was eloquent and wise? It seems like a no-brainer, and yet Paul seems to be saying that all our eloquence and wisdom can empty the cross of its power.
It also occurred to me that I'm at seminary, and we're being trained to be more eloquent and wise in our proclamation of the gospel. This idea was disconcerting. At what point does our learning and the application of our learning to the Gospel simply rob it of its power? In substituting our own wisdom and eloquence for God's, how quickly do we eviscerate our own ministry? "For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength." (1 Cor. 1:25) Is there a way we can use our learning to let God's foolishness speak more clearly, rather than allowing our wisdom to obscure it?
I don't think that Paul is advocating a completely unreasoning faith. After all, Paul commends the Corinthian church for having "been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind." (1:5) But there is definitely a danger here which Paul is warning us against, and I'd like to know how I avoid it as well. In this passage, the danger seems to be division (see 1:10-11), but I don't think that's the only danger involved. I'm not sure I know all the dangers involved in learning. But I know this: I don't want my "wisdom" to rob the cross of its power.
May God show me the dangers, and speak His foolishness through me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)