Eschatology
Many theologians believe that our hope is “ultimately rooted in God’s presence” (Rieger, 176). There is some disagreement as to whether that presence is a current or future reality. Some suggest that the kingdom that we seek when we say the Lord’s Prayer is both now and then (Gonzalez, 161). Others, however, suggest that “more important than last things is the union of the soul with God here and now” (Pöhlmann, 60). To be sure, the reign of God is a reign of love and that love involves a different order of reality (Gonzalez, 162). I believe that the reordering of reality has already begun in our world through the in-breaking of God’s kingdom in all the ways that we have discussed God’s activity up to this point. The fullness of that reordering, however, will not occur until Christ returns. Such thinking leads immediately to questions of what happens when we die, heaven and hell, ultimate ends, and the parousia. These questions are personal, communal, and cosmic in nature; and it is to these last things that we now turn.
First, let us remember that our lives are radically altered by our faith in and commitment to God through Jesus Christ. That means eternal life begins at our acceptance in faith. But this is an already and not yet proposition. Our lives are reordered through justification and sanctification, but there is more beyond this life. In saying this, we must be cautioned against the tendency to reduce the gospel message to a get into heaven free type of message. None-the-less, there is life after death for both the believer and the non-believer. The believer will be in the presence of God, in body and spirit, for all eternity. The non-believer will experience eternal separation from God. These existences are respectively referred to as heaven or hell. Scripture tells us that there will be a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). The old will pass away and the new will come; but I believe that in our finitude we are completely unable to grasp what that looks like. The greatest point of this new heaven and new earth is that the reordering of our love will be complete as we love God, each other, and creation the way that we were meant to.
Yes, I said hell. It seems that if we are to truly honor the way that God has revealed himself to us, then we must take seriously the claim of human freedom. For freedom to be true freedom, humans must be able to choose not to embrace God. While salvation is offered to the world through Jesus Christ, redemption only comes to those who embrace this gift of grace. Not embracing grace is an eternally serious continuation of a person’s chosen distortion of their original design. By choosing, these persons remain separated from God. These that are eternally separated will exist in hell. Fires that forever burn but never consume are difficult to fathom. What is fathomable, however, is how horrible it would be to be separated from God, from others, and from creation for all eternity. That is the reality of hell, regardless of its décor and activity; and that is scary enough! Although the reality must be conceded that hell exists, we ought never to cease praying that when it all ends, hell is empty.
Getting to these places or states of eternal existence is a question that has baffled theologians for thousands of years. I do not believe, as Luther did, that we go to sleep and nothing happens until Christ’s return; nor do I believe as Calvin did, that we go immediately to our full reward or punishment (Placher, 332). Additionally, intermediate states such as purgatory are tenuous. Instead, when death comes, those in Christ continue to be in Christ as our souls go on to be in the presence of God. Those not in Christ, begin to their eternal separation from God. Neither of these states is fulfilled, however, until Christ returns. Upon the arrival of the parousia those in Christ will be fully restored to the newly created order, including the bodily resurrection. How God will accomplish this is a mystery. We must trust that the Creator of the universe is capable of bringing about and faithful to bring about, what he has promised.
As already alluded to, the final destiny of all things is not fully complete until all of the created order is redeemed and there is a new heaven and a new earth. If we are to take seriously our commitment to God in his entirety, our commitment to God’s activity within the world, then we must admit that all of creation (not just humanity) benefits from God’s saving grace. Anything less could not be considered to come of God.
I look forward to your comments.
Showing posts with label Systematic Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Systematic Theology. Show all posts
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Systematic Theology - Ecclesiology
Ecclesiology
The Nature of the Church:
There are many ways to define the Church. For example, the Church is a communion delighting in thanksgiving for the union of human life and eternal life that is given to us in Jesus Christ (Morse, 299). Or, the Church is “the beginning of God’s new, inclusive community of liberated creatures reconciled to God and to each other and called to God’s service in the world” (Migliore, 186). Yet another says that although the Church is not equal to the reign of God, the Church universal is a sign of God’s reign (Mil Voces, 70). Finally, the Church can be viewed as “the vessel of God’s Word of grace” (Benne, 196). These definitions bring to mind many questions. For example, how do we move from thanksgiving to mission? Or, how is the Church, plagued by division and dissent, a sign of the reign of God? Or, how is the Church a vessel of God’s Word of grace when some of the most horrific acts of hatred and violence have come from within? Add to these definitions the metaphors provided to us in Scripture, and we are left with a convoluted mess of descriptors and no real definition as to what it means to be the Church.
At first glance, the Nicene Creed attempts to alleviate this tension by attributing defining characteristics to the Church; namely, that we believe in “one holy catholic and apostolic church” (UMH, 880). This understanding, however, is replete with its own difficulties, for it has been subjected to interpretation without canonical grounding or commitment. For example, the Church can be viewed as one because it has one source in Jesus Christ; holy, because it has been elected by God; catholic, because it “strives to impart the fullness of God’s revelation and to embrace all Christians through all time and space;” and apostolic because “we believe that the Spirit has assured an accurate continuity through the ages in the Church’s witness to Christ” (Benne, 206). This interpretation lacks the full intimacy that exists between the Holy Spirit and the Church and mistakenly neglects the understanding that Christ’s activity in salvation was once and for all; it is not Christ’s mission of imparting the fullness of God’s revelation that we partake in, but rather the mission that we partake in is the one that we were commissioned for by Christ.
What, then, is the nature of the Church? First, the Church is a direct result of the dynamic, divine, personal agency of the Spirit. The people of God are marked by the outpouring and indwelling of the Spirit. As such, the Church is called to wait upon the equipping, empowerment, and guidance of the Spirit in all that it does. Second, the nature of the Church is like the nature from which it is birthed, namely the nature of witness. The Spirit continues to witness in real and dynamic ways to the truth of Jesus Christ and that witness continues to point the Church and the world to that same truth. Third, the nature of the Church is missional. The Church is called to be a dynamic agent in the world with Christ as its head and the Spirit as its guide. The Church is called to go out, not to create havens of retreat. We cannot live up to our call to witness if we are not missional.
The marks of the Church provided to us in the Nicene Creed are at the heart of God’s intention and original establishment of our nature as the Church; we are “one holy catholic and apostolic church” (UMH, 880). Being one is necessary; otherwise, is our witness in truth? We need only remember Jesus praying, “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21). We are holy; set apart and different from the world around us and serving no other purpose but God’s (Abraham, 2008). We are apostolic, ever leaning on the teachings of the apostles and their genuine transmission from generation to generation. And we are catholic in that we move as a single body, universally cohesive, always considering the edification of that body in relation to God and not our own special interests.
This presents the obvious problem of how the Church actually is today. While the dynamics of agency on the part of the Spirit may be obvious in some areas of the Church, much is lacking—especially relating to the previously mentioned marks of the Church. This is attributable to the fact that in as much as there is agency on the part of God through the Holy Spirit, there is also agency on the part of the humans that make up the Church. The Church is no less responsible for confession and repentance than the members are who make it up. Much is to be gained by recommitting ourselves to the Spirit that called us into being and seeks to restore us in right relationship, reordering our love towards God and others.
The Church’s Mission:
The mission of the Church was first given to the apostles when Jesus gave them the commission to go forth and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20). The mission was to be embarked upon only once the promise of the Spirit had come upon them (Acts 1:4-5). Since the time of Jesus’ proclamation of the Great Commission and Pentecost, the mission of the Church has remained the same; to witness to Christ by teaching all that the apostles had learned, to make disciples, and to baptize them into the family of God. The mission of the Church is fulfilled through worship, teaching, preaching, serving, and administering the sacraments because these all point to the ultimate self-revealing and saving actions of God through Jesus Christ.
The Sacraments:
The sacraments are outward signs of an inward grace, and are also a means to the grace “by which God works invisibly in us, quickening, strengthening and confirming our faith in him” (BOD, 68). While Wesley posits that there are numerous means of grace, there is something special about the sacraments. First, they are ordained and instituted by Christ. Christ is baptized at the beginning of his ministry and prior to his ascension the apostles are called to go forth baptizing. Christ, at the last supper, institutes the Eucharist when he gives bread and wine to his disciples. Second, only those who are properly ordained are to preside over the sacraments. This is sound historical and theological thinking; however, if we are to truly live into duly administering the sacraments, churches like the United Methodist who operate with an ecclesiology of exception, must truly confess, repent, and reorder their sacramental lives in order to be in tune with the Church universal. Solving this problem will make great strides towards being the Church universal. Third, the real presence of Christ exists in these sacraments by the power of the Spirit.
There are two sacraments; and these are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism marks our initiation into the body of Christ, while the Lord’s Supper sustains our growth in that relationship with God and with others. In both cases, it is God, not the one presiding, that is at work in the lives of the recipients. While the Lord’s Supper can be, and should be, taken with great frequency; baptism is unrepeatable. Staying in tune with the character and nature of God, we must admit that what God does once, God does right. While neither of the sacraments are necessary for salvation, they are still essential to the Christian’s life and faith as means to encounter God’s grace and to grow in the very same.
I would love to hear how more about what you think about ecclesiology. What was left out here? What more needs to be said?
The Nature of the Church:
There are many ways to define the Church. For example, the Church is a communion delighting in thanksgiving for the union of human life and eternal life that is given to us in Jesus Christ (Morse, 299). Or, the Church is “the beginning of God’s new, inclusive community of liberated creatures reconciled to God and to each other and called to God’s service in the world” (Migliore, 186). Yet another says that although the Church is not equal to the reign of God, the Church universal is a sign of God’s reign (Mil Voces, 70). Finally, the Church can be viewed as “the vessel of God’s Word of grace” (Benne, 196). These definitions bring to mind many questions. For example, how do we move from thanksgiving to mission? Or, how is the Church, plagued by division and dissent, a sign of the reign of God? Or, how is the Church a vessel of God’s Word of grace when some of the most horrific acts of hatred and violence have come from within? Add to these definitions the metaphors provided to us in Scripture, and we are left with a convoluted mess of descriptors and no real definition as to what it means to be the Church.
At first glance, the Nicene Creed attempts to alleviate this tension by attributing defining characteristics to the Church; namely, that we believe in “one holy catholic and apostolic church” (UMH, 880). This understanding, however, is replete with its own difficulties, for it has been subjected to interpretation without canonical grounding or commitment. For example, the Church can be viewed as one because it has one source in Jesus Christ; holy, because it has been elected by God; catholic, because it “strives to impart the fullness of God’s revelation and to embrace all Christians through all time and space;” and apostolic because “we believe that the Spirit has assured an accurate continuity through the ages in the Church’s witness to Christ” (Benne, 206). This interpretation lacks the full intimacy that exists between the Holy Spirit and the Church and mistakenly neglects the understanding that Christ’s activity in salvation was once and for all; it is not Christ’s mission of imparting the fullness of God’s revelation that we partake in, but rather the mission that we partake in is the one that we were commissioned for by Christ.
What, then, is the nature of the Church? First, the Church is a direct result of the dynamic, divine, personal agency of the Spirit. The people of God are marked by the outpouring and indwelling of the Spirit. As such, the Church is called to wait upon the equipping, empowerment, and guidance of the Spirit in all that it does. Second, the nature of the Church is like the nature from which it is birthed, namely the nature of witness. The Spirit continues to witness in real and dynamic ways to the truth of Jesus Christ and that witness continues to point the Church and the world to that same truth. Third, the nature of the Church is missional. The Church is called to be a dynamic agent in the world with Christ as its head and the Spirit as its guide. The Church is called to go out, not to create havens of retreat. We cannot live up to our call to witness if we are not missional.
The marks of the Church provided to us in the Nicene Creed are at the heart of God’s intention and original establishment of our nature as the Church; we are “one holy catholic and apostolic church” (UMH, 880). Being one is necessary; otherwise, is our witness in truth? We need only remember Jesus praying, “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21). We are holy; set apart and different from the world around us and serving no other purpose but God’s (Abraham, 2008). We are apostolic, ever leaning on the teachings of the apostles and their genuine transmission from generation to generation. And we are catholic in that we move as a single body, universally cohesive, always considering the edification of that body in relation to God and not our own special interests.
This presents the obvious problem of how the Church actually is today. While the dynamics of agency on the part of the Spirit may be obvious in some areas of the Church, much is lacking—especially relating to the previously mentioned marks of the Church. This is attributable to the fact that in as much as there is agency on the part of God through the Holy Spirit, there is also agency on the part of the humans that make up the Church. The Church is no less responsible for confession and repentance than the members are who make it up. Much is to be gained by recommitting ourselves to the Spirit that called us into being and seeks to restore us in right relationship, reordering our love towards God and others.
The Church’s Mission:
The mission of the Church was first given to the apostles when Jesus gave them the commission to go forth and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20). The mission was to be embarked upon only once the promise of the Spirit had come upon them (Acts 1:4-5). Since the time of Jesus’ proclamation of the Great Commission and Pentecost, the mission of the Church has remained the same; to witness to Christ by teaching all that the apostles had learned, to make disciples, and to baptize them into the family of God. The mission of the Church is fulfilled through worship, teaching, preaching, serving, and administering the sacraments because these all point to the ultimate self-revealing and saving actions of God through Jesus Christ.
The Sacraments:
The sacraments are outward signs of an inward grace, and are also a means to the grace “by which God works invisibly in us, quickening, strengthening and confirming our faith in him” (BOD, 68). While Wesley posits that there are numerous means of grace, there is something special about the sacraments. First, they are ordained and instituted by Christ. Christ is baptized at the beginning of his ministry and prior to his ascension the apostles are called to go forth baptizing. Christ, at the last supper, institutes the Eucharist when he gives bread and wine to his disciples. Second, only those who are properly ordained are to preside over the sacraments. This is sound historical and theological thinking; however, if we are to truly live into duly administering the sacraments, churches like the United Methodist who operate with an ecclesiology of exception, must truly confess, repent, and reorder their sacramental lives in order to be in tune with the Church universal. Solving this problem will make great strides towards being the Church universal. Third, the real presence of Christ exists in these sacraments by the power of the Spirit.
There are two sacraments; and these are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism marks our initiation into the body of Christ, while the Lord’s Supper sustains our growth in that relationship with God and with others. In both cases, it is God, not the one presiding, that is at work in the lives of the recipients. While the Lord’s Supper can be, and should be, taken with great frequency; baptism is unrepeatable. Staying in tune with the character and nature of God, we must admit that what God does once, God does right. While neither of the sacraments are necessary for salvation, they are still essential to the Christian’s life and faith as means to encounter God’s grace and to grow in the very same.
I would love to hear how more about what you think about ecclesiology. What was left out here? What more needs to be said?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Systematic Theology - Soteriology
Here is the next installment of my credo sharing project:
Soteriology
By recognizing the seriousness and depth of the presence of sin and evil in the world, we find ourselves in a predicament that we are unable to get out of on our own. If everything previously stated is true, then the issue is not how humanity can vindicate God, but “how in the face of such evil does God vindicate us” (Morse, 216). Our full reconciliation requires a doctrine of salvation that comes from God and exemplifies the continuation of God’s graceful movement towards his good purposes. Christ’s death and resurrection accomplishes that very task.
Western theologians have posited a juridical metaphor to explain God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. This implies that there is some ransom or price that has to be paid in order for the relationship to be restored. I am more inclined towards images of wholeness and healing. It is true that the distortion of the image of God in us goes to the depths of our core. It is equally true that in a single self-sacrificial act of love, God draws near enough to eradicate that distortion and make us completely who we were made to be; made by God, for God, and for others. Therefore, salvation is our restoration to the capacity towards living out of love. This understanding recognizes how deeply sin has marred us by understanding that the only one that can bridge the chasm between us and God is God himself. Just as Christ heals the leper, Christ heals us. It is a total healing that happens on physical, spiritual, emotional, and relational levels (Matt. 8:1-4).
There is nothing lacking in this gift of salvation in Christ Jesus. There is no need for such an act to ever occur again. This saving act was complete in its power and its saving. Our communion liturgy reminds us that Christ has “delivered us from slavery to sin and death,” (UMH, 13) and Paul’s writings also remind us that there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:31-39). Taking these two statements together, along with other evidence within our canonical heritage, sin and death are no longer threats; they have been overcome. Christ’s victory was and is sufficient. As such, if we are truly living in light of these salvific acts and are living lives that lay claim to them through our faith in Christ, then we are equally justified and sanctified. In justification, we are accounted as loved by God because of what God has done in Christ, not by anything that we have done on our own. Juridically, our sins are forgiven and we are found righteous because of Christ’s righteousness. In a healing sense, salvation is the removal of that which has distorted us (the toxicity of sin, you might say). It is an immediate reorientation of the love within us that had been distorted. Sanctification, understood as an ongoing process of growing in holiness, is that sacred space where our continued healing occurs and all that is within us is reoriented to our original purposes. Some suggest that this can only be fully accomplished after death, but if the aforementioned act was so powerful that death and sin is already overcome then there is no reason why we cannot live without sin, in perfect love of God and one another, completely healed. To suggest anything less might be viewed as a cop out for those who desire to remain somewhat distorted in their loving. Because not everyone will devote themselves so fully to this gift of grace, “sin is acknowledged to remain, although no longer to reign” (Morse, 244).
A final comment is in order here relating to soteriology and the future. It should be noted that “the finished origin and providential continuance of covenant existence are seen in the gospel message to involve an expectancy that still awaits realization” (Morse, 220). More simply, some fullness of the salvific act remains for the future. Just as sin affected creation (not just humanity), so does salvation. While we are capable by grace to have a proper love of God and others in this life, those two relationships only comprise part of our relationships. The third relationship we were created to be in was with creation, and as such, that relationship must also be righted. This will happen at the time that Christ returns and will be addressed in greater detail in the section on eschatology.
Soteriology
By recognizing the seriousness and depth of the presence of sin and evil in the world, we find ourselves in a predicament that we are unable to get out of on our own. If everything previously stated is true, then the issue is not how humanity can vindicate God, but “how in the face of such evil does God vindicate us” (Morse, 216). Our full reconciliation requires a doctrine of salvation that comes from God and exemplifies the continuation of God’s graceful movement towards his good purposes. Christ’s death and resurrection accomplishes that very task.
Western theologians have posited a juridical metaphor to explain God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. This implies that there is some ransom or price that has to be paid in order for the relationship to be restored. I am more inclined towards images of wholeness and healing. It is true that the distortion of the image of God in us goes to the depths of our core. It is equally true that in a single self-sacrificial act of love, God draws near enough to eradicate that distortion and make us completely who we were made to be; made by God, for God, and for others. Therefore, salvation is our restoration to the capacity towards living out of love. This understanding recognizes how deeply sin has marred us by understanding that the only one that can bridge the chasm between us and God is God himself. Just as Christ heals the leper, Christ heals us. It is a total healing that happens on physical, spiritual, emotional, and relational levels (Matt. 8:1-4).
There is nothing lacking in this gift of salvation in Christ Jesus. There is no need for such an act to ever occur again. This saving act was complete in its power and its saving. Our communion liturgy reminds us that Christ has “delivered us from slavery to sin and death,” (UMH, 13) and Paul’s writings also remind us that there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:31-39). Taking these two statements together, along with other evidence within our canonical heritage, sin and death are no longer threats; they have been overcome. Christ’s victory was and is sufficient. As such, if we are truly living in light of these salvific acts and are living lives that lay claim to them through our faith in Christ, then we are equally justified and sanctified. In justification, we are accounted as loved by God because of what God has done in Christ, not by anything that we have done on our own. Juridically, our sins are forgiven and we are found righteous because of Christ’s righteousness. In a healing sense, salvation is the removal of that which has distorted us (the toxicity of sin, you might say). It is an immediate reorientation of the love within us that had been distorted. Sanctification, understood as an ongoing process of growing in holiness, is that sacred space where our continued healing occurs and all that is within us is reoriented to our original purposes. Some suggest that this can only be fully accomplished after death, but if the aforementioned act was so powerful that death and sin is already overcome then there is no reason why we cannot live without sin, in perfect love of God and one another, completely healed. To suggest anything less might be viewed as a cop out for those who desire to remain somewhat distorted in their loving. Because not everyone will devote themselves so fully to this gift of grace, “sin is acknowledged to remain, although no longer to reign” (Morse, 244).
A final comment is in order here relating to soteriology and the future. It should be noted that “the finished origin and providential continuance of covenant existence are seen in the gospel message to involve an expectancy that still awaits realization” (Morse, 220). More simply, some fullness of the salvific act remains for the future. Just as sin affected creation (not just humanity), so does salvation. While we are capable by grace to have a proper love of God and others in this life, those two relationships only comprise part of our relationships. The third relationship we were created to be in was with creation, and as such, that relationship must also be righted. This will happen at the time that Christ returns and will be addressed in greater detail in the section on eschatology.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Systematic Theology - Creation and Providence - Part V
Here is the original brief excerpt on evil:
Creation and Providence (Concluded)
Evil:
I believe that too often evil has been reduced to a descriptor of human agency and extreme acts of sinfulness. I believe that I stand in solidarity with other individuals, the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, Scripture, and the experience of millions of Christians around the world when I say that this simply is not enough. We Protestants must confess to and repent for our elusive and inexcusable behavior when faced with real evil and the demonic. A full description of evil and the demonic is beyond the scope of this work save for a couple of comments. First, these are not concepts, but realities that further evidence the fact that we are living in a fallen world; a fall that has affected both heaven and earth. Second, while this outside force of evil and its agents stand against God and all God stands for, God’s ultimate good purposes and the saving acts of Jesus Christ on the Cross, have already won the victory over these realities. This does not grant us freedom to ignore or dismiss their presence as either not our problem or as already taken care of, but instead calls us to fully participate with God in standing against such realities. How Protestants are to work with the Church to accomplish this is a task for another day.
Creation and Providence (Concluded)
Evil:
I believe that too often evil has been reduced to a descriptor of human agency and extreme acts of sinfulness. I believe that I stand in solidarity with other individuals, the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, Scripture, and the experience of millions of Christians around the world when I say that this simply is not enough. We Protestants must confess to and repent for our elusive and inexcusable behavior when faced with real evil and the demonic. A full description of evil and the demonic is beyond the scope of this work save for a couple of comments. First, these are not concepts, but realities that further evidence the fact that we are living in a fallen world; a fall that has affected both heaven and earth. Second, while this outside force of evil and its agents stand against God and all God stands for, God’s ultimate good purposes and the saving acts of Jesus Christ on the Cross, have already won the victory over these realities. This does not grant us freedom to ignore or dismiss their presence as either not our problem or as already taken care of, but instead calls us to fully participate with God in standing against such realities. How Protestants are to work with the Church to accomplish this is a task for another day.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Systematic Theology - Creation and Providence - Part IV
Here is the segment on Sin and Its Effects:
Creation and Providence (Continued)
Sin and its Effects:
Sin can be defined in a number of ways. First, sin is called an evil that acts as “an opposing force that seeks to annihilate the covenant life that God is calling into being” (Morse, 213). Second, sin is when creatures choose evil and humanity is alienated from its “authentic self,” from the image of God in us (Ruether, 159). Third, sin is a denial of our relatedness to God and, therefore, our need for God’s grace (Migliore, 130). Fourth, sin is a betrayal of the divine intent for God’s creation. That divine intent is that we were created in “for-otherness”—for God, for God’s creation, and for other human beings (Gonzalez, 136). Sin is both individual and corporate as it is “the violation of God’s image in us, which is precisely the image of God’s for-otherness” (Gonzalez, 137). Other descriptors of sin include: missing the mark, separation from God, disobedience, and so on. While these ideas about sin are not readily disposable, my favorite definition of sin involves a synthesis of ideas. Sin originates in the free agency of humanity who began by distrusting and being unfaithful to God (Abraham, 2008), acting in ways that places the love of themselves above their love of God (Marshall, 2008).
This latter definition of sin finds its origins in the story of our fall in Genesis, and continues throughout history as humanity continues to be unfaithful to God by placing their love for themselves over their love for God and others. Sin, understood this way, entails several implications. First, the entirety of the creation is affected by sin. Sinning corporately and individually, sinning against one another and ourselves, and sinning against God and God’s creation, leaves nothing created unmarred by sin. Second, we sin and are sinners, not because God has created sin or sin acts strictly as a force of outside evil directly opposed to God, but rather because it is a consequence of the fall; it is because of the original and ongoing distortion of our God given freedom and God’s permitting of that distortion as a potential (and now realized) consequence of granting such a freedom. Third, as a distortion, sin does not change our original ontological identities, but rather mars them so thoroughly that without God’s intervention, there is no way to fully restore the goodness that is God given. Fourth, sin creates separation from God; a separation so great that no one but God can overcome the chasm. Though imaged in the goodness of God, we are distorted creatures, in need of restoration that can only come from the source that gave us that goodness to begin with.
Creation and Providence (Continued)
Sin and its Effects:
Sin can be defined in a number of ways. First, sin is called an evil that acts as “an opposing force that seeks to annihilate the covenant life that God is calling into being” (Morse, 213). Second, sin is when creatures choose evil and humanity is alienated from its “authentic self,” from the image of God in us (Ruether, 159). Third, sin is a denial of our relatedness to God and, therefore, our need for God’s grace (Migliore, 130). Fourth, sin is a betrayal of the divine intent for God’s creation. That divine intent is that we were created in “for-otherness”—for God, for God’s creation, and for other human beings (Gonzalez, 136). Sin is both individual and corporate as it is “the violation of God’s image in us, which is precisely the image of God’s for-otherness” (Gonzalez, 137). Other descriptors of sin include: missing the mark, separation from God, disobedience, and so on. While these ideas about sin are not readily disposable, my favorite definition of sin involves a synthesis of ideas. Sin originates in the free agency of humanity who began by distrusting and being unfaithful to God (Abraham, 2008), acting in ways that places the love of themselves above their love of God (Marshall, 2008).
This latter definition of sin finds its origins in the story of our fall in Genesis, and continues throughout history as humanity continues to be unfaithful to God by placing their love for themselves over their love for God and others. Sin, understood this way, entails several implications. First, the entirety of the creation is affected by sin. Sinning corporately and individually, sinning against one another and ourselves, and sinning against God and God’s creation, leaves nothing created unmarred by sin. Second, we sin and are sinners, not because God has created sin or sin acts strictly as a force of outside evil directly opposed to God, but rather because it is a consequence of the fall; it is because of the original and ongoing distortion of our God given freedom and God’s permitting of that distortion as a potential (and now realized) consequence of granting such a freedom. Third, as a distortion, sin does not change our original ontological identities, but rather mars them so thoroughly that without God’s intervention, there is no way to fully restore the goodness that is God given. Fourth, sin creates separation from God; a separation so great that no one but God can overcome the chasm. Though imaged in the goodness of God, we are distorted creatures, in need of restoration that can only come from the source that gave us that goodness to begin with.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Systematic Theology - Creation and Providence - Part III
Here is the segment on The Human Creature:
Creation and Providence (Continued)
The Human Creature:
Scripture proclaims that God created humankind in God’s own image (Gen. 1:26). This truth begs the question: can we know something about ourselves based upon what we know of our Creator? The answer is yes and that is affirmed by other theologians writing such statements as, “since human beings are created ‘after God’s likeness,’ it is reasoned that this enables us to compare and contrast God’s being who God is with our being who we are” (Morse, 122). Central to this understanding are two ideas: we are made for each other and we are made to know and to love (Marshall, 2008). The Trinity, as a community of distinct persons, calls us to reflect on how we might be as human creatures. Our being made for one another, to be in community and to have an attitude of being for others outside of ourselves, reflects the very community of the Trinity. Likewise, we can see God’s longing to know us and to love us. Since we are made in the image of God, then we too must be made to know and to love. Thus, the image that we are made in can only find its full expression in community with God and others.
Other understandings of humanity are not as easily discernable from our knowledge of God. For example, when we recognize that God is the sole source of everything and everyone, we recognize God as our own Creator. We are created as something other than God, and though valued by God, we are not properly God; we are merely images of God. Additionally, we are made not just by God, but we are made for God. To be made for God is to insinuate that we have purpose in God’s created order and that we are made for intimacy and union with the One who created us (Marshall, 2008). Also of great importance is the fact that we are made with bodies. There is something inherently good in our having bodies. This assumption is posited simply because the second person of the Trinity has been resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven with nothing less than a body! Additionally, when we consider the fact that the angels were not given bodies as we were, there must be something important about our bodies. Furthermore, if our bodies were inherently bad, why would there be such importance for a resurrection that includes the body? The need of such emphasis would be unnecessary. While I cannot fathom the fullness of the body’s meaning, the fact that we were given them and that we are promised new ones upon Christ’s return signifies they are of great importance. Finally, any systematic theology that does not specifically recognize that we are made free is, at the very least, incomplete. This freedom is a gift from God, in that the God who wills to have communion with humanity gives humanity the freedom to return love for love (Migliore, 110). Without such freedom, we are reduced to mere puppets. This freedom gives us the opportunity to choose love. Love without such opportunity to choose it is not love at all.
Creation and Providence (Continued)
The Human Creature:
Scripture proclaims that God created humankind in God’s own image (Gen. 1:26). This truth begs the question: can we know something about ourselves based upon what we know of our Creator? The answer is yes and that is affirmed by other theologians writing such statements as, “since human beings are created ‘after God’s likeness,’ it is reasoned that this enables us to compare and contrast God’s being who God is with our being who we are” (Morse, 122). Central to this understanding are two ideas: we are made for each other and we are made to know and to love (Marshall, 2008). The Trinity, as a community of distinct persons, calls us to reflect on how we might be as human creatures. Our being made for one another, to be in community and to have an attitude of being for others outside of ourselves, reflects the very community of the Trinity. Likewise, we can see God’s longing to know us and to love us. Since we are made in the image of God, then we too must be made to know and to love. Thus, the image that we are made in can only find its full expression in community with God and others.
Other understandings of humanity are not as easily discernable from our knowledge of God. For example, when we recognize that God is the sole source of everything and everyone, we recognize God as our own Creator. We are created as something other than God, and though valued by God, we are not properly God; we are merely images of God. Additionally, we are made not just by God, but we are made for God. To be made for God is to insinuate that we have purpose in God’s created order and that we are made for intimacy and union with the One who created us (Marshall, 2008). Also of great importance is the fact that we are made with bodies. There is something inherently good in our having bodies. This assumption is posited simply because the second person of the Trinity has been resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven with nothing less than a body! Additionally, when we consider the fact that the angels were not given bodies as we were, there must be something important about our bodies. Furthermore, if our bodies were inherently bad, why would there be such importance for a resurrection that includes the body? The need of such emphasis would be unnecessary. While I cannot fathom the fullness of the body’s meaning, the fact that we were given them and that we are promised new ones upon Christ’s return signifies they are of great importance. Finally, any systematic theology that does not specifically recognize that we are made free is, at the very least, incomplete. This freedom is a gift from God, in that the God who wills to have communion with humanity gives humanity the freedom to return love for love (Migliore, 110). Without such freedom, we are reduced to mere puppets. This freedom gives us the opportunity to choose love. Love without such opportunity to choose it is not love at all.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Systematic Theology - Creation and Providence - Part II
Here is the segment on Providence:
Creation and Providence (Continued)
Providence:
Creation was not a single act in which a transcendent God, acting like a watch maker, put things in motion and left them to their own devices. Instead, God is involved in the ongoing transformation of the world. God not only originated creation, but also serves as sustainer and director of that creation. This is often referred to as God’s providence. Karl Barth best surmises this idea writing, “Everything that is, is created, upheld, and ruled by the one true God” (Barth, 57). How this happens can be best described by the Latin terms conservatio, gubernatio, and concursus. That is to say, God’s ongoing act in creation, or providence, exists as preservation, governance and cooperation (Pöhlmann, 22).
This admission has two very distinct implications. First, providence requires us to return to God’s attribute of omniscience. God acts in accordance with what God knows. Most doctrines of providence will push this idea, suggesting that God acts with the foresight or foreknowledge of what is going to happen (Abraham, 2007). So long as this ongoing activity of God does not violate the aforementioned understanding that God never acts coercively, it is an embraceable idea. The second implication is that God continuously provides for creation in line with His good purposes. These purposes can be described as God ‘making all things new’ by ordering relationships that work for “covenant fidelity in freedom” as the goal for the right order of God’s creation (Morse, 222). No matter how we delineate God’s good purposes, we are called to trust that God’s activity will never be in accordance with anything else other than God’s character and nature.
Creation and Providence (Continued)
Providence:
Creation was not a single act in which a transcendent God, acting like a watch maker, put things in motion and left them to their own devices. Instead, God is involved in the ongoing transformation of the world. God not only originated creation, but also serves as sustainer and director of that creation. This is often referred to as God’s providence. Karl Barth best surmises this idea writing, “Everything that is, is created, upheld, and ruled by the one true God” (Barth, 57). How this happens can be best described by the Latin terms conservatio, gubernatio, and concursus. That is to say, God’s ongoing act in creation, or providence, exists as preservation, governance and cooperation (Pöhlmann, 22).
This admission has two very distinct implications. First, providence requires us to return to God’s attribute of omniscience. God acts in accordance with what God knows. Most doctrines of providence will push this idea, suggesting that God acts with the foresight or foreknowledge of what is going to happen (Abraham, 2007). So long as this ongoing activity of God does not violate the aforementioned understanding that God never acts coercively, it is an embraceable idea. The second implication is that God continuously provides for creation in line with His good purposes. These purposes can be described as God ‘making all things new’ by ordering relationships that work for “covenant fidelity in freedom” as the goal for the right order of God’s creation (Morse, 222). No matter how we delineate God’s good purposes, we are called to trust that God’s activity will never be in accordance with anything else other than God’s character and nature.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Systematic Theology - Creation and Providence - Part I
Continuing with our discussion of systematic theology and my attempt at the credo, I am going to post an article each day for the next 5 days or so to cover the Creation and Providence part of the credo (which has the subcategories of Creation, Providence, the Human Creature, Sin and its effects, and Evil). I invite you to comment on each subcategory or wait until all 5 are posted to see how they are inter-related before commenting...the choice is yours.
Here is the segment on Creation:
Creation and Providence
Creation:
God created the heavens and the earth and all that inhabit them; God is the sole source of all that is. This statement causes us to question why God created in the first place. Some theologians have posited that God created the world because “God finds it unjust to be alone” (Herzog, 83). While there is much that we can know about God, I can find no support in Scripture, tradition, experience or reason to affirm this statement. After all, if God exists as a community of persons, how is it that God is alone? Furthermore, does this statement not demand that God is then dependent upon what God has created? I do not pretend to know, nor do I pretend knowledge on behalf of the Church, why God created. Such reasoning is unnecessary for the affirmation that God created. God is not dependent upon creation and creation is not necessary. If either were true, God would not be God as previously described; something would be missing from God or God could be considered imperfect or incomplete. Rather than perplex our finite minds with the reasoning behind God’s activity of creation, it is far more important to recognize that God is our Creator, and we are God’s creation. This implies a relationship of dependence; namely, it describes our dependence upon God. As Paul reminds us, it is in him that “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).
There are a few clarifying remarks to make about God’s creation. First, this creative act of God was done ex nihilo. This removes from God any dependence upon the created order. Additionally, this implies the fact that while creation is of God, it is not God (Abraham, 2007). Second, as is recorded in the Scriptures, all that God created was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Nothing was lacking and God’s acceptance of creation was complete. The ramifications of this understanding will become more apparent in my statements regarding the human condition and sin. Third, the act of creation, although attributed to the Father, is an act of the Trinity. All three persons of the Trinity are involved “according to the way that is distinctive to each” (Morse, 207). Fourth, we are able to know something of God because of God’s actions. This means that creation serves, not in a natural function, but rather in a general function, as an act of the self-revelation of God (Abraham, 2007). Finally, God relates to the created order the same way that God relates to God’s self in the Trinity. This is surmised in the statement that “the commonality that exists within the Trinity is the pattern and goal of creation” (Gonzalez, 113).
Here is the segment on Creation:
Creation and Providence
Creation:
God created the heavens and the earth and all that inhabit them; God is the sole source of all that is. This statement causes us to question why God created in the first place. Some theologians have posited that God created the world because “God finds it unjust to be alone” (Herzog, 83). While there is much that we can know about God, I can find no support in Scripture, tradition, experience or reason to affirm this statement. After all, if God exists as a community of persons, how is it that God is alone? Furthermore, does this statement not demand that God is then dependent upon what God has created? I do not pretend to know, nor do I pretend knowledge on behalf of the Church, why God created. Such reasoning is unnecessary for the affirmation that God created. God is not dependent upon creation and creation is not necessary. If either were true, God would not be God as previously described; something would be missing from God or God could be considered imperfect or incomplete. Rather than perplex our finite minds with the reasoning behind God’s activity of creation, it is far more important to recognize that God is our Creator, and we are God’s creation. This implies a relationship of dependence; namely, it describes our dependence upon God. As Paul reminds us, it is in him that “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).
There are a few clarifying remarks to make about God’s creation. First, this creative act of God was done ex nihilo. This removes from God any dependence upon the created order. Additionally, this implies the fact that while creation is of God, it is not God (Abraham, 2007). Second, as is recorded in the Scriptures, all that God created was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Nothing was lacking and God’s acceptance of creation was complete. The ramifications of this understanding will become more apparent in my statements regarding the human condition and sin. Third, the act of creation, although attributed to the Father, is an act of the Trinity. All three persons of the Trinity are involved “according to the way that is distinctive to each” (Morse, 207). Fourth, we are able to know something of God because of God’s actions. This means that creation serves, not in a natural function, but rather in a general function, as an act of the self-revelation of God (Abraham, 2007). Finally, God relates to the created order the same way that God relates to God’s self in the Trinity. This is surmised in the statement that “the commonality that exists within the Trinity is the pattern and goal of creation” (Gonzalez, 113).
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Systematic Theology - Pneumatology
Pneumatology
To continue to delineate the fullest understanding of God, it is imperative that we turn our attention towards the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). These words foretell the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the people of God. It is the promise that comforts the disciples as Christ ascends and finds its fulfillment in both the historical act of Pentecost and in our baptism into the Church. To delineate God as Triune and not speak directly of the person and works of the Holy Spirit is to miss the fullness of God’s ongoing self-revelation to the world.
The Nature of the Holy Spirit:
The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, fully God in nature and all attributes. Thus, the Spirit can only be understood in the Spirit’s indivisible relationship with the Father and the Son because the hypostatic union of the 3 persons of the Trinity is the basis for their common nature or essence and their individual work in the world (Lossky, 159). Less is posited about the Spirit’s nature because the Spirit comes to us as the unmanifested portion of the Trinity. The Father is manifest in the Son and the Son is manifest in the Spirit, but the Spirit remains concealed and hidden in the world. It is through the Spirit’s presence in the world today that God is continuing his self-revelation and by which the Spirit is coming to be more clearly known (Lossky, 161). This ongoing self-revelation is communicated by two different means; the first is through the unity and bonding of the Church and the second is in the bestowing of gifts to the individual human person (Lossky, 167-170). A discussion of the Spirit naturally inclines itself to the work of the Spirit.
The Work of the Holy Spirit:
Through the Holy Spirit “God, Creator of all that exists, gives us power to become new creatures; whose infinite gifts make us one people: the Body of Christ” (Mil Voces, 70). The work of the Spirit must always be said to be the work of God. The Spirit testifies to Christ, and in Christ we have not only seen, but also have known the Father. As such, the Spirit works with Christ to build up the Church and help with the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. But the work of the Spirit does not stop there.
When we embark on our journey of faith, we effectively form a relationship with the Trinity through our faith in Jesus Christ, and in that commitment, we are drawn into a deeper, more authentic life in Christ. This, too, is the working of the Spirit; for it is only by the power of the Spirit that we are able to respond in the ways of holiness and love that Christ calls us to. Thus, the living out of our faith, equipped and empowered by the Spirit, is a “linking up of the life span of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, with our own life span” (Morse, 180). As such, the Spirit is about the ongoing work of God’s grace. We are one by the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. The Spirit unites us with Christ and enables us to continue our growth in grace.
This work of the Spirit is the love of God in the world and is necessary. St. Augustine confirms this saying, “For man has no means of loving God, unless it comes from God” (Wiles and Santer, 93). Without the presence and working of the Spirit, we would not be able to embrace the truth that is Jesus Christ and that points to the Father. Paul also reminds us, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5).
In the gift of the Spirit, God is giving himself to us, sharing with us the way that He “is said to live, both in self-relation and in relation to creation” (Morse, 182). In this way we can see the healing, teaching, nurturing, and grace filled work of the Spirit as the ongoing self-revelation of God. In encountering the Spirit, we learn a little more about what it is to be in relationship with God and one another and how that encounter always points towards love and wholeness. We see this draw towards love and wholeness on the part of God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—within the pages of Scripture. From the deliverance of God’s people in the Old Testament to the miraculous healings in the New Testament, God always loves and moves towards wholeness. The Spirit, being fully God, always acts in accordance with what we know of God, from within those very same texts. This is why we insist that “what is communicated of God through the Word is thus professed to be communicated in the Spirit” (Morse, 172). The Spirit is nothing less than God’s communicative presence; both the gift and the giver of God’s infinite grace.
Paul said that it is “God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment” (2 Cor. 1:21-22). The final work of the Spirit, then, is to allow “the believing community to live already, at least partially, in the ‘not yet’ of the Reign” (Gonzalez, 162). It is the outpouring of grace, in and by the Spirit that enables us to see now in part, what we will only fully realize in the future. The first installment means there is more to come, but God dwelling within us—that is, the Spirit’s work in and through us—is a foretaste of that glorious future that the Spirit attests to in all of his activity in the world.
The Holy Spirit is often the most neglected person of the Trinity in my readings and studies. What other information would you include? How would you handle the co-eternal aspect of the Spirit in light of the scriptures or information presented here?
To continue to delineate the fullest understanding of God, it is imperative that we turn our attention towards the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). These words foretell the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the people of God. It is the promise that comforts the disciples as Christ ascends and finds its fulfillment in both the historical act of Pentecost and in our baptism into the Church. To delineate God as Triune and not speak directly of the person and works of the Holy Spirit is to miss the fullness of God’s ongoing self-revelation to the world.
The Nature of the Holy Spirit:
The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, fully God in nature and all attributes. Thus, the Spirit can only be understood in the Spirit’s indivisible relationship with the Father and the Son because the hypostatic union of the 3 persons of the Trinity is the basis for their common nature or essence and their individual work in the world (Lossky, 159). Less is posited about the Spirit’s nature because the Spirit comes to us as the unmanifested portion of the Trinity. The Father is manifest in the Son and the Son is manifest in the Spirit, but the Spirit remains concealed and hidden in the world. It is through the Spirit’s presence in the world today that God is continuing his self-revelation and by which the Spirit is coming to be more clearly known (Lossky, 161). This ongoing self-revelation is communicated by two different means; the first is through the unity and bonding of the Church and the second is in the bestowing of gifts to the individual human person (Lossky, 167-170). A discussion of the Spirit naturally inclines itself to the work of the Spirit.
The Work of the Holy Spirit:
Through the Holy Spirit “God, Creator of all that exists, gives us power to become new creatures; whose infinite gifts make us one people: the Body of Christ” (Mil Voces, 70). The work of the Spirit must always be said to be the work of God. The Spirit testifies to Christ, and in Christ we have not only seen, but also have known the Father. As such, the Spirit works with Christ to build up the Church and help with the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. But the work of the Spirit does not stop there.
When we embark on our journey of faith, we effectively form a relationship with the Trinity through our faith in Jesus Christ, and in that commitment, we are drawn into a deeper, more authentic life in Christ. This, too, is the working of the Spirit; for it is only by the power of the Spirit that we are able to respond in the ways of holiness and love that Christ calls us to. Thus, the living out of our faith, equipped and empowered by the Spirit, is a “linking up of the life span of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, with our own life span” (Morse, 180). As such, the Spirit is about the ongoing work of God’s grace. We are one by the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. The Spirit unites us with Christ and enables us to continue our growth in grace.
This work of the Spirit is the love of God in the world and is necessary. St. Augustine confirms this saying, “For man has no means of loving God, unless it comes from God” (Wiles and Santer, 93). Without the presence and working of the Spirit, we would not be able to embrace the truth that is Jesus Christ and that points to the Father. Paul also reminds us, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5).
In the gift of the Spirit, God is giving himself to us, sharing with us the way that He “is said to live, both in self-relation and in relation to creation” (Morse, 182). In this way we can see the healing, teaching, nurturing, and grace filled work of the Spirit as the ongoing self-revelation of God. In encountering the Spirit, we learn a little more about what it is to be in relationship with God and one another and how that encounter always points towards love and wholeness. We see this draw towards love and wholeness on the part of God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—within the pages of Scripture. From the deliverance of God’s people in the Old Testament to the miraculous healings in the New Testament, God always loves and moves towards wholeness. The Spirit, being fully God, always acts in accordance with what we know of God, from within those very same texts. This is why we insist that “what is communicated of God through the Word is thus professed to be communicated in the Spirit” (Morse, 172). The Spirit is nothing less than God’s communicative presence; both the gift and the giver of God’s infinite grace.
Paul said that it is “God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment” (2 Cor. 1:21-22). The final work of the Spirit, then, is to allow “the believing community to live already, at least partially, in the ‘not yet’ of the Reign” (Gonzalez, 162). It is the outpouring of grace, in and by the Spirit that enables us to see now in part, what we will only fully realize in the future. The first installment means there is more to come, but God dwelling within us—that is, the Spirit’s work in and through us—is a foretaste of that glorious future that the Spirit attests to in all of his activity in the world.
The Holy Spirit is often the most neglected person of the Trinity in my readings and studies. What other information would you include? How would you handle the co-eternal aspect of the Spirit in light of the scriptures or information presented here?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Systematic Theology - Christology Part III
Here is our final installment on Christology:
Our Lives in Christ: Who Christ is and what Christ has done has direct bearing upon creation, the human community, and especially upon those of us who claim to be his followers. While most of this will be addressed in the sections on soteriology and eschatology, there are some additional comments that are necessary before proceeding.
First, we must remember that no matter how high our Christology is, Christ is not God alone. Jesus tells Thomas that, “If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him" (John 14:7). Christ exists in community with the Father and the Holy Spirit. By embracing Christ in our lives, we are embracing the Triune God of which Christ is a part and of which Christ continually points us towards. This passage of Scripture reminds us that when we have encountered Christ, we have encountered the One from which he is begotten. As God’s ultimate self-revealing act, Christ grants us the privilege to experience the very heart of God in our faith in and relationship with him.
Second, our encounter with Christ calls us to reexamine reality because in Christ humanity is “gripped by a new reality” (Herzog, 92). This is because Christ points us towards reorientation; an orientation that brings Christ-likeness to us by directing us towards those that Christ was directed to—the poor and the outcasts (Herzog, 93). In such an encounter, humanity is invited to respond in faith to what God has done for them in Jesus Christ. It is also an invitation for us to participate in the divine life through the “indwelling spirit of the crucified and risen Christ” (Musser and Price, 251).
Finally, everything that has happened has been a willful and loving act of God. It has happened for our greatest good and without our deserving it. All that is of Christ is of the one holy Triune God, who put on flesh, dwelt amongst us, and took on the fullness of humanity that we may be fully reconciled to God. All of this comes to us as a gift of God, freely given to all. This gift requires our acceptance in faith. By accepting God’s gracious gift in Christ, we are committing to accepting his mantle for the entirety of our lives as our Prophet, our Priest, and our King. This commitment in faith is one that will radically alter our very existence, now and forever, as we bear the marks of his disciples and live radically reordered lives.
What do you think; how does the nature and work of Christ define our relationship with Christ?
Our Lives in Christ: Who Christ is and what Christ has done has direct bearing upon creation, the human community, and especially upon those of us who claim to be his followers. While most of this will be addressed in the sections on soteriology and eschatology, there are some additional comments that are necessary before proceeding.
First, we must remember that no matter how high our Christology is, Christ is not God alone. Jesus tells Thomas that, “If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him" (John 14:7). Christ exists in community with the Father and the Holy Spirit. By embracing Christ in our lives, we are embracing the Triune God of which Christ is a part and of which Christ continually points us towards. This passage of Scripture reminds us that when we have encountered Christ, we have encountered the One from which he is begotten. As God’s ultimate self-revealing act, Christ grants us the privilege to experience the very heart of God in our faith in and relationship with him.
Second, our encounter with Christ calls us to reexamine reality because in Christ humanity is “gripped by a new reality” (Herzog, 92). This is because Christ points us towards reorientation; an orientation that brings Christ-likeness to us by directing us towards those that Christ was directed to—the poor and the outcasts (Herzog, 93). In such an encounter, humanity is invited to respond in faith to what God has done for them in Jesus Christ. It is also an invitation for us to participate in the divine life through the “indwelling spirit of the crucified and risen Christ” (Musser and Price, 251).
Finally, everything that has happened has been a willful and loving act of God. It has happened for our greatest good and without our deserving it. All that is of Christ is of the one holy Triune God, who put on flesh, dwelt amongst us, and took on the fullness of humanity that we may be fully reconciled to God. All of this comes to us as a gift of God, freely given to all. This gift requires our acceptance in faith. By accepting God’s gracious gift in Christ, we are committing to accepting his mantle for the entirety of our lives as our Prophet, our Priest, and our King. This commitment in faith is one that will radically alter our very existence, now and forever, as we bear the marks of his disciples and live radically reordered lives.
What do you think; how does the nature and work of Christ define our relationship with Christ?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Systematic Theology - Christology Part II
Here is the next installment:
The Work of Jesus Christ:
Understanding the fullness of Christ’s nature leads us to a discussion of his workings in human history. Often, the work of Jesus is described in threefold form based upon the offices that are attributed to him. These offices bear the labels, Prophet, Priest, and King (“Loci…,” 2007). Keeping in mind that the work of the Son is equally the work of the Triune God, let us look briefly at the acts that are most frequently attributed to our Lord.
Jesus proclaims "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news"(Mark 1:14-15). These words point to the in-breaking of God’s kingdom through Jesus Christ. It is through Christ’s proclamation of such words, as well as his healings, forgiveness, and teachings, that his prophetic office is fulfilled. Everything that Christ does and says points towards the Father who sent him and towards the fulfillment of this in-breaking at some future point. It is a foretaste of the fullness of the kingdom of God that we have in Christ’s enfleshment and presence in history. Christ’s prophetic voice presents us with a revolutionary understanding of what it means to be in relationship with God.
“Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17). Jesus is the high priest to all of humanity in that he offers sacrifice on behalf of the world for the forgiveness of sins. Christ’s actions as high priest are definitively different from those appointed to this task within the Jewish tradition in that Christ’s sacrifice was the self-sacrifice of God. He was the unblemished Lamb that was offered freely and lovingly.
Scripture also highlights the third office of Christ, in that it recognizes Christ as “the King of kings” (1 Tim. 6:13-15). This acknowledgement of Christ recognizes both the act of deliverance and the attribute of sovereignty granted to him as King. It points towards the ultimate fulfillment of salvation where heaven and earth are reordered and God is with God’s people.
While the work of Christ is perfect and complete, it has not reached the fullness of its expression. The liturgy of the Lord’s Supper calls the participants to proclaim the mystery of faith which includes the statement that “Christ will come again” (UMH, 14). This proclamation of faith recognizes the greatest work that was done in and through Jesus Christ by attesting to Christ’s death on a cross, his resurrection, and the promise that he is coming again. As such, there is testimony to the work that has already been fully complete, but has yet to reach its fullest realization. There is no need for the work to be repeated, but it is only in some future point that the fullness of this act will be understood.
More will be expressed when we get to the sections on Eschatology, but what are your thoughts regarding the way that the work of Christ's life, death and resurrection as they have been presented thus far?
The Work of Jesus Christ:
Understanding the fullness of Christ’s nature leads us to a discussion of his workings in human history. Often, the work of Jesus is described in threefold form based upon the offices that are attributed to him. These offices bear the labels, Prophet, Priest, and King (“Loci…,” 2007). Keeping in mind that the work of the Son is equally the work of the Triune God, let us look briefly at the acts that are most frequently attributed to our Lord.
Jesus proclaims "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news"(Mark 1:14-15). These words point to the in-breaking of God’s kingdom through Jesus Christ. It is through Christ’s proclamation of such words, as well as his healings, forgiveness, and teachings, that his prophetic office is fulfilled. Everything that Christ does and says points towards the Father who sent him and towards the fulfillment of this in-breaking at some future point. It is a foretaste of the fullness of the kingdom of God that we have in Christ’s enfleshment and presence in history. Christ’s prophetic voice presents us with a revolutionary understanding of what it means to be in relationship with God.
“Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17). Jesus is the high priest to all of humanity in that he offers sacrifice on behalf of the world for the forgiveness of sins. Christ’s actions as high priest are definitively different from those appointed to this task within the Jewish tradition in that Christ’s sacrifice was the self-sacrifice of God. He was the unblemished Lamb that was offered freely and lovingly.
Scripture also highlights the third office of Christ, in that it recognizes Christ as “the King of kings” (1 Tim. 6:13-15). This acknowledgement of Christ recognizes both the act of deliverance and the attribute of sovereignty granted to him as King. It points towards the ultimate fulfillment of salvation where heaven and earth are reordered and God is with God’s people.
While the work of Christ is perfect and complete, it has not reached the fullness of its expression. The liturgy of the Lord’s Supper calls the participants to proclaim the mystery of faith which includes the statement that “Christ will come again” (UMH, 14). This proclamation of faith recognizes the greatest work that was done in and through Jesus Christ by attesting to Christ’s death on a cross, his resurrection, and the promise that he is coming again. As such, there is testimony to the work that has already been fully complete, but has yet to reach its fullest realization. There is no need for the work to be repeated, but it is only in some future point that the fullness of this act will be understood.
More will be expressed when we get to the sections on Eschatology, but what are your thoughts regarding the way that the work of Christ's life, death and resurrection as they have been presented thus far?
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Systematic Theology - Christology Part I
Christology
Many theologians would immediately place a discussion of creation and providence following their delineation of the doctrine of God. Obviously, I have failed to follow in that path. It is essential that great care be taken in our expression of God. If we are fully committed to God as Triune, then we can only continue with a discussion of Christ. To not do so entails the danger of explicating a systematized theology that is not wholly God centered.
Christ’s Nature:
After talking with the disciples regarding what the community was saying about him, Jesus asks them directly, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:13-15). Perhaps no question has demanded more of the Church’s time and energy than this one. Countless councils and theologians have worked at hammering out an answer to this question. While space does not permit a full delineation of the arguments proposed by such early Church leaders as Tertullian, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius and others, it is important to note that their contributions to the process were significant. The questions that these early leaders raised and the responses that they debated birthed the most definitive and best explicated understandings of the nature of Christ; that understanding is the definition that came out of Chalcedon affirming that Jesus is “complete in his deity and complete—the very same—in his humanity…” (R. Norris, 159). This definition accepts the best thinking provided by both the schools of Antioch and Alexandria as it affirms Christ as one hypostasis in two natures. Embracing Christ’s nature this way forces us to always see Jesus as fully human and as fully God acting in our midst. Neither of the two natures can be viewed independently.
To recognize the full humanity of Jesus is to appreciate the awesome truth of how radically God draws near to us and how perfectly God draws us near to him. Without the full humanity and divinity of Jesus, the work that he was sent to complete would be impossible. Additionally, the recognition of the full divinity of Jesus means that everything we attribute to God must also be attributed to the Son. To say that God the Father is eternal, just, loving, powerful, and so on is to say that Jesus is also these very same things. Jesus is the full self-revelation of God to humanity.
More will be said in Parts II and III about The Work of Jesus Christ and Our Lives in Christ respectively.
For now, what are your thoughts regarding the nature of Christ that has been delineated here?
Many theologians would immediately place a discussion of creation and providence following their delineation of the doctrine of God. Obviously, I have failed to follow in that path. It is essential that great care be taken in our expression of God. If we are fully committed to God as Triune, then we can only continue with a discussion of Christ. To not do so entails the danger of explicating a systematized theology that is not wholly God centered.
Christ’s Nature:
After talking with the disciples regarding what the community was saying about him, Jesus asks them directly, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:13-15). Perhaps no question has demanded more of the Church’s time and energy than this one. Countless councils and theologians have worked at hammering out an answer to this question. While space does not permit a full delineation of the arguments proposed by such early Church leaders as Tertullian, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius and others, it is important to note that their contributions to the process were significant. The questions that these early leaders raised and the responses that they debated birthed the most definitive and best explicated understandings of the nature of Christ; that understanding is the definition that came out of Chalcedon affirming that Jesus is “complete in his deity and complete—the very same—in his humanity…” (R. Norris, 159). This definition accepts the best thinking provided by both the schools of Antioch and Alexandria as it affirms Christ as one hypostasis in two natures. Embracing Christ’s nature this way forces us to always see Jesus as fully human and as fully God acting in our midst. Neither of the two natures can be viewed independently.
To recognize the full humanity of Jesus is to appreciate the awesome truth of how radically God draws near to us and how perfectly God draws us near to him. Without the full humanity and divinity of Jesus, the work that he was sent to complete would be impossible. Additionally, the recognition of the full divinity of Jesus means that everything we attribute to God must also be attributed to the Son. To say that God the Father is eternal, just, loving, powerful, and so on is to say that Jesus is also these very same things. Jesus is the full self-revelation of God to humanity.
More will be said in Parts II and III about The Work of Jesus Christ and Our Lives in Christ respectively.
For now, what are your thoughts regarding the nature of Christ that has been delineated here?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Systematic Theology - Doctrine of God Part II
Between the move and getting a couple of things off the ground here in Port Arthur, I have not been keeping up with our systematic theology discussion. So to get back on track, here is the second part of our discussion on the doctrine of God:
God’s Attributes:
Perfect being theology suggests that God is “a thoroughly benevolent conscious agent with unlimited knowledge and power who is the necessarily existent, ontologically independent creative source of all else” (Morris, 40). There is no being that can be considered greater than the one that is described. This definition does not grasp all that our canonical heritage has to offer regarding God, but it does point us towards other ways in which we can describe God. Systematic theology refers to these alternatives as God’s attributes.
First, God is uncreated. There is no prior cause for God. Instead, God is the prior cause for all else in creation. God has always been in existence and there is no way for God to go out of existence. Second, God is not dependent upon anything within the created order. Instead, God is radically independent and free to act as God chooses for God’s own good purposes. This is what is meant by God’s “ontological independence” (Morris, 40). Third, God is both omnipotent and omniscient; God is capable of doing and knowing whatever is logically possible for God to do and know. These attributes are not to be mistaken for coercion and tyranny. God neither knows nor acts in such a way that limits the freedom that God has given to humanity. God neither predestines nor causes our actions (Abraham, 2007). Fourth, God is omnipresent. God both created time and space and indwells time and space. This means that God’s agency extended through all of the created order simultaneously (Abraham, 2007). This is only possible if God is both imminent and transcendent. Fifth, God is immutable. As such, God does not change God’s mind and God does not make mistakes (Miles, 2005). The core of God’s being cannot change, age, diminish, nor go away. Additionally, God’s fundamental faithfulness is unfailing. Sixth, God is Divine simplicity; nothing can be subtracted from God (Miles, 2005).
While this delineates some of the more crucial attributes for understanding God, it is by no means an exhaustive list. To be fair to the tradition, theologians have also described God as impassible, infinite, all loving, good, just, holy, worthy of worship, the source of all true human happiness and welfare, and so on. Space constraints do not allow for a description of God that more fully embraces all that can be known about God and God’s self-revelation.
God’s Activity in the World:
From creation to the present, and from now through our final redemption, God has been, is and will continue to be active in the world. God’s activity is seen in the Hebrews’ liberation from Egypt, provision for the Israelites in the wilderness, giving the law through Moses, speaking through the prophets, and in the sending of Jesus. Much can be learned about God by recognizing God’s activity in history. These activities are often associated with specific persons within the Trinity. For example, creation is attributed to God the Father, redemption to the Son, and the establishment of the Church to the Holy Spirit. Discussion of the remaining persons of the Trinity and their activities will occur in their respective loci.
Now it is your turn...what would you add to the list of attributes? How do we experience those additions? Is there an attribute that you would leave out? If so, why?
© Russell Hall/Radically Altered – 2009. All Rights Reserved.
God’s Attributes:
Perfect being theology suggests that God is “a thoroughly benevolent conscious agent with unlimited knowledge and power who is the necessarily existent, ontologically independent creative source of all else” (Morris, 40). There is no being that can be considered greater than the one that is described. This definition does not grasp all that our canonical heritage has to offer regarding God, but it does point us towards other ways in which we can describe God. Systematic theology refers to these alternatives as God’s attributes.
First, God is uncreated. There is no prior cause for God. Instead, God is the prior cause for all else in creation. God has always been in existence and there is no way for God to go out of existence. Second, God is not dependent upon anything within the created order. Instead, God is radically independent and free to act as God chooses for God’s own good purposes. This is what is meant by God’s “ontological independence” (Morris, 40). Third, God is both omnipotent and omniscient; God is capable of doing and knowing whatever is logically possible for God to do and know. These attributes are not to be mistaken for coercion and tyranny. God neither knows nor acts in such a way that limits the freedom that God has given to humanity. God neither predestines nor causes our actions (Abraham, 2007). Fourth, God is omnipresent. God both created time and space and indwells time and space. This means that God’s agency extended through all of the created order simultaneously (Abraham, 2007). This is only possible if God is both imminent and transcendent. Fifth, God is immutable. As such, God does not change God’s mind and God does not make mistakes (Miles, 2005). The core of God’s being cannot change, age, diminish, nor go away. Additionally, God’s fundamental faithfulness is unfailing. Sixth, God is Divine simplicity; nothing can be subtracted from God (Miles, 2005).
While this delineates some of the more crucial attributes for understanding God, it is by no means an exhaustive list. To be fair to the tradition, theologians have also described God as impassible, infinite, all loving, good, just, holy, worthy of worship, the source of all true human happiness and welfare, and so on. Space constraints do not allow for a description of God that more fully embraces all that can be known about God and God’s self-revelation.
God’s Activity in the World:
From creation to the present, and from now through our final redemption, God has been, is and will continue to be active in the world. God’s activity is seen in the Hebrews’ liberation from Egypt, provision for the Israelites in the wilderness, giving the law through Moses, speaking through the prophets, and in the sending of Jesus. Much can be learned about God by recognizing God’s activity in history. These activities are often associated with specific persons within the Trinity. For example, creation is attributed to God the Father, redemption to the Son, and the establishment of the Church to the Holy Spirit. Discussion of the remaining persons of the Trinity and their activities will occur in their respective loci.
Now it is your turn...what would you add to the list of attributes? How do we experience those additions? Is there an attribute that you would leave out? If so, why?
© Russell Hall/Radically Altered – 2009. All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Systematic Theology - Doctrine of God Part I
There was very little discussion around our first posting in systematic theology. I take that to mean that either very few people are reading and interested, or that they are waiting for the more exciting and difficult parts of systematic theology to get involved.
At any rate, we will move from prolegomena to the Doctrine of God in this week's posting. While the section involving the Doctrine of God is not extremely long in its current form, it perhaps has the most room for additional thoughts and insights. As such, we will post it in three different segments over the next three or more weeks. The sections we will be looking at are 1) the nature of God, 2) the attributes of God, and 3) God's activity in the world.
Here is the first of the aforementioned installments for our discussion:
Doctrine of God
Scripture refers to God as YHWH, Lord, Father, Jesus, Son, Holy Spirit, and the like. So, who is this God that we worship as Christians? After all, we are reminded in these words to Israel, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord alone,” (Deut. 6:4) that there is but one God. Yet Paul closes one of his letters by writing “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor. 13:13). These diverse expressions of God and God’s names in the pages of Scripture lend difficulty to the task of identifying and defining God. Therefore, to move forward it is necessary to discuss God in terms of God’s nature, attributes, and activity within the world.
God’s Nature:
God is triune; that is, God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God exists as three persons that are ontologically one, or, “The Godhead is a community of persons” (K. Norris, 287). Each of these persons exists eternally and is of the same substance. As such, when one person of the Trinity acts, all persons of the Trinity act. These are not modes of being in the modalistic sense, but rather, these modes of being regard how the persons of the Trinity are related to one another. Specifically, God the Father begets God the Son, and the Holy Spirit precedes from God the Father. In this manner the immanence of the Trinity, the way that God is with God’s self, is explicated relationally. Since the core of God’s being is relationship; God’s economy, the way God relates to the created order, is also ground in relationship. You cannot separate the economic Trinity from the immanent Trinity (Placher, 80). Through the exploration of Scripture, tradition and experience, we see that God’s activity within creation is relational through covenants, promises, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Throughout these activities God draws near to us and in turn draws us near to God. Hence, when we are drawn into relationship with God and transformed by God’s presence in our lives, we emulate the immanence and economy of the Trinity in our relationships with God, with others, and with the created order. When we affirm our belief in God, we are acknowledging the divinity of all persons of the Trinity and proclaiming the oneness of the Godhead; this is the crux of the nature of God. The difficulty of wrapping our finite minds around this concept may lend itself to approach the Trinity “not trying to explain it, but rather by seeking to imitate it” (Gonzalez and Maldanado, 54).
What are your thoughts!?!
© Russell Hall/Radically Altered – 2009. All Rights Reserved.
At any rate, we will move from prolegomena to the Doctrine of God in this week's posting. While the section involving the Doctrine of God is not extremely long in its current form, it perhaps has the most room for additional thoughts and insights. As such, we will post it in three different segments over the next three or more weeks. The sections we will be looking at are 1) the nature of God, 2) the attributes of God, and 3) God's activity in the world.
Here is the first of the aforementioned installments for our discussion:
Doctrine of God
Scripture refers to God as YHWH, Lord, Father, Jesus, Son, Holy Spirit, and the like. So, who is this God that we worship as Christians? After all, we are reminded in these words to Israel, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord alone,” (Deut. 6:4) that there is but one God. Yet Paul closes one of his letters by writing “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor. 13:13). These diverse expressions of God and God’s names in the pages of Scripture lend difficulty to the task of identifying and defining God. Therefore, to move forward it is necessary to discuss God in terms of God’s nature, attributes, and activity within the world.
God’s Nature:
God is triune; that is, God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God exists as three persons that are ontologically one, or, “The Godhead is a community of persons” (K. Norris, 287). Each of these persons exists eternally and is of the same substance. As such, when one person of the Trinity acts, all persons of the Trinity act. These are not modes of being in the modalistic sense, but rather, these modes of being regard how the persons of the Trinity are related to one another. Specifically, God the Father begets God the Son, and the Holy Spirit precedes from God the Father. In this manner the immanence of the Trinity, the way that God is with God’s self, is explicated relationally. Since the core of God’s being is relationship; God’s economy, the way God relates to the created order, is also ground in relationship. You cannot separate the economic Trinity from the immanent Trinity (Placher, 80). Through the exploration of Scripture, tradition and experience, we see that God’s activity within creation is relational through covenants, promises, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Throughout these activities God draws near to us and in turn draws us near to God. Hence, when we are drawn into relationship with God and transformed by God’s presence in our lives, we emulate the immanence and economy of the Trinity in our relationships with God, with others, and with the created order. When we affirm our belief in God, we are acknowledging the divinity of all persons of the Trinity and proclaiming the oneness of the Godhead; this is the crux of the nature of God. The difficulty of wrapping our finite minds around this concept may lend itself to approach the Trinity “not trying to explain it, but rather by seeking to imitate it” (Gonzalez and Maldanado, 54).
What are your thoughts!?!
© Russell Hall/Radically Altered – 2009. All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Systematic Theology - Prolegomena
As promised, here is the first posting in our new systematic theology category. I will follow up with some additional reflections throughout the week to come and at the end of the series, I will provide a complete bibliography/works cited document.
Prolegomena
Literally translated, credo means “I believe”. A definitive statement as to what those beliefs are and how they are arrived at is at the heart of the task of credo. Beliefs do not occur in a vacuum. They live in harmony and tension with the beliefs of others—past, present and future. A credo is as much a work of what I believe as it is a work of what is believed in the Christian tradition. Let us begin to lay the ground work and talk about first things first.
The credo at hand seeks a deeper understanding of God from the perspective of Christian faith. It is working from the inside out. There is a God and God is known in a self-revealing way. This becomes clear by looking at God’s divine self-revelation in the areas of the doctrine of God, Christology, pneumatology, the doctrine of creation and providence, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. In order to proceed, further discussion of systematic theology and epistemology is necessary.
Theology, derived either from the Latin theologia; or the Greek combination of theos meaning God and logos meaning speech, is defined as speech about God or God talk. This talk about God is undertaken scientifically or methodically in order to understand divine revelation (McKim, 280). Systematic theology is one branch of Christian theology that seeks to accomplish this task in an orderly and coherent way (McKim, 285). Therefore, this credo will utilize the aforementioned classic loci. This task requires deep critical appraisal, articulation, and appropriation of the beliefs that it explores. Rather than an exercise in mediocrity, it is an ongoing process of spiritual formation that acts as advanced catechesis in our faith journey (Abraham, 2007).
Critical appraisal, articulation, and appropriation cannot effectively take place outside of the Christian tradition. Therefore, we begin within the tradition. This assumes an encounter with the gospel, a transformative conversion that led to a relationship with Jesus Christ, an initiation into the Church through baptism, and a beginning on the journey of Christian discipleship. Our appraisal, articulation, and appropriation will concentrate on God’s work from creation to redemption. The God under discussion is “the Triune God professed to be known and loved within the Church” (Abraham, 2007).
Systematic theology has its own set of unique tasks. The first task is elucidation where beliefs are clarified and articulated. The second task of hermeneutics involves deep exploration that seeks out underlying distinctions of belief, how beliefs are interdependent, and why some beliefs are affirmed and others are denied. A tertiary task is re-storying; a process by which a belief is reclaimed, re-understood, re-applied, and sometimes improved upon. The fourth task is defense. Referred to as apologetics, this can be an attempt to protect the Church against false teachings, mere objections, or even slanderous accusations regarding its beliefs or it can be the pursuit of discovery that seeks to locate and delineate the foundations of why the Church believes the way it does (Abraham, 2007). While it would be noble to pursue each of these tasks, the primary focus of this credo is elucidation.
Epistemology must be addressed, especially regarding the utilization of methods, sources and norms. As previously mentioned; God reveals himself to us. This calls into question the ways in which God reveals. These are numerous. To Moses, God revealed himself in a burning bush. To Paul, God revealed himself on the road to Damascus. To the Church, God revealed himself through the Holy Spirit. To the disciples and to the world, God revealed himself through Jesus Christ. The epistemological tools for this process of exploring God’s self-revelation are Scripture, tradition, experience and reason (Book of Discipline, 77). Each of these bears witness to Jesus Christ and enables us to encounter this self-revealing God. Scripture attests to God’s activity in history from Abraham to Jesus and beyond (BOD, 78-79). Tradition reminds us that we are not alone on this journey and that we are informed by those whose shoulders we stand on, who have gone before us and canonized a heritage that we must become acquainted with in order to more fully embrace God (BOD, 79-81). Experience enlivens our faith. Both corporately and individually, experience entails encounter with the divine. This encounter moves faith from recognition to relationship; it is a place of transformation (BOD, 81-82). Finally, reason is the God given gift that allows us to confirm what we find “revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, and vivified in our experiences” (BOD, 77). While Scripture, tradition, experience and reason have been utilized as both sources and tools of knowing, I am reluctant to say that this is the definitive epistemological method. Room must be left for further discourse with philosophers and experts from other disciplines, in order to solidify a more fully embodied epistemology. The method is, however, an adequate jumping off point for the work ahead.
Finally, I have no reluctance in using the pronoun ‘him’ for God. I want to be clear that this is not a decision that was arrived at flippantly or haphazardly. I believe that masculine, feminine and neuter forms of address for God are all problematic. To change to a neutered or feminine pronoun appears to cause more problems than it would solve (Pinnock, 15-17). Considering this, I have opted for the continued use of the masculine pronoun to refer to all persons of the Trinity. With prolegomena now tackled, we now turn our attention more fully to God.
Let me know what you think. How would your approach be epistemologically different? Would you go with more traditional language or opt for some more modern metaphors when referring to God?
© Russell Hall/Radically Altered – 2009. All Rights Reserved
Prolegomena
Literally translated, credo means “I believe”. A definitive statement as to what those beliefs are and how they are arrived at is at the heart of the task of credo. Beliefs do not occur in a vacuum. They live in harmony and tension with the beliefs of others—past, present and future. A credo is as much a work of what I believe as it is a work of what is believed in the Christian tradition. Let us begin to lay the ground work and talk about first things first.
The credo at hand seeks a deeper understanding of God from the perspective of Christian faith. It is working from the inside out. There is a God and God is known in a self-revealing way. This becomes clear by looking at God’s divine self-revelation in the areas of the doctrine of God, Christology, pneumatology, the doctrine of creation and providence, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. In order to proceed, further discussion of systematic theology and epistemology is necessary.
Theology, derived either from the Latin theologia; or the Greek combination of theos meaning God and logos meaning speech, is defined as speech about God or God talk. This talk about God is undertaken scientifically or methodically in order to understand divine revelation (McKim, 280). Systematic theology is one branch of Christian theology that seeks to accomplish this task in an orderly and coherent way (McKim, 285). Therefore, this credo will utilize the aforementioned classic loci. This task requires deep critical appraisal, articulation, and appropriation of the beliefs that it explores. Rather than an exercise in mediocrity, it is an ongoing process of spiritual formation that acts as advanced catechesis in our faith journey (Abraham, 2007).
Critical appraisal, articulation, and appropriation cannot effectively take place outside of the Christian tradition. Therefore, we begin within the tradition. This assumes an encounter with the gospel, a transformative conversion that led to a relationship with Jesus Christ, an initiation into the Church through baptism, and a beginning on the journey of Christian discipleship. Our appraisal, articulation, and appropriation will concentrate on God’s work from creation to redemption. The God under discussion is “the Triune God professed to be known and loved within the Church” (Abraham, 2007).
Systematic theology has its own set of unique tasks. The first task is elucidation where beliefs are clarified and articulated. The second task of hermeneutics involves deep exploration that seeks out underlying distinctions of belief, how beliefs are interdependent, and why some beliefs are affirmed and others are denied. A tertiary task is re-storying; a process by which a belief is reclaimed, re-understood, re-applied, and sometimes improved upon. The fourth task is defense. Referred to as apologetics, this can be an attempt to protect the Church against false teachings, mere objections, or even slanderous accusations regarding its beliefs or it can be the pursuit of discovery that seeks to locate and delineate the foundations of why the Church believes the way it does (Abraham, 2007). While it would be noble to pursue each of these tasks, the primary focus of this credo is elucidation.
Epistemology must be addressed, especially regarding the utilization of methods, sources and norms. As previously mentioned; God reveals himself to us. This calls into question the ways in which God reveals. These are numerous. To Moses, God revealed himself in a burning bush. To Paul, God revealed himself on the road to Damascus. To the Church, God revealed himself through the Holy Spirit. To the disciples and to the world, God revealed himself through Jesus Christ. The epistemological tools for this process of exploring God’s self-revelation are Scripture, tradition, experience and reason (Book of Discipline, 77). Each of these bears witness to Jesus Christ and enables us to encounter this self-revealing God. Scripture attests to God’s activity in history from Abraham to Jesus and beyond (BOD, 78-79). Tradition reminds us that we are not alone on this journey and that we are informed by those whose shoulders we stand on, who have gone before us and canonized a heritage that we must become acquainted with in order to more fully embrace God (BOD, 79-81). Experience enlivens our faith. Both corporately and individually, experience entails encounter with the divine. This encounter moves faith from recognition to relationship; it is a place of transformation (BOD, 81-82). Finally, reason is the God given gift that allows us to confirm what we find “revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, and vivified in our experiences” (BOD, 77). While Scripture, tradition, experience and reason have been utilized as both sources and tools of knowing, I am reluctant to say that this is the definitive epistemological method. Room must be left for further discourse with philosophers and experts from other disciplines, in order to solidify a more fully embodied epistemology. The method is, however, an adequate jumping off point for the work ahead.
Finally, I have no reluctance in using the pronoun ‘him’ for God. I want to be clear that this is not a decision that was arrived at flippantly or haphazardly. I believe that masculine, feminine and neuter forms of address for God are all problematic. To change to a neutered or feminine pronoun appears to cause more problems than it would solve (Pinnock, 15-17). Considering this, I have opted for the continued use of the masculine pronoun to refer to all persons of the Trinity. With prolegomena now tackled, we now turn our attention more fully to God.
Let me know what you think. How would your approach be epistemologically different? Would you go with more traditional language or opt for some more modern metaphors when referring to God?
© Russell Hall/Radically Altered – 2009. All Rights Reserved
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Blogging Systematic Theology - A New Adventure
I was having an email conversation with Michael Patton (you can check him out at his blog here) regarding the conflict that often occurs between Armenians and Calvinists. In my estimation, he made some very wise statements (which you can read here) and I sent him an email thanking him for his post. In that email, I told him about a plan that I had to start a conversation involving systematic theology from an Armenian/Wesleyan perspective here at Radically Altered and invited him into the conversation.
Well, I have waited to do this long enough. This blog post is my invitation to you to join in the conversation.
Here is the plan:
1) every week I will put up a post that shares with you a portion of my credo from systematic theology. I will put it up unaltered from the way in which it was submitted with one exception---because some portions of the credo are longer than others (the portion on the Character and Nature of God vs. Prolegomena, for example), some portions of the credo will be broken into several submissions over several weeks.
2) after the initial posting, I will do reflection postings involving the content of the original post. I am doing this because we were limited in how much we could write in the actual credo we turned in in seminary...but experience has shown me that there is much more to say in many of the areas that the credo addresses. These reflective postings give me the opportunity to expound upon what was originally written...taking into account other things I have studied since that original writing, and things that you all will be sharing in the comments.
3) I will reserve the right to extend an existing conversation over posting a new segment at the beginning of the week if the conversation is still moving along in a healthy manner.
4) Your part in this is to share your thoughts and ideas in the comments section of each post. This is where everyone (myself included) has the opportunity to see varying perspectives and grow in the continual development of our own.
Why am I doing this, you might ask...well, quite frankly we share a rich Christian heritage and sometimes we simply forget about the things we have in common in light of all of the differences that we choose to debate. My hopes is that there will be some connection to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of our denominational or theological affiliations. Also, I love to learn. I am hoping that in sharing our comments and own conclusions with one another, that we can each grow in the process. I am not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking...and I am not seeking to be converted. Instead, experience has shown me that authentic dialog with integrity grows us as iron sharpens iron. I have left similar conversations in the past, not converted to a new way of thinking, but with a better understanding of why I believe the way that I do to begin with.
With that said, I need to lay out a few ground rules:
1) I am going to leave comment moderation off to begin with...please do not abuse this fact...I keep a very close eye on my blog...if things get out of hand, I will immediately institute comment moderation.
2) Do not pick fights or call people out. If you do, you will be blocked from further interaction.
3) Please note that this does not mean that we have to all agree---I expect that many of us will not. This is simply an expectation that we can have dialog with integrity and in an adult manner. At the end of the day, we can agree to disagree.
That's it. It is really simple. I look forward to our discussions and to growing from the interaction.
I will get the first post up by tomorrow evening.
Well, I have waited to do this long enough. This blog post is my invitation to you to join in the conversation.
Here is the plan:
1) every week I will put up a post that shares with you a portion of my credo from systematic theology. I will put it up unaltered from the way in which it was submitted with one exception---because some portions of the credo are longer than others (the portion on the Character and Nature of God vs. Prolegomena, for example), some portions of the credo will be broken into several submissions over several weeks.
2) after the initial posting, I will do reflection postings involving the content of the original post. I am doing this because we were limited in how much we could write in the actual credo we turned in in seminary...but experience has shown me that there is much more to say in many of the areas that the credo addresses. These reflective postings give me the opportunity to expound upon what was originally written...taking into account other things I have studied since that original writing, and things that you all will be sharing in the comments.
3) I will reserve the right to extend an existing conversation over posting a new segment at the beginning of the week if the conversation is still moving along in a healthy manner.
4) Your part in this is to share your thoughts and ideas in the comments section of each post. This is where everyone (myself included) has the opportunity to see varying perspectives and grow in the continual development of our own.
Why am I doing this, you might ask...well, quite frankly we share a rich Christian heritage and sometimes we simply forget about the things we have in common in light of all of the differences that we choose to debate. My hopes is that there will be some connection to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of our denominational or theological affiliations. Also, I love to learn. I am hoping that in sharing our comments and own conclusions with one another, that we can each grow in the process. I am not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking...and I am not seeking to be converted. Instead, experience has shown me that authentic dialog with integrity grows us as iron sharpens iron. I have left similar conversations in the past, not converted to a new way of thinking, but with a better understanding of why I believe the way that I do to begin with.
With that said, I need to lay out a few ground rules:
1) I am going to leave comment moderation off to begin with...please do not abuse this fact...I keep a very close eye on my blog...if things get out of hand, I will immediately institute comment moderation.
2) Do not pick fights or call people out. If you do, you will be blocked from further interaction.
3) Please note that this does not mean that we have to all agree---I expect that many of us will not. This is simply an expectation that we can have dialog with integrity and in an adult manner. At the end of the day, we can agree to disagree.
That's it. It is really simple. I look forward to our discussions and to growing from the interaction.
I will get the first post up by tomorrow evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
