falling forward...thoughts and the adventures of life

questions in my head

2010-02-27T16:46:00.002Z

One of my favorite historians and theologians is Mark Noll. I've just started reading "America's God" which, to be very general, analyzes theology in America between the 1730s and 1860s. In the opening pages he argues that "American" theology as it developed between the Revolutionary era and the Civil War was a synthesis of evangelical Protestantism (though hard to define he relies on David Bebbington's definition, as he has in a number of other publications), republican ideology and common-sense moral reasoning (p. 9). When I read Mark Noll's works, whether "America's God" or "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" or any number of articles he has written it always inspires me to study historical theology more than most other historians or theologians I read. His writing challenges me to ask questions.

'How do I better understand the inter workings of the three components above (besides the obvious..read the rest of the book!)?'

'What areas of study in American Christian history are yet to be explored?'

'What are the most important questions to ask?'

I have lately backed off the plan to get a PhD in history. I have not felt ready to take on such a huge commitment. Sometimes though I find myself coming back around to books on my shelf or my GRE flashcards or study materials. My problem seems to be that I'm interested in too many very different things- teaching English to non-native speakers. Traveling. History. Theology. Ethics. Hiking and all sorts of outdoor activities. Helping NGOs. I just don't want to commit years of my life and tens of thousands of dollars studying so that I become an expert in a certain field of study when I don't want the rest of my life to revolve around that same subject area or even level of teaching/studying.

What I do know is that I want to teach. I want to be involved in others lives as a teacher. Whether that is at a community college, four-year university or literacy organization that focuses on ESL. Perhaps a PhD qualifies you for certain positions at the university level but also does much more. It gives you a leg up into education administration or even a non-profit organization committed to education. Is it smart to get a PhD in history just to do non-profit work in the educational sector? Could I do that without a PhD? Yes, I know I could. But then I would never have the opportunities to teach at the college level, which I also have great interest in.

Maybe I don't have to choose. Maybe I can do it all. But these are the questions in my head.

Maybe I should just apply and see if I get in.

2009-12-11T14:38:00.002Z

I am reading Diarmaid McCullough's The Reformation right now. I just started it and although I read parts of it when I was working on some essays in my masters program, I think I will find it to be a useful resource. Its fairly introductory; it would be great for an introductory course to historical theology. Perhaps when I get a significant chunk read I will attempt posting something like a book review.
I was also reading Mark Noll's Turning Points, which is an even more broad sweep of the history of Christianity. I do not know why I like reading these kinds of books when my studies have gone far beyond introductory. Perhaps to remind myself of basics since I've been out of academia for awhile. Perhaps to get an easy read in.
I would like to write more, but I'm at work and think I need to get to it.

2009-06-17T16:39:00.002+01:00

What does it mean to be a part of a community? What does it mean to be a part of the Church? It has differed at different points in time and place. For Puritan colonial settlers in the New World it stood for inclusion into a tight social and political community. It was self-preservation whether you had a Puritanical religiousity or not. For laity in the 1530s Liverpool, England it may have forced one into a crisis of faith and belief, with the traditional church being attacked in form and structure and replaced by a seemingly foreign Christianity. For first-century believers it meant to risk all to believe- worshiping in the catacombs and listening to the stories of the God-Man who resurrected from death.

But today's Church is so different from the times above. And so many ask a very modern question of "What is the church to me?" It seems egotistical and subjective, but more it is what it is: a modern question. A modern supposition. Perhaps the question should be "What is the Church and what is my place in it?" Asking that question may show someone else that I value tradition. But what tradition do I want to be a part of. And then my mind wonders in many directions at once, trying to seek out and address all these questions of practical theology, the church and philosophy, or culture. I understand there are some philosophical undercurrents to the very questions I am asking. But can I escape that? Perhaps not. But then, how do I understand myself in light of the church? In the midst of the church? Perhaps my answer is simply, myself before Christ. Too simple? I am sure it is for some. But that is my answer. And I don't have much to say beyond that at this point. Although it may leave questions of me and the corporeal physical church left unanswered at the moment.

Melancthon and Bucer

2008-06-15T13:43:00.004+01:00

A book I have spent alot of time with this year is Melancthon and Bucer, edited by Wilhelm Pauck and a volume in the Library of Christian Classics series. Anyone versed in historical theology might recognize the English form of both of the names - Philip Melancthon and Martin Bucer. Both distinguished Reformation theologians, Melancthon and Bucer often reside in the shadows of other reformers whose names are more recognizable, mostly because schools of thought and theological descendants still bear their names: Martin Luther and John Calvin. Melancthon and Bucer are two of the more renowned and influential theologians and reformers of their time. Though lesser known among the theologians of the Reformation, these two men stand at the major crossroads of Christian thought and confession, contributing to discussions of a time that would come to shape modern Christianity. It is arguable that they reserve an indispensable place at the fore of Reformation scholarship, only adding to the knowledge and depth of their contemporary thinkers and later scholars.

Melanthon, a prominent classicist, was a humanist by training, receiving accolades in his studies through his teen years. He was a master at Greek and Latin before the age of 16, and at the age of 21 was appointed a professorship at the University of Wittenberg at the suggestion of his uncle, the renown humanist Reuchlin. Melancthon quickly took up with one Martin Luther, whose Ninety-Five Theses of 1518 had begun a stir among the schools of Germany. Melancthon began almost immediately working on what would evolve into the first edition of Loci Communes (Common Places), which has come to be understood as the first dogmatic system set forth by Reformation Protestants. Reflecting Melancthon's style as a perfectionist and humanist, LC was reworked over Melancthon's career to reflect his theological maturity over the decades of the Reformation as well as the controversies of the time as Protestant groups sought to define their dogmatic stances against other Protestant confessional groups and papal conservatives.
Melancthon was the "other half of Luther" when it came to colloquies, controversies and confessionalism of Luther's position. He was completely devoted to Luther's reformation and became the spokesman of the Lutheran camp often times when Luther was inconveniently indisposed. He authored the final draft of the Confessio Augustana, which represented Luther and Wittenberg at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. He authored, as said before, Loci Communes which has found a central place in 1580 Book of Concord, the authoritative confessional prescription of the moderate second-generation Lutherans.
Melancthon's role in shaping Lutheranism has been contended by scholars and even by factional Lutheran groups while he was still alive. I would argue that he holds an indispensable place in the center of Lutheran confessionalism. The changes he makes to both the Loci Communes over the years of toil for reform and the Confessio Augustana (the most controversial being those made between the 1530 edition and the 1540 [Variata]) do not show him to be a traitor. Nor do the subtle nuances make him disloyal to Luther. Instead, it brings to bear Melancthon's personality, genius, and striking academic abilities to wrestle with core theological issues, recognize the value in dialogue with other confessional groups, and remain faithful to all that Luther stood for throughout his life. Melancthon was a man of detail and precision; Luther of extremity and hell-raising. Melancthon sought to plainly understand each situation as was presented to him, often wanting to be minimally involved as his conscious would allow him; Luther wanted his side known, seeking to defend it without reserve and often instigating controversial discussions out of his temper. Luther once said the he plowed down the land so that the gentler Melancthon could come behind and sow the necessary seeds for faith and growth. Lutheranism then and now would not have developed as it did without Philip Melancthon to do that which Luther was never gifted or able to do. Perhaps I am biased (I have spent many hours studying the man and his work), but is not that the first step to making a personal argument - to know your own biases? As for Philip, I am unabashedly so as goes Reformation studies.
In Melancthon and Bucer, Melancthon's Loci Communes Theologici offers Melancthon's important contribution to Reformation confessionalism in an English translation.

The second half of the book is Martin Bucer's De Regno Christi (On the Kingdom of Christ), his magnum opus, written in the last year or so of his life, after decades of work on the continent and a final move to England. Bucer is one of the greatest churchmen, practical theologians, and reformers of the sixteenth-century. He was present at more inter-Protestant (and Catholic for that matter) colloquies and debates than any other reformer of his time. He was the leading reformer in the free imperial city of Strassburg, which was geographically and theologically between Zurich (stomping ground of Ulrich Zwingli) and Wittenberg (loci commune of Luther and Melancthon). He has been dubbed the "ecumenical reformer" because of his desire for Protestant and Christian unity in all measures he took and situations he entered. He had an acute ability to observe the realities of dogmatic discussions and use his advantage as mediator and "friend-of-all" to gain a consensus in doctrine or position. He was also a predecessor to John Calvin, and the debated influence of Bucer on Calvin has been of great benefit to the study of Reformed traditions. Though Bucer is often seen as a failure by his own standards, Bucer contributed to almost every facet of reform during the first half of the sixteenth-century.
Pauck translated his greatest work into its critical English edition, the first ever, offering English-speaking scholars an opportunity to work with one of the most important text of this great theologian.

The translations of both texts come from the standard critical works of both men - Stupperich's Melancthons Werke in Auswahl and Wendel's Martini Buceri Opera Latina. The introductions are helpful, and the translations executed nicely with helpful footnotes. The credit belongs to many involved in the translation processes. Comparing Melancthon's style to Bucer's shows the contrast in personality and priorities. Even glancing at the chapter titles in the Contents section, one can clearly see how different the men were in nature and temperament. Bucer's often hard-to-read (and some say illegible) writing is humorous compared to Melancthon's precise wording and short sections. As one reads through these documents, a further comprehension of their ideas, theological convictions, and concerns become apparent.

Here's some advice: Don't do general reading on Luther without reading Melancthon.
Don't be surprised if Bucer rarely comes up in textbooks, but if you want to read a theologian whose concerns for community and practical ethics guide his theology, you will find a unique and unparalleled man in Martin Bucer. This book is worth the pennies. Don't let your personal library go without some form of publication on either of these two men. Your understanding of Reformation history will be more comprehensive with it, and disappointingly narrow without it.

Hoping to Change

2008-05-31T11:09:00.002+01:00

Thoughts from today...
I am in the middle of a Master's thesis and it seems to take up a good amount of time and thoughts, as it should. Come September I will be free to spend time and energy thinking through issues that have been mounting over the past 18-24 months, issues that have become increasingly important to me personally. Generally these issues have to do with theological and inter-religious dialogue, environmental responsibility, and education.

What effect does one person have on the world day-to-day living in a country that is industrialized and technologically advanced? I have seen articles or television programs about individuals or organizations calculating the impact of an individual, a community, a corporation, or industry on the world and the environment, and many of them have been compelling in their arguments. Can one person make a difference? It seems that has become a catch phrase for many movements for a while now:

"It just takes one person to change..."
"It starts with you..."
"The power of one..."
"One life at a time..."
"YOU can make a difference..."
....

Can I really make a difference? Perhaps that is the question of the day. And today (yes, today) I believe that somehow, someway, in small things and in seemingly large things, I do effect the world around me. I interact, I participate, I engage. To not is to be reclusive and shut off from the world. And that is something I know I DO NOT want, nor do I believe that is what we as humans should, do.

Today I believe that when I start becoming aware of those issues and believe that however my small voice may be, or even how small I believe my impact is, it matters.

I often times here people criticize environmental causes, or other seemingly "fad" movements, as being the hip, new thing, or part of popular culture, or the "cause du jour." Its cool to be a vegetarian/vegan. Its cool to drive to hybrid. Its cool to be inspi(red) or champion the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Skepticism can be a good thing. It can be healthy. It can be helpful. Useful for dialogue and conversation. Despite the faddish-ness of particular causes or movements, and regardless of how many celebrities or famous people (i.e. making it into People magazine, etc) fund or support a cause or organization, is it negative to be interested? To invest, or even investigate? Beware of counter-cultural criticism for the sake of counter-culturalism. I became a vegetarian early last year, more for health reasons (eating healthier) than for environmental reasons (like protesting the beef industry for insufficient production and processing of meat, etc). Now I am beginning to think through the issues of environmental industrialization, food shortages, and health risks associated with eating meat and not eating meat. Because its a fad? No, because I believe it is important. Would I have begun thinking about it had I not heard so much or read so much through main media sources and coverage? Probably not. So what?

Skepticism can be helpful. Having an open mind and thinking critically through issues is necessary for us to change the world. Maybe you don't want to change the world, or don't know how. I don't either. But it seems that many people in the world want to see change, and I think I have much to learn from those people. So you don't start a mega-movement that rocks the paradigm of existing societies. Thats not the point. Follow your passions, trust your instinct, open your mind. And maybe join a cause or two. We each have a responsibility because we each participate in the world, interacting, relating, existing. Hope is not futile. Not in this world.

2008-01-17T22:25:00.000Z

Last year in my Advanced Readings class with Dr. Mallinson we read a book called "The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology." I began my blog reflection on it by stating a disclaimer - that I did not have systematic thoughts on justification and thus my reflections would be far less personal than was the intended hope. During this postgraduate programme I am thinking through these issues more deeply. Perhaps because I find myself disagreeing with those around me during class discussion or blogs. Perhaps because I am understanding historically which gives me a better perspective. Perhaps I am reverting to those influences that I received during undergraduate which are just now coming to fruition in my theological processes.
In that way these days are interesting days. I am enjoying being able to think through theological ideas and their implications (particularly in a historical venue) without overbearing spiritual conditions that are psychologically inhibiting.
I am auditing the Film and Religions class. I am enjoying it already and it was only the first day! Its so much more interactive and engages me in a very different way from my philosophically and theologically-based seminars which deal with history, politics, etc. I am going to learn so much though, and I have to do a considerable amount of work (considering I am auditing), but I think it will be good for me, and give me somewhat of a balance.
More and more I am feeling settled in to New College. I do not think I will have any problems studying there everday for the next 7 months.

2008-01-16T21:44:00.000Z

Today was a somewhat productive day. I spent most of it in the Reading Room in the library where I and some of my classmates have generously allocated ourselves a row of the desks which we utilize every weekday. I would feel guilty except I am in there generally everyday, so it wouldn't be more useful if someone else sat there. But if someone else was sitting there, I would obviously just sit somewhere else. We more make fun of ourselves for being "those people." You know, the ones that make routine of a space thats open for general use.
Today I read some primary texts from early church figures dealing with political theological undertones. Or over-tones as it may be. Mostly Ireneaus and Tertullian. Its a great sourcebook, and I got it at a great deal - the co-editor is my lecturer. And the wife of the other co-editor and world-renown political ethicist who leads the Ethics department here.
Then I read a little more on the Council of Trent for next week. After lunch I did my reading for my Religion and Film course, which this week will focus specifically on Peter Weir. It was good reading, and exceptionally good to get away from some historical reading for a little bit.
Basically we are going to look at the relation between Film and Theology. As I feel particularly inadequate in thinking through that relation and critically handling the subject I felt like it would be an extremely beneficial class. Plus it will force me to sit down and watch at least one movie a week which will be a good exercise - to sit, relax, and think through a film with an immature, yet intrigued critical eye.

I have realized I am not a good writer. One of the areas I need to improve most as a student is my writing. Everyday I just need to be writing. Even a little bit. My journal, my weblogs, a note, a letter, class notes, reflections. Anything at all, I just need to keep my mind processing thoughts in a constructive and coherent manner.

I have a stack of books on Melancthon and Luther that I am keen to start reading. That will have to be done on my own time, or on Fridays. If I am diligent during the week I think I will be able to give all of Friday to dissertation research. That would be nice. We will see how it works out though. What I am not looking forward to is my dissertation proposal which I give in front of my peers and faculty. I present the idea I would like to handle, and then time is left for questions and comments. I am so nervous! If I can make it through that, I can make it through a doctoral thesis proposal someday.

2007-12-05T22:16:00.001Z

2007-11-29T23:08:00.001Z

this is it...crunch time. Essays are due December 10th and its coming softly yet quickly. All of my energies are being poured into Sacramental Theology in a Postmodern Context and my essay for that class concerning Jacques Derrida and biblical hermeneutics. I had to present on articles concerning this subject and immediately felt the importance of the implications of deconstruction on the hermeneutical project in biblical scholarship. As a theological project. I'm utilizing Kevin Hart and Rowan Williams in particular to dialogue with Derrida. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in my essay. Whatever it will be, it will be a humbling undertaking...as all my work has been since I've been here. Thats not to be self-deprecating but I have found that it constitutes an overly-general condition of us lowly Masters students.

The essays are designed as such that we are required to construct an argument on a particular topic. We submit a title and then the rest is left up to us. Essentially we create our own straw man and then, through our argumentation, tear him down ourselves. It does not include the totality of our knowledge for the course or even a significant chunk of it. That isn't the point, which is sometimes hard to swallow. I've worked so hard to learn so much that will have nothing to do with my essay and I cannot prove that to them. On the other hand, its personally gratifying in a weird way, and I'm not sure I like the word gratifying but thats all that comes to mind at the moment, because all of the work that I am doing and learning I am doing is for me. Its not for them. Its important to me, and I'm doing all of this for me - I want to and I need to so I can get where I want to be...in terms of career and further education. I am never without the larger context of my day-to-day. And yet I am required to pay attention to the smallest details of a book or article to understand the nuances and underlying issues in each argument and proposition. I cannot understand Derridean deconstruction without at least an awareness, but more ideally (ha) a comprehension, of Hegelian dialectic. I cannot place Philip Melancthon's employment of Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics within his humanistic educational reforms in Germany without understanding the work of humanism in Europe at large as well issues happening within the Roman Catholic church that led up to the Reformation.
To gloss over the seemingly head-y words above, my point is - the classic statement in regards to academia and the student is, at least in my experience, has proven viable. What is it again? The more knowledge you gain the more you learn you know nothing at all.
Something like that anyway.

Today I experienced the best aspects of being at such an esteemed academic institution. I was up in Ramsey Lane kitchen making a cup of tea around lunchtime so a few PhD candidates trickled in for their lunch. I ended up having a few different conversations with them. First of all, almost every person studying in the School of Divinity has been nothing but accommodating and congenial. My conversations, which spanned multiple topics on various levels, were helpful, enlightening, and appreciated. I won't go into details now, but I learn just as much sitting talking to one of them or a few of them as I do sitting in front of a book in the library, or conversing in class. Each one has something important to say and they address it from their own interests, perspectives, life experiences, passions, and dreams. It drives me to further explore what I want to study, what I want to do, and how to get there.
I left the kitchen and went to a meeting with our resident Reformation scholar who helped give me direction on my book review and engaged in some exploratory questions concerning my dissertation topic. Its exciting to think that I'm already beginning that process! Scary, and slightly unnerving, but exciting. After Dec. 10th it will be a lot more exciting.

Today also John Milbank (formerly at Univ. of Virginia; now at Nottingham) presented a paper in the Ethics seminar. I didn't attend. But its also quite amazing in moments to think that such well-known and theologically-enforced persons are regularly infiltrating New College for seminars, conferences, and events. What an opportunity it is to be here! Okay, despite the fact that I didn't attend (I needed to get home and read!), its still a good opportunity...I just didn't take advantage today.

I'm tired though. So to bed for me.

I know you know this stuff is practical for everyday life...

2007-11-17T20:10:00.000Z

Random thoughts to come on issues I've been studying soon, including:

The scope of the ecumenical movement, issues related therein, particularly in their discussions with evangelicals
Orthodoxy and heresy in the early church, particularly surrounding the person of Christ in the 5th century
The relationship between theology and phenomenology as seen in Edmund Husserl and Jean-Luc Marion, particularly as it concerns the liturgical significance of doxology and ethics (in which Levinas will be engaged)
Comparison of the agendas of the humanist movement and the Reformation in the Renaissance in 16th century Germany

Get excited.

2007-11-01T14:40:00.000Z

I'm sitting in the reading room at New College trying to find any motivation to keep reading for my essays, but I'm distracted and preoccupied with other thoughts. I am trying to figure out what I want to do my dissertation on. And I've got nothing. NOTHING. The influence of Phillip Melancthon on Martin Luther in the authorship of the Augsburg Confession? The phenomenological significance of doxology in liturgy and worship in a postmodern context? The political factors that shaped the deposition of Nestorius in the Eastern church in the 5th century? None of this gets to me - none of this "moves" me. Whatever that means. I'm suppose to work on what I care about - what I want to finish. And I can't think of one topic that would really excite me. But maybe its not suppose to. I don't know. It's frustrating and confusing. What am I doing here if I don't love it? Never has it been more appealing to catch a a plane to a distant country and work with whatever ecological/environmental organization is stationed there (I've researched it - they are everywhere with some pretty rad projects happening).

I'm tired. Mentally and emotionally. I think I'll head back to my room and be done with the library today.

Yes

2007-10-09T22:18:00.000+01:00

I'm listening to Death Cab for Cutie and avoiding reading for class at the moment.
Today I went to a seminar about "Effective Reading." It was more interesting than informative and I pretty much just liked the art he used in his slides. But I did gleam a few tips from it including the importance of writing consistently. Writing will improve the more you do it. So here I am. Writing. I'm not sure he was pressing the point that I should keep up my blog, but at least I'm writing.
Every Tuesday morning when I have seminar for Creeds, Councils, and Controversies I get excited about theological history and I leave feeling good and encouraged. I learn so much every time I go in there. I think I just love studying it, whether the actual content is applicable or useful for what I want to do with my future or not. It gets me grounded in my texts and makes me get on the ball in terms of reading for the week. Then, normally, I turn around and go to Sacramental Theology in a Postmodern Context. Today it was cancelled so I just sat in the room and read. Then I have a Research Methodology seminar which I spoke about above, and then I have an Ecclesiastical History department seminar. Karl Shuve presented a paper on Origen's exegesis of Jeremiah which he had presented this past August at the Patristics conference in Oxford.
On Thursdays we also have a Divinity seminar every other week. This week the lecture is on Political Consumerism which should be really good. But also on Thursday I have an initial meeting for a German class I'm thinking about getting into. I really need to start learning German for my Bonhoeffer endeavors. But we'll see how the meeting goes.

In class today Dr Parvis brought up PhD programs and how we should start looking if we're interested in going that direction. Thats probably the last thing I wanted to talk about this morning. I'm trying to get through the week, much less the year, much less 4+ years of hard research on some unknown, tedious subject. Maybe one day, but not today. Today is not the day. Now is NOT the time.

But, in the way of educational progress, I do have to start thinking about a dissertation topic. I'm having a meeting with my advisor on Friday to discuss different options and of course I have been emailing Dr. Mal about it. We'll see what direction I go. But once again, thinking about even that makes me a little anxious. I need to get through my reading for the week.

I'm slightly frustrated with the Modern Missions class this past Monday. We looked at historical paradigm shifts in the Western church, and I was extremely unsatisfied with his approach and sources. I'm still working through that, but I'm pretty sure I had good things to say about what I think is relevant for historical paradigm shifts but couldn't because he was talking about something very different. I felt it was out-of-date and rather insufficient in its approach to the current "paradigm", whatever that means.
Okay, enough venting...

On Shuffle

2007-09-28T22:32:00.000+01:00

It has only been a few weeks and already I feel myself engaging in the material and community in a way I did not experience at CCU. Or anywhere for that matter. When I speak of a dichotomy between "faith and theology" during my time at CCU many of you will understand as you witnessed it yourself or you heard me speak of it; for those who do are not familiar with this phrase, please do not accept it at face value as it is a contextual and symantical issue first and foremost, and secondly, it is experiential in nature. Whatever can be said of my time at CCU "frustration" is a word that comes to mind as well as "spiritually vapid." Here it already seems to be different for me. CCU is where I became interested in theology and issues in the world and Christian faith and doctrine. Here at Edinburgh, I am surrounded at New College by students and faculty, men and women who are interested in the same things and very different things. Different points of view and backgrounds, different parts of the world and different languages. I am no longer a "theology student on the margins of a conservative evangelical liberal arts college in suburbia Colorado." I am at a major educational institution that has engaged in Divinity studies for over 400 years in one of the up-and-coming cultural centers in Western Europe where, like it or not, I am an American - in attitude, in speech, in education, and in cultural distinctions. And yet, that doesn't matter at all. But I see it manifesting its presence in very obvious ways and in very subtle ways...for some reason at this particular moment I'm at a loss for examples. Maybe I am insecure and hyperbolically aware of it...

The more I read and listen to others talk and sit in on lectures I am realizing how important this stuff is that I'm studying. I learn about the history of the Christian tradition and how the church has changed and grown in 2000 years. I am learning about deconstruction and how the philosophical undergirdings of postmodernity has affected Christianity and specifically sacramental theology. I am learning about issues in modern mission and how many things need to change about how people relate the Gospel to other peoples and nations. So many things need to change, and yet so many things in the world and Christianity are changing. Dr. Mallinson always told us this was one of the most exciting times to be studying theology; I am beginning to see how right he was. This is exciting. Above all I am realizing how important it is for me to approach each of these issues and subjects with humility, otherwise I will learn nothing and be able to contribute nothing to the world and conversations happening therein. I believe I have something to say thats worth hearing. Maybe someday I'll be able to articulate it well enough to say it...that is why I'm doing all of this in the first place.

Wine and Chocolate

2007-09-12T22:02:00.000+01:00

Today was an important day because for the first day I was in an academic setting for my personal theological education that was not CCU. And I felt almost like it was the first day of kindergarten or a small child in a candy shop when they talked about how they made lollipops, or a youth listening to JK Rowling read a bit from The Deathly Hallows on the eve of the release. All that to say is, my world got that much bigger today while my understanding of how much I have to learn got correspondingly as large. I stepped into this very different place with new people, a higher level of learning, an advanced curriculum, but good ole theology being the topic of discussion (okay, I guess biblical studies too, and religion), and this very primitive and basic notion of humans interacting with other humans (albeit the former are extremely intelligent and academically qualified). It was helpful. And rejuvenating for my self-esteem. At least in terms of my current academic situation.

I spent virtually the entire day at New College. Even tonight they had a ceiledhe. Or something like that. Its just Scottish dancing. They had wine, humous, and biscuits (or cookies/crackers). So K and I went, had some wine, had some chocolate biscuits and got out of there.

This Canadian was introducing himself to us and he began by describing himself as friendly, unassuming, and slightly insecure. That was a very accurate description of the way I feel I am perceived here. I think everyone can pretty much tell I'm an American before I even say a word. Apparently I also have that "American smile." Straight clean pearly whites.

Well, thats not a ton of information, but it will suffice tonight.
Hope all is well.

I Fall Forward....

2007-09-01T03:40:00.000+01:00

This blog was originally set up for a theology class at CCU but I've decided to keep it going for personal reflections and writings. It will, however, remain in its nature as semi-intellectual and, hopefully, theologically stimulating.

I left CCU four months ago as a graduate with a BA in Theology. In four days I move to Scotland to study Theology in History at Edinburgh University. This in-between summer has been good for me for many reasons. But the few reasons that concern us now are the changes in my understanding of faith, Christianity, and personal spirituality. I realized soon after commencement that as I began to prepare for a new phase of life and education, I could no longer rely on other theology students, my professor, or that community for my reasons to believe, to not believe, my theological preferences, and the intricacies of my spiritual framework. I made many assumptions and presuppositions about the state of things, one such thing being the people at CCU, what they thought and even believed and where they were headed. I did not understand other theology majors and their quest for truth and life during the years at CCU that we so affectionately referred to as "the torrents waters and tide of the journey of spirituality."

I cannot yet fully reflect on my time in college. I can say that I did not do justice to the processes and spiritual conundrums my peers endured. I can also say that I will no longer generalize their ideas, state of spirituality or faith.

I have much to learn. Indeed, my time at home has allowed me to begin to think through every facet of my life - faith, beliefs, and personal happiness. I am excited to relay parts of that journey on this blog, and I have so much to type even now. And hopefully there will be time.
I will make time.

And whoever is reading this, I hope you will continue to do so and my hope is that it will be a worthwhile endeavor.

Ward - I am so done.

2007-04-30T19:03:00.000+01:00

So here we are…at the end of a long, perilous journey through many books and even more discussions. Ward is an interesting finish, and the class conversation was even more interesting. We will begin with the first question, as Father Stace brought up in class…Where is Christ? While Ward may have only offered this as a rhetorical opener, I think it has significance in laying the foundation for his Christology. He finds Christ to be hermeneutically contingent and relational in nature. Hermeneutic – this is a word and a theme we see throughout the book. Ward wants to say that we cannot think or talk about Christ outside of the times and cultures we inhabit. The hermeneutical inquiry of Christ itself is governed by the time and circumstances within which it takes place.[1] This may be true, especially in terms of symantics, but I wonder if Ward thinks we can say anything about Christ that transcends time, culture, and circumstance. Does his hermeneutic allow for historical criticism?

Speaking of criticism, I see that Ward approaches his hermeneutical quest through a lens of both philosophy, theology (specifically early church and Catholic tradition), and even makes use of the higher criticisms of current Biblical scholarship to interpret and understand Christ as we find Him, for one, in Scripture. When we speak of Christ and try to understand Christ we cannot escape either aspect of Christ in time past (the Christ event) and time now (the present). Both must be addressed in full view of Christology.

One thing to be observed first: it seems that Ward takes everything in the context of now and present. Epistemology, relationality, sexuality and ontology are all understood in the concrete physicality of or corporeal world. This becomes the framework from which Ward draws many of his observations.

Ward highly criticizes Barth’s Christological approach and his methodology of centering his theological premises upon dogmatics. Dogmatics does not allow for cultural inflection and instead wants to become an overarching venue for Christological reflection. Barth does not allow for the question, “Where is Christ?” Instead Ward turns to apologetics, and while he does not share the agenda of modern-day apologists, he finds the apologetical premise conducive to discovering Christ in “time now.”

I loved Richard Neibuhr’s quote about Christ and culture.[2] I found it compelling and useful for Ward’s arguments. Ward wants to tackle the concept of mimetic desire and Christ as understood in his life in Scripture. Mimesis involves representation of an object (Christ), the literary portrayal of the Christ, and the mimetic following of the literary receivers. This, inevitably, has social implications. In this way, Ward pushes the Christian beyond the poetic, trendy concept of participation in a meta-narrative, the story of God, and into a concrete praxis of mimesis that requires response and action in and for the meta-narrative – the in-between. The in-between requires liturgical praxis that has sacramental and soteriological significance.[3] Christ, here, is the mediator. Mimesis, therefore, leads to a greater understanding of Christ. I would expound on Ward’s exegetical work on Mark, but as I am lacking in knowledge of biblical studies, this is not my area of expertise (I actually have no area of expertise) to tackle. So we move on…

I found Ward’s chapter on “The Schizoid Christ” compelling and surprisingly useful. While his focus on the physicality of language and bodily functions empowering spiritual relationality, it works. While I may not be able to regurgitate it, for some reason, I understood it. It is an example for the church and people now.

Many people might find Ward’s focus on the eroticism of the language of Christ and sexuality a little disconcerting. I’m still not sure exactly what to do with it, but I’ll try to explain a little. If Ward’s question is “Where is Christ?” we must understand his emphasis on the corporeality of God in Christ and us as humans. Sexual nature is innate and universal and thus becomes a conversation. Many feminists, however, reject the maleness of Christ and claim that it leads to disconnect of females from him. Ward wants to argue that the sexual difference does not cause a divide or chasm, nor should the focus be to transcend the body or its sexual nature; instead one must understand the ungraspable mystery of the body and sexuality. In this way, Christ does not become an object of dissention for those unable to appropriate the Christ in a modern-day, gender-attentive culture. This is an important conversation to have and I think Graham Ward does well with the issue, because the topic of gender is a major issue in this culture and time.

Ward’s work in Christology is an essential conversation happening today. Christology must involve an appropriation to culture which has been part of the theological task for the second half of the 20^th century. Just as past Christological conversations have been responsive to its time, Ward brings Christ and culture into reciprocal dialogue once again and better than any have done yet. At least that’s my opinion. If anything, this is important stuff.

[1] P. 2

[2] P.21

[3] P. 43

Eliade: The fluidity and comprehensibility of this blog reflects how well I understood the book. So when my paper doesn't make sense..you'll know why.

2007-04-22T00:51:00.000+01:00

The Sacred and the Profane is an introspective and enlightening look at the phenomenology of religion and the “religious man” that pervades all sectors of history and space. I found this book extremely intriguing, and yet I didn’t or couldn’t understand everything that living in the “sacred realm” constituted. I laugh at myself now because when Eliade would talk about the non-religious man I would 1) get offended at the audacity of the attitude and worldview of the non-religious man, and 2) completely understand the world of the non-religious man. It seems now that I understand that I myself embody many aspects of the non-religious man. Imagine that huh?

Hierophanies were an important concept for Eliade to point out about the religious man. Hierophanies, in fact, are the physical and material manifestations of the sacred in the profane world. It is the breaking out or the bubbling up of sacrality in a world of vile and profane, essentially unreal, life. Eliade states, “By manifesting the sacred, any object becomes something else, yet it continues to remain itself, for it continues to participate in its surrounding cosmic milieu.”[1] This, however, is a beginning point to understand humans as well.[2] Eliade argues that sacred and profane are two modes of being in the world, two existential situations assumed by man in the course of his history.[3] Humanity has, historically, lived in and looked for the sacred. The rest of the book is a drawing out of the religious experiences that constitute a sacred life, or at least as it has been seen and understood by innumerable people groups throughout the world throughout the course of history. Needless to say, Eliade does his homework. He has a comprehensive historical and sociological analysis of the world and its people groups. I found it interesting how Eliade emphasized religious behavior in the beginning of the book. As you read on, however, you see that the human is the one who creates the sacred around him/her. It is the behavior of the person that lends itself to participating in the sacred or the profane. The actions of humans play a role in the understanding of the sacred and profane by “symbolically transforming” or repeating the acts of the gods. Behavior matters, even for the profane man.

It is important to note that the sacred is pre-eminently the real. Sacred space, then, is reality. As one encounters, creates, and becomes fixed upon sacred space, they are living in what Eliade could only argue to be true reality. So, a world is a world when it is in tune with the objective reality of sacrality.[4] Because we all live by different myths and narratives, we can create our own worlds. One can find, however, that in the study of religions methods of tapping into the sacred, ways of organizing life around the sacred, and language as well as symbols about the sacred are similar throughout cultures and histories. Eliade understands this and works through many of those similarities. To begin with, sacred symbols infiltrate the Immanent lives of humans in very concrete and practical ways. It seems that every aspect of the religious man’s life is infiltrated by this concept of sacredness:

where one centers his/her life (the Temple, Jerusalem, Palestine)
how one’s house is built (creating sacred space)
how one understands and celebrates time (New Years is a new beginning)
architecture
religious celebrations and festivals
aquatic symbolism (baptism)
astrological signs
mother earth (terra mater; creation and nature as embodying sacredness)
sexuality
rites of passage (especially at certain ages and also at important spiritual places)

These are a few of the explicitly described symbols for the religious man.

Eliade’s survey of the nature of religion has shaped the way historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and religious people have understood and talked about religion, the gans andere, and numinous experiences since it was published. It is an overarching read on life and history for all humans everywhere. Whether we want to admit it or not (the non-religious man would not), our search for the sacred is inevitable. Even the non-religious man seeks to sacralize parts of his life. After all, myth is not what never happens…it’s what always happens.

[1] P. 12

[2] Can this also be a way that we understand Christian sacraments? Could the hierophanies of Christianity be the Eucharist, Baptismal rites, and ultimately Christ Himself? Maybe at this point it is theophanies, as Eliade later brings up. As religious men try to find the “fixed point” and the “center” of the world and existence through hierophanies, could Christ be the ultimate theophany – the metaphorical “fixed point”? Or is this some cheesy and invalid parallel? I’m feeling self-conscious but I’ll leave this open to critique. Maybe no one reads footnotes…

[3] P. 14

[4] P. 32

Thinking Jenson. This book might be too small to have a subtitle like "Resolutions of Difficult Notions"

2007-04-20T18:41:00.000+01:00

I like a lot of what Jenson has to say, I just don’t like how he says it. Its his writing style or something. Its like he starts each chapter with a fundamental issue – wickedness, love, freedom, etc – and then tries to build it up into this crisis of belief and life and then...BAM…provides a theological assessment of the topic that provides the way in which you can understand the issue. It solves the dilemma.

Now I know we made some jokes like this in class, but if you’ve read the book it should be apparent. Also I felt the book was choppy. It’s a small book and maybe that fit his purposes. It seemed fairly simple in structure and development of content. Was this meant for lay persons to provide a foundational way of viewing these hard-to-think-about topics? That’s what it seemed like. But it’s almost as if he picks one thing to elaborate on for each chapter. For wickedness, Flacius and Lutherans seemed to dominate the few pages of the chapter; for love it was the Hegelian stand-off of the “I-Thou” relation. I felt a little unsatisfied at the close of each chapter, even though each one had some good things to say.

Thinking Death is a good place to start, as it is a fundamental question to all humans everywhere. It is perhaps the darkest question to ask, but in terms of Jenson’s proposal (the death is not the end for one who believes in the Christian God because the Christian God is a God of resurrection), it might be the most enlightening.

Thinking about hope in terms of wickedness and resurrection in terms of death are more easily attained perhaps than thinking consciousness and reality through the Trinity. Even outside of religious circles, or mainstream religious plugs a person can understand Vorstellung of hope and resurrection in some way or another – nature, movies, televisions, and life experiences. While it may not be the best representation of an idea, it might certainly be present whereas consciousness and reality might be harder. Anyway...back to death…

I like how he talks about the reality of God being linked to what the moment of truth should look like. How do we as Christians think about death in terms of the reality of God? For Jenson, we shouldn’t just think of death as the end because of Christ. Since the reality of God is the truth, we can truly “think death” about Christ and ourselves through the Resurrection. An interesting and compelling point for me as well was we can be aided in thinking about death by looking at the Vorstellung of the topic which is Christian iconography, art, and crucifixes.[1]

He sets up Thinking Consciousness well. Basically, participation in the Trinity is “being.” Jenson will talk a little about what consciousness is, but in the end must argue that a particular focus of the consciousness, more than its contents, is how we should talk about it. And honestly, it helps him understand it in a Christian perspective. And what are the foci of the consciousness? The Trinity! Jenson uses Aristotle to place this idea of the Divine within consciousness, and takes it further to place the consciousness within the life of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Spirit.[2]

The conversation of freedom relied mostly on the Augustine/Pelagius controversy and then he brings in Luther to smooth things over. It seems that Jenson wants to accept Augustine, and does so in relation to Augustine’s adversaries, but he seems frustrated with some of Augustine’s conclusions. I think I can sum it up like this: freedom is having that longing for someone inside you filled by God, being free for the other person, and being free in the church and as the church to offer freedom to the world.

Thinking Reality was fine after the first many pages where he just tried to understand the “criteria” for what is real. His use of A Beautiful Mind was good. It was helpful for me. Was his use of Jonathan Edwards random to anyone else? It felt random to me. I like how Jenson connects reality (and love for that matter) to the physical realm and the body. So interaction with one another constitutes a measure of reality, or at least a measure of useful reality and how we should understand it. For Jenson, “…the body is the person’s availability to others and to him or herself. Were I disembodied, you could not find me, to love me or indeed to hate me.”[3] He briefly touches on our reality being in touch with God’s reality, even through creation.

Thinking wickedness was compelling with his use of 9/11. I think it evoked a major participation on behalf of the reader to a conversation that most people have these days because of the state of the world. The fundamental question is, “Does ‘wickedness’ point to the human ‘substance’ or to an ‘accident’ thereof?”[4] It is a valid and difficult question. How can we say who is wicked and who is not? And how do we determine who is wicked? What constitutes “wickedness?” I have to give this quote, as it was very powerful for me, “I do not necessarily delight in your ‘lifestyle,’ but since it is yours, love requires that I leave you to it. I do not necessarily delight in my own lifestyle either, but that’s the way I was made and I need to love myself too – and we will be saved by grace in any case. So runs the theology of much of the late-modern church. Despite its appearance it is a dark theology indeed.”[5] That quote got under my skin. It seems Jenson finished by placing the understanding of wickedness as being behaviors perpetuated among persons in particular contexts. To put it crudely, it’s situational. This was a tough chapter.

And finally, Love. Jenson wants to critique the Hegelian version of “I-Thou” and the problems it creates. Hegel seems jaded by Buber’s version, but since Jenson didn’t use Buber, I can’t quite draw the proper distinctions. Jenson begins by stating that the ultimate sign of love is to die for the object of love. He quickly switches gears into a theological context. Jenson wants to offer hope. Love is still around. “One is the fact that according to the gospel people can and do succeed in loving, that the hermeneutics of suspicion are simply wrong. And the other is the fact of the triune God.”[6] Love must be lived out in the church, Jenson says. The Spirit allows us to love, just as the Spirit allows love to flow between the Father and Son (and the Spirit itself?). Ultimately, I thought Jenson could have said a lot more about this chapter and developed it a lot more. But it ends where it ends.

[1] P. 10

[2] P. 26

[3] P. 56

[4] P. 60

[5] P. 66

[6] P. 81

Mattes has an opinion about the role of justification in contemporary theology

2007-04-18T04:52:00.000+01:00

The first thing we mentioned when we talked about this book in class is that one has to know what one thinks about justification before any of this can be personally applicable to one’s theology. It’s true. I don’t know what I think specifically about justification and all the ends and outs like we have discussed them this semester in terms of Mannermaa, Luther, Bayer, and all the other guys. I have decided that Mattes believes that the doctrine of justification is to the church and “proclamation” for Mattes what theology as a discipline is as the Queen of the Sciences. And I think I like it. Justification as discrimen is practical and useful for the church. In the conclusion Mattes titled a section “The Relevance of Justification and the Irrelevance of Relevance (p. 182).” In the past year I have dealt a lot with the crises of identity and relevance. But Mattes really struck me with that phrase. It instantly made sense. Why are we trying to sparse together various strands and bits of theological intellectualism to the secular, Enlightenment-trodden world? Lets stick to the basics…faith, justification, hope. Maybe I’m simplifying it. And don’t get me wrong..I don’t reject these guys below. Its about taking bits and pieces of what we like and believe is helpful, right? So I’m doing that with Mattes. The prevailing issue in theology should no longer be the crises of identity and relevance, but that of right and true proclamation.

Mattes critiques Jungel specifically in terms of his accommodation to secular philosophies and modern arguments of epistemology. Jungel uses justification as the “word event” in which God corresponds to humanity through imputed righteousness, and conversely, humans correspond to each other. Jungel uses Buber’s “I-Thou” understanding of God. It seems Jungel is fighting modern philosophers’ deconstruction of the knowledge of God through modernity’s paramount of Reason. Jungel wants to reinstitute the Platonic understanding of “thinking God.” But it stops there. For Jungel, Mattes argues that it’s basically a head case theology. The word and the doctrine of justification is limited to understanding and knowing God, but not for existing concretely in the world. “For Jungel, humanity genuinely corresponds to God not via mimetic participation in the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love that instantiate goodness as such, but by receiving life externally, allowing another, God, to be there for one, the gift of an alien righteousness (p. 39). As Jungel is up to bat using Hegel and Barth against Enlightenment philosophies and modern existentialists he discards the doctrine of justification into a means of correspondence between God and humanity, but is not useful for the church, which is the context in which Mattes believes all the theology must answer to and not to mention justification which is the pillar and cornerstone of theology and the church.

Pannenberg isn’t much better than Jungel, or so Mattes would say. He thinks Pannenberg gets lost in the contemplation of metaphysics and ecumenism, as well as making God the object of theology instead of remaining consistent with Luther who maintained a redeemed sinner and a justifying God. Justification did a few things for Pannenberg. I felt this chapter oozing with Mannermaa-esque ideas before I came upon a direct reference to him. And since we’ve all read Mannermaa, must I reiterate what he does with Luther? Read my blog below to get my opinion…Anyway, Pannenberg uses Mannermaa in terms of the union with Christ and God to humans, theosis, and the exchange of properties that takes place. It seems that for Pannenberg, justification answers to the metaphysical “position” of humanity and creation to God. It offers metaphysical reconciliation and unity, but its just being plugged in to an already existing philosophical conversation. And why is ecumenism such a major concern for Pannenberg? Mannermaa solves this ecumenical quandary for Pannenberg, but honestly, I find it a non-issue and unimportant in terms the point or use of the doctrine of justification.

And now to Moltmann. I know we have discussed how Mattes might have potentially misunderstood Moltmann, but as I do not feel as well versed in Moltmann as others, I don’t believe I can speak to that. I will say that from what I understand of Moltmann, I felt like Mattes had some good critiques. I also think, however, that Mattes finds Moltmann more in line with the use of justification than the other two, he just does not have a good holistic approach. While Moltmann uses justification for eschatological hope and a theology of the cross, he does not engage justification as being received simply by the human in passive imputation of righteousness. It seems Mattes finds Moltmann attributing too much to actions in salvation more than Luther would approve. Okay, these are some basic thoughts. Please mull over them and discuss, but I’m approaching my word limit and still have much to type.

Jenson is the first time you hear about justification specifically in terms of the church. I feel, however, as if he gets caught up (or Mattes does) in the dichotomous understanding of Jenson’s theology in terms of the Protestant mainline beliefs and Roman Catholic thought. A lot of Jenson’s understanding of justification in the not-yet perfected unity of the church in the eschaton fits with Roman Catholic tradition because, for Jenson, the institution can be the forum through which the Spirit prevalently works (as opposed to mainline Protestantism that lacks the institutional structure). I’ve decided Hegel pervades all theologians talking about justification. I just say this because once again, Jenson leans on Hegelian thought. Jenson also adheres to Mannermaa’s real-ontic Christology. Jenson offers the church as an alternative to the world, but creates an unrealistic and unhelpful dichotomy between the world and the church, painting the world as inherently evil and incorrigible and the church as “perfect.” Jenson seems to get more on track with Mattes in terms of accommodation, but he doesn’t get to Mattes the way Bayer does. Lets check it out.

Obviously, Bayer critiques all of the latter theologians in terms of Bayer’s theology. At face value, I liked aspects of it. It was helpful. For Bayer, language and culture play huge roles in how we understand God and reality. There are only reasons, not overarching Reason. Also, Bayer rejects the Hegelian methodology that all four of the other theologians embrace. Because language is so important, Bayer sees justification as proclamation. It is grounded and realistic. Its not abstract. And its geared completely for the church, yet doesn’t get tied up in the ecumenical conversation (like Jenson did). “For Bayer, theology is not done to integrate all knowledge, either theoretical or practical, into an abstract unity, but to limit reason to its proper fields. It is the art of discerning what God is saying to us, not peering into the divine (p. 149).”

Also, Bayer wants to limit reason to its proper uses and bounds and not justify it or fight against it like other theologians do. While Moltmann and others address a theology of the cross explicitly, Mattes maintains that Bayer implicitly affirms theologia crucis. Another divergent point is that most of the other theologians understood faith and hope in terms of the eschaton and what lies ahead in the future. Conversely, Bayer grounds knowledge and faith in a concrete “historical a priori (p. 159).” Most importantly for Mattes, Bayer’s theology readily assists and is for the mission and body of the church.

Mattes finds Bayer to have a more holistic approach to theology than do the previous theologians. While they deal with one or another specific conversation or intellectual realm, Bayer offers justification as a discrimen.

Mannermaa - He's present in my paper

2007-04-04T01:08:00.000+01:00

Tuomo Mannermaa redefines Martin Luther’s understanding of justification. It is radical and different in that it supposes an ontological nature in the work of God through Christ. Or maybe I should just say through Christ. By rejecting the traditional understanding of Luther he moves beyond the mere imputation of righteousness through faith and into an ontological theosis. I find his understanding of the passive participation of Christians in Christ to be intriguing. I understand this to be that God essentially works on both ends by becoming incarnate in the world and working (officium) for us, while also being (ontologically; the ‘gift’) that which moves us closer to God. This is expounded upon a little later. This is intriguing to me and I wonder, as we have during class, if Luther actually (or ontologically – ha. See my joke?) does lend himself to this “reality of Christ.” What I seek to answer is – What are the implications of this ontological participation in God and unity with God? Des it change the individual’s spirituality? Experiences? Life? Faith? Or does it just change their language? Their outlook? I want to know if living life under Mannermaa’s model of Luther’s justification is actually any different from the life lived under the traditional understanding of Luther and the imputation of righteousness. Of course Mannermaa would argue that it does. I will see.

Theologically it makes a big difference. Christ present in faith becomes the central hub from which all theology and spirituality would flow from for Luther and Lutherans. Obviously, Mannermaa doesn’t think that the traditional understanding of Luther gives enough credit to the actual work and theology Luther sets forth. Mannermaa radically changes, and centralizes Christ in Luther’s theology (even more central than Luther was before! In a different way of course…). One major point I thought about was the idea of objectifying grace to the work of Christ in the Christian. In other words, Christ is present in faith, leaving the Christian to be the object of action (9). This reminds me of a Reformed understanding of the work of Christ in one’s life, even though the initializing is still “left up to the Christian”, as I believe Mannermaa believes but more substantially, doesn’t address. Please join me in that discussion, as it is more of a musing than a statement.

So how does this work? Lets go through Mannermaa’s though process. Christ is the maximus peccator – the greatest sinner. As a kind of “collective person” Christ becomes every sinner. So Christ is immersed in all sins, and visa versa (15). Then, because of the death and resurrection, Christ “conquers” sin, death, the curse, etc and so all of creation is to “be transformed through his person. Salvation is participation in the person of Christ (16).” Honestly, I’m not sure how that jump is made. Plus, this model lends itself to a triumphalism, does it not? The traditional view of all of creation being brought up in Christ through his death and resurrection and being reconciled to him by grace through faith alone and the imputation of righteousness is no different from this model, until Mannermaa’s addition about the transformation piece. Why does Christ taking on sin and conquering death mechanically lead us to an ontological participation and transformation in the being of Christ? And yet the subtle nuance makes all the difference in the world, correct? This leads into the next part of Mannermaa’s theology. Grace is Christ Himself (25). Faith possesses the full essence of Christ (30). Here, it seems that the ontological reality of Christ begins to work out in the spirituality and faith of a believer through a revisioning of grace, love, and faith. All have a bit more reality to them…a bit more Christ in them – ontologically, that is.

From this it is clear that Mannermaa believes the law is completely invalidated as a means for salvation, even more than the traditional sense would? I’m not sure his point here, or the significance of it. Maybe he’s just forced to address this part of Luther’s theology.

Because Christ is the favor as well as the gift, we, as believes, now live our lives, actually with Christ. We therefore become the victors over the forces of sin and evil. So its not only Christ doing the work, and me and Christ doing the work? Being victorious over sin and evil? Well, I’m glad I get to come along for the ride.

Do you note some sarcasm in my voice? That’s because its definitely there. I just don’t get it. I’m not sure I’m offering constructive criticisms of Mannermaa, but a part of me thinks it’s semi-ridiculous. A part of me just isn’t on board and I still don’t think I can express why.

Lets get down to it. Mannermaa’s interpretation of Luther radically nuances the entirety of Luther’s theology. If everything becomes “transcendent” or divine (i.e. faith, the actual life of believers, love, good works, etc) then what happens to the immanent world? What happens to the profane? Maybe that question isn’t even the right one to ask, but if basically everything becomes ontologically divine or sacred in terms of Luther’s justification (and sanctification at that point), how does that change anything? See, whether Mannermaa is right in his revisioning of Luther or not, is he not just trying to put the “correct” name to what has been happening in Lutheran theology for 400 years? Or 2000 years? Does the presence of Christ in faith really change anything but the terminology and outlook of life, spirituality and theology? But then you could argue that I am trumping theology and its development for the experience. But my point is this: if Christ truly is present in faith, ontologically present, would that make such a difference from the traditional viewpoint as to be noted? And if so, what have traditional Lutherans been doing for the past 300 years? Missing the point? Not experiencing the true nature of justification by grace through faith? Doing good works in the wrong context, as Mannermaa addresses in the second half?

And to go back to the beginning, does this have practical applications? Yes, Mannermaa argues for the practicality of the present Christ in the lives of Christians. But it doesn’t do much for me. Could someone help me out if they have a good critique or direction for me to head in terms of Mannermaa? Or are my reservations valid enough? We shall see. I feel like I got on my soapbox early with him and perhaps have not given him a fair shake. And God forbid I dismiss him so unduly as we theology majors are apt to do in the latter years of our theological educations at CCU, and which Dr. Mallinson is so apt to curve us from.

Gregory of Nazianzus

2007-03-31T16:50:00.000+01:00

Gregory of Nazianzus sets forth a solid theological foundation for the belief in the Trinity of the Eastern Church, as well as gives readers a peak into who he is. I found his writing to be direct (compared to other early church theologians!) and humorous. He was bold and forthright and not afraid to go head on into discussion with the Eunomians and Macedonians, who are the main partners in the dialogue. The First Oration is basically an introduction and before he dives into the theological discussions that follow he is adamant about who the discussion will entail and how they should go about it. He believes that not anyone should be able to engage in the dialogue. He finds many people like to ramble on and on as insatiable dialecticians. However, when it comes to the matter at hand, a matter very important and of rather a reverent subject, Gregory believes there must be proper limits and bounds, and in fact, this is the only way the conversation can occur as anything else would be improper and unproductive.[1] The criterion are roughly as follows[2]: those who are pious/pure, those who are actually concerned with the topic and not just there to argue and be petty and trite, discussions on only that which with we can grasp and understand and not beyond our mental capabilities, those willing to discuss within the bounds of Reason and Reverence, as that is the only way in which theology should be philosophized. Gregory also makes it clear in the first oration that he is adamant on the place of Scripture. He views Scripture highly and believes it to be authoritative and theologically binding. The second oration is on God. From the beginning he affirms a Trinitarian view, and enhances it throughout the rest of the orations. In terms of God Gregory doesn’t even try to entertain many arguments because right off he argues that we cannot know most things about the nature of God. We cannot fully “know” God because we only get the reflections of Him, the glimpses, and the back parts (138). For Gregory, language becomes a tool, as imperfect as it is, to talk about God and what we can know of His nature. Because of our flesh and our carnal lives on this earth, God is shrouded in mystery (139), and Gregory doesn’t even speak much to whether we will one day understand fully. He confesses to not knowing, nor does he want it to be his focus. He then moves in to a discussion on creation and the world, and this argument, along with Scripture, is the main ways that Gregory believes we can know God and the main way we see God. Gregory wants to avoid negative theology (a move employed by Maimonides). God is not known through his essence (Deus Nudus) but his energies (fingerprints). God is incorporeal. God is passionless. Even the greatest characters from the Bible could not understand and did not know the full essence of God (148). The next two orations are on the Son, and seem to be of central concern for Gregory. Here begins the discussion of the “begotten” and “unbegotten,” and “originate” and “unoriginate.” From this Gregory engages in long dialogue about language and the use of these words. The Son and Holy Spirit are originate and unoriginate, both at the same time in different understandings, yet no less of the same substance and nature. This argument Gregory does not cease to waiver for the remainder of the orations.

The terms “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are not words that define the differentiations of their natures, for they are of the same natures, and only speak of their “roles” if you will and their relations to one another. The Father is the “Father in the absolute sense, for he is not also Son; just as the Son is Son in the absolute sense, because he is not also Father.”[3]

Gregory believes it is hard for humans to understand this because they think in terms of time and corporeality (162, 166).

The Son and the Spirit derive from the Father, and are not unoriginate in respect to cause, but are unoriginate in respect of time (162). Finally, Gregory helps us through the difficulties of the first oration on God’s mysteries by expounding on the role of Christ as a human. While we can’t know the nature of God, we can know Christ, and Christ is of the same essence of the Father. Christ as incarnate God because our way to see and understand God as much as we can in our corporeal ways. The fourth oration is a continuation of Gregory’s arguments on the Son. Here he gets into details and hashes out the arguments on the nature of the Son being of the same as the Father as refutes would arise from his previous discussions. He works through various Biblical passages one by one. This detailed work inevitably gets him into theological discourse on salvation, justification, and sanctification, as well as the “will” of God (The Son and Father have the same will – 186). Ultimately however, I see Gregory’s focus not being on the arguments he is making and the way he can refute the invalid claims of those he opposes but his focus on the Son and the way Christ, because of who he is (unbegottenly begotten), speak self-evidently. He is righteousness, sanctification, Life, Light, the lamb, the high priest, etc…[4] It is apparent that Gregory’s Christology is the guide for his theology.

The fifth oration on the Holy Spirit is basically closing arguments, and a consummation of the theology already set forth by Gregory. His argument for the Spirit being of the same essence as God is similar to that of the Son. In both orations Gregory analyzes the relation between the Son/Spirit to the Father. He argues that the Spirit must either be an attribute of God or of the same [essence] as the Father. For Gregory, there is nothing lacking by the Son and Spirit, only a difference in manifestation in relationship to the Father which has caused a difference in their names (199). His last pages are on the character of the Trinity as a whole. He refutes arguments of Tritheism and other unorthodox claims of divinity in terms of God and the Godhead. He also places a huge emphasis on the appropriate use of metaphors which he finds important. It is almost as if he feels like he must speak down to those he’s discussing with as if they were too stupid or ill-prepared to understand what he has to say, and instead would dive into every word and phrase at face value as a child might.

In the letters on the Apollinarian controversy Gregory sets forth mainly the understanding of Jesus’ humanity and divinity in three different letters. Jesus was sinful because he underwent the human process of gestation in His mother, Mary, and did not just pass through as through a channel (217). Gregory believes all orthodox believers must commit to Theotokos. While Jesus had two natures they were combined in Him. The whole of Jesus’ nature had to fall, not just half of it, in order for full restoration of humanity to happen (218-219). While some of Gregory’s language lends itself to a soul/body dualism, I believe they must be intermixed for Gregory. Both the soul and body are brought up into salvation. Gregory refutes the idea of a flesh-bearing God in the second letter. For Gregory, Jesus was not just a Divinity that walked around and consorted with sinful humans; He became man with his sinfulness and He took upon Himself the dirtiness of humanity. Basically, Gregory thinks Apollinarus has it all wrong. He refutes the ideas of Jesus in the third letter in terms of who in essence Jesus is, and how Jesus went about being man and God. God did not bring his humanity with Him. He did not bring His human nature down, but acquired it through the birth as a human.

[1] Gregory of Nazianzus, Christology of the Later Fathers, 131.

[2] P. 130

[3] P. 162

[4] P. 191-193

Gregory of Nyssa

2007-01-27T23:18:00.000Z

Gregory of Nyssa is somewhat of an enigma to me because while he fought heresies and fended off accusations of heresy himself, not to mention being a key figure in the Council of Constantinople in 381, he still understood and interpreted scripture very mystically, which is clear in his writings and theological treatises. And yet, while he has been labeled “a mystic” there are many things that are helpful about his understanding of scripture. Nyssa had a high Christology. As a leader in the Eastern Church he spent quite a bit of his time on Trinitarian doctrine. I believe Nyssa views the Bible as a whole, and reads theological ideas from beginning to end, which can be theologically correct, but not necessarily exegetically correct. Of course, I understand exegesis as I have learned it in my Biblical studies class at CCU with all the criticisms and tools of 19^th Century scholarship. If someone would like to correct my understanding of “exegesis” for Nyssa, please do. It seems he is partial to the Old Testament, particularly Exodus (he seems to have this weird fascination with Moses – note the sarcasm), but multiple times refers to Paul and the New Testament.

Nyssa spends much of his time and energy on his spiritual doctrine which is where he gets into some mystical ideas. He uses a basic biblical metaphor, “moving from darkness to light” and his main driving force is the progress of the soul in the contemplation of God. For Nyssa, the soul moves ever closer to understanding and comprehending God, although He is, in fact, incomprehensible. The soul, however, never quits in its progress towards “perfection” (true knowledge of God) and continues an upward, positive progression towards this end.

Like I said, Nyssa has a high Christology. The Incarnation plays a major role in understanding soteriology and ecclesiology. They are, in ways, directly connected through Christ, the Incarnate One. A major metaphor he uses throughout his writings is that of “the Bride” of Christ. While Nyssa leans towards a dualism of soul and body, the Incarnation of Resurrection of Christ encompasses 1) the entire process of “being” for humans from birth to death and everything in between, and 2) all of creation and existence. This is important for his understanding of salvation and the church. It is almost as if, for Nyssa, the Incarnation takes care of the salvation of humanity in and of itself. Nyssa directly correlates the Incarnation (and consequently the Resurrection) to the salvific effect it has on humanity. Faith is key for Nyssa though and he also places a great emphasis on the sacraments and explains their role in his writings. For Nyssa, the Incarnation and the Atonement are almost synonymous. So, while Nyssa does not believe humans can understand God’s ways, and they are eternally mysterious and beyond our comprehension, Nyssa makes clear the implications of God’s actions, particularly the Incarnation. What are the implications of the Incarnation for the church? “The establishment of the Church is a re-creation of the world (p. 273, Glory to Glory). Salvation is also grounded in the Incarnation. Nyssa believes that “anyone who looks upon the universe of the this new creation reflected in the Church, can see in it Him Who is all in all, and thus through things that are intelligible and understandable he may be led by our faith to an awareness of the Transcendent (p. 274).” Since his emphasis on the process of the soul towards the contemplation of the Transcendent is central to Nyssa’s spiritual doctrine, the above understanding of the church’s role in the world is fundamental to Nyssa’s ecclesiology.

Nyssa’s main analogy for the Incarnation is a “ransom” or the “fish and bait.” While this is puzzling because it conflicts with many of his other underlying suppositions and arguments, and fails to properly encapsulate a holistic treatment of the Incarnation, it would be fair to note that his audience and reader were the Greeks and others adhering most probably to the Hellenistic philosophies of the time. This is helpful perhaps in understanding that he might have tried to cater to their use of language and philosophy, or he might himself have gotten pulled into some Hellenistic philosophical presuppositions. Either way, his analogies of the Incarnation are the least useful of his writings.

Gregory of Nyssa was a major theologian for the Eastern Church. He played a central role at a very important time and dealt with many issues in the realms of ecclesiology and theology. He is often times overlooked in the study of historical theology. In conclusion, I thought he had some great stuff. I enjoyed most of the reading.