Category Archives: Theology Of Glory

Disallowing Secular Unbelief to Dictate the Terms of God

Posted on by

Secular, worldly unbelief. I think Christians often allow the bar to be set much too low. Much of Christian theology, for example, especially those that have taken shape in the natural theology forest, allow the skeptic’s unbelief to dictate the types of questions the theologians seek to answer. Primary of which are observed in Thomas Aquinas’ Prima Pars (first part) of his Summa Theologiae. Here, Thomas seeks to answer the questions of God’s existence, and whether or not it is coherent to believe that God exists (like a generic God; albeit, in Thomas’ context this would be applied to the Christian God simplicter, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case for him). Once Thomas felt that he had sufficiently answered the skeptic’s arguments, about what God is; he then proceeded onto other mattersβ€”which would entail the Trinity, the Church, Justification and all other theological matters. It isn’t really the order of theology, per se, that is problematic with Thomas’ method (although I would qualify and say: that the order is bereft because it starts with a Monadic conception of God; even so, it starts with God, just from the wrong place). But the fact that he feels compelled to first prove “a God’s” existence, and then only after that apply this β€œproven God’s” existence to some of the more Dogmatic questions of the Church has a highly disordering effect after all.

So, the above is an example of how I believe, at a high level, theology can take its cues and categories from the wrong unbelieving people; and then, of course!, end up with the wrong theological and biblical conclusions. But I think this happens to each and everyone of us, as Christians (at least those attempting to walk as intentional Christians), as we are constantly bombarded with the wares of our Secular Age. As the Apostle Paul counters, even as he is referring to the false teachings and antagonisms of the Pseudo-Apostles in Corinth:

NowΒ I, Paul, myselfΒ urge you by theΒ meekness and gentleness of Christβ€”I whoΒ amΒ meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent!Β 2Β I ask thatΒ when I am present IΒ needΒ not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous againstΒ some, who regard us as if we walkedΒ according to the flesh.Β 3Β For though we walk in the flesh, we do not warΒ according to the flesh,Β 4Β for theΒ weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, butΒ divinely powerfulΒ for the destruction of fortresses.Β 5Β We areΒ destroying speculations and everyΒ lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, andΒ we areΒ taking every thought captive to theΒ obedience of Christ,Β 6Β and we are ready to punish all disobedience, wheneverΒ your obedience is complete.

I am looking at the principle embedded in the emboldened section in particular. Wherever these β€œspeculations” are coming from, whether it be from Joe Pagan at work, or if it be Plato in the heavens, we are to discern such things for what they are, and β€œtake it captive” unto Christ. The simple point I am drawing on is that it is a spiritual battle to ensure that the way we think God, as Christians, is only taken from, and in an immediate way, from God who has spoken to us (and speaks to us) in His Self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Even if there are hallowed traditions, some might call it the Great Tradition of the Church, without any further explication (i.e., it just is), these traditions themselves are always subservient to the reality of Holy Scripture, the theology of the Word, Jesus Christ. And this is the battle we face, on the daily, as Christians. This applies to all Christians, in one way or the other. We are faced with unbelief all around; that’s what this evil age entails. But we are to be more vigilant than theologians of glory, who seek to synthesize the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of the cross. Indeed, we are to be theologians of the cross; and by the wisdom of God, which is the cross of Christ, we are to recognize these false speculative and flighty ideas about God, even if they have many solid layerings and accretions of traditions behind them, in the name of the Church, and test them, in the face of Christ and the triune God, to see if they be so.

This is a prayerful way though.

An Engagement with Philosophical Personhood in Theological Relief

Posted on by

𝐼𝑛 π‘šπ‘¦ π‘β„Žπ‘–π‘™π‘œπ‘ π‘œπ‘β„Žπ‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘™π‘–π‘”π‘–π‘œπ‘› π‘π‘™π‘Žπ‘ π‘  𝑀𝑒 π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘Žπ‘™π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘Žπ‘‘π‘¦ 𝑖𝑛 π‘€π‘’π‘’π‘˜ 2. π‘‡β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘€π‘’π‘’π‘˜ 𝑀𝑒 π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘’π‘›π‘”π‘Žπ‘”π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Ž πΊπ‘œπ‘‘’𝑠 π‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘π‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘ , π‘Žπ‘  π‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘ π‘’ π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘β„Žπ‘–π‘™π‘œπ‘ π‘œπ‘β„Žπ‘–π‘π‘Žπ‘™π‘™π‘¦ π‘π‘œπ‘›π‘ π‘‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘’π‘‘. π‘‡β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘€π‘’π‘’π‘˜ π‘€π‘’β€™π‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘’π‘›π‘”π‘Žπ‘”π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Ž π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ π‘œπ‘›β„Žπ‘œπ‘œπ‘‘, π‘‘π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘›π‘ π‘π‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘’π‘›π‘π‘’, π‘–π‘šπ‘šπ‘Žπ‘›π‘’π‘›π‘π‘’, π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘œπ‘šπ‘›π‘–π‘π‘œπ‘‘π‘’π‘›π‘π‘’ 𝑣𝑖𝑠 π‘Ž 𝑣𝑖𝑠 πΊπ‘œπ‘‘. π»π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’ 𝑖𝑠 π‘€β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ 𝐼 π‘€π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘‘π‘’ π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Ž π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘“π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘›π‘π‘’ π‘‘π‘œ π‘€β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ 𝑖𝑑 π‘šπ‘’π‘Žπ‘›π‘  π‘‘π‘œ 𝑏𝑒 π‘Ž π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ π‘œπ‘›. π‘Šπ‘’ π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘’ 𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇.𝐽. π‘€π‘Žπ‘€π‘ π‘œπ‘›’𝑠 π‘π‘œπ‘œπ‘˜ *𝐡𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓 𝑖𝑛 πΊπ‘œπ‘‘* π‘Žπ‘  π‘œπ‘’π‘Ÿ 𝑑𝑒π‘₯𝑑. π‘†π‘œ, π‘šπ‘¦ π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ π‘π‘œπ‘›π‘ π‘’ 𝑖𝑠 π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Ž π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘“π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘›π‘π‘’ π‘‘π‘œ β„Žπ‘œπ‘€ β„Žπ‘’ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 *π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ π‘œπ‘›β„Žπ‘œπ‘œπ‘‘* (𝑖𝑑 𝑖𝑠 π‘Žπ‘π‘‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘™π‘™π‘¦ π‘‘π‘œπ‘œ π‘™π‘œπ‘›π‘” π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘œπ‘’π‘Ÿ π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘’π‘š, π‘œβ„Ž 𝑀𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐿𝑂𝐿).

Boethius

I disagree with Mawson out of hand on the entailments of what makes a person a person. Mawson, is taking a classical way, one we would find in Boethius, Aquinas et al. (most of the Latin tradition). To define the base ground of what it means to be a person, on terms of a purely intellectualist or rationalist ground, is to imbibe a philosophical/speculative tradition; indeed. Unfortunately, for my money, to use this type of speculative ground as one’s major premise, in regard to developing an anthropology, can only lead to a speculative conclusion. Indeed, it might be self-referentially coherent, as I think Mawson’s accounting is; but ultimately, in my view, the conclusion is only as sound as the first premise.

As a Christian theist I would argue that personhood ought to be defined by reference to the imago Dei/Christi (image of God/Christ). That is to say, in my view, to understand the entailments of personhood cannot (or at least, should not) begin with an abstract thought, but instead with the concrete givenness of God’s life for the world in the face of His Son, Jesus Christ (see Colossians 1.15). In this way, personhood’s definition finds an antecedent ground beyond the immanent frame, and has a β€˜transcendent’ starting point not from within itself (as an immanent abstraction), but outwith itself in the personhood of the divine Monarchia, as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (the hypostases/persons of the Godhead coinhere one in the other in a filial and eternal relationship of interpenetrating life). If this mysterious (yet revealed) life becomes the ground by which personhood comes to have definition, at the very least what it means to be a person, is to be in a community of love for the other; living a life of self-givenness, one for the other, wherein what it means to be a person isn’t defined by having β€œrationality” or β€œself-consciousness,” per se, but to be in person-al relationship one with the other. And what serves as the ground of this community-fellowship-based personhood, only can come first, as gift, as God has graciously invited us into participation with His triune-person-grounded life through Jesus Christ.

If I reject Mawson’s definition for personhood, which I do, of course, then his dilemma of attempting to provide nobility or sanctity for humans without brain-activity is non-starting for me.

Based on my first long response, in regard to the constituents of what makes a person a person, I would argue that the triune God is the personalizing person. So, in this frame, can someone be β€œmore” of a person than someone else? That seems to make an attempt at quantifying what it means to be a person in terms of a quality (or substance) or something. God in Christ by the Holy Spirit, I would argue, is the person making person, in eternal relation; which would make Him the archetypal personalizing person maker. In this sense He is the Alpha and Omega. But since He graciously invites us into participation with Him through Christ, at a purely human level, there isn’t one person who is more person than another. God’s life is sui generis. All people are equal, insofar that all people are created in the image of God/Christ.

According to Scripture (John 4.24) β€˜God is spirit,’ and spirit is not gendered, per se. That said, God has Self-revealed Himself as Father of the Son (as Athanasius is wont to press). In the Christian reality God enfleshed came as a Man, as the Son of God (the second person). The Bible refers to God in masculine terms, by and large (except with reference to the Holy Spirit); and for me that ought to be determinative for how we refer to God.

PS. a struggle, which I knew I was bringing to this course of study, is that I am already committed to a certain Christian orientation with reference to thinking God, and everything subsequent. I had attempted to study God philosophically, at a formal level, many years ago now, and found it wanting. Even so, I still think there is value in learning to contemplate and think deeply and rigorously with regard to anything (which is why I paid for the class).

The Vultures Have No Knowledge of God’s Kingdom: Living in the Theology of the Cross

Posted on by

forΒ we walk by faith, not byΒ sight . . .[1]

It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the Β»invisibleΒ« things of God as though they were clearly Β»perceptible in those things which have actually happenedΒ« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25), he deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.[2]

Above we have both the Holy Spirit/Apostle Paul and Martin Luther underscoring the same thing. That is, the Christian, in the far country of this world, in this in-between time, doesn’t see, doesn’t endure, doesn’t know, lest it be by seeing the things that are unseen; the things re-created in the blood drenched soil of the cross of Jesus Christ. It is when the seed falls into the ground and dies that new life, a new creation comes into existence. The vision the Christian operates from comes from this new order of the apocalyptic and disruptive reality of God become man in Jesus Christ. The profane has no quarter here. This seems radical, foolish and weak even, but indeed, it is the via crucis. When daily life, even at its deepest possible reality, is understood as the measure and boundary of what and who can be known, all that we end up with is a superficial and immanentist knowledge of things. But the reality of the world, as Barth says, the reality of the external world (i.e., creation) is the inner life of the covenant bonded between God and humanity in the hypostatic union of God the Son with humanity in the visceral and concrete humanity of the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ. The Christian reads reality from this type of unio mystica (β€˜mystical union’), which indeed is not of this world, even while being fully and freely for it.

If the Christian misses this most basic insight, then they will be well on their way to living a highly disillusioned life as a Christian. They will attempt to force things into place that are impossible to force, simply because the ultimate ground of reality is in fact a Miracle. And yet, this isn’t an abstract ethereal thing; i.e., as has already been noted, it is grounded in the concrete of God’s life for the world in the flesh and blood humanity of Jesus Christ. This ought to lead the knower into the realization that they sit in a vulnerable place, as if a newborn babe thrown to the side of the road in its mother’s afterbirth, waiting either to be eaten alive by the circling vultures, or instead, to be picked up, dressed in swaddling cloths, put to rest in the manger, and finally ascended to the right hand of the Father. It is indeed this radical. The vultures have no quarter in the kingdom of God.

[1] Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul, II Corinthians 5.7 (Macedonia: GNT, 55/56 AD).

[2] Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation 1518.

Theological Academia Juxtaposed with a Theology of the Crucis

Posted on by

I think a lot of people involved in theological academics are driven by a competitiveness equal to professional athletes. There is this desire to over-excel in such a way that they out produce, or equally produce, by way of quantity and quality, with reference to their academic publishing (and other accolades). A constant need to prove to themselves, and others, that they are at the top of the game, and have achieved where most others have failed (or not even aspired to).

The irony of this type of drivenness is that it is antithetical to a theology of the cross.

Addendum: In the Eschaton will it matter more if you taught and were taught theology in the halls of the accredited and glamorously instutionalized halls of Divinity in first world countries, or if instead it was in a shack in Timbuktu? Seems to me that the model is all messed up. The Kingdom flips things upside down. Neither the halls of Divinity nor the shack is the point to this: it is simply a matter of Who theology is or isn’t about. Being poor in spirit is the way.

On Being a Real Protestant: Calvin and Barth against Thomas and the Thomists on a Vestigial Knowledge of God

Posted on by

Is God really knowable, secularly, in the vestiges of the created order? In other words, does God repose in the fallen order to the point that vain and profane people can come to have some type of vestigial knowledge of the living God? According to Thomas Aquinas, and other scholastics of similar ilk, the answer is a resounding: yes. Here is Thomas himself:

as we have shown [q. 32, a. 1], the Trinity of persons cannot be demonstratively proven. But it is still congruous to place it in the light of some things which are more manifest to us. And the essential attributes stand out more to our reason than the properties of the persons do, for, beginning from the creatures from which we derive our knowledge of the personal properties, as we have said [q. 32, a. 1]. Thus, just as to disclose the persons we make use of vestigial or imaged likenesses of the Trinity in creatures, so too we use their essential attributes. And what we call appropriation is the disclosure of the persons through the essential attributes.[1]

Karl Barth makes appeal to John Calvin to repudiate this type of β€˜vestigial’ knowledge of God, as we find that in Thomas Aquinas previously. Calvin might not develop an anti-natural theology in the ways that Barth does, but he does share with Barth a principled and prior commitment to a radical theology of the Word, to a knowledge of God as Redeemer prior to Creator. And so here we have Barth and Calvin joining forces, even if only in incipient ways, on Calvin’s part (mediated through Barth), against the Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas:

To my knowledge, the strongest testimony of theological tradition in this direction is Calvin’s foreword to hisΒ Commentary on the Book of GenesisΒ (1554). In this work he recalls 1 Cor. 1:21: β€œFor after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” What Paul obviously means is:Β it is in vain for God to be sought by reference to visible things, and indeed that anything should remain, except so that we should be brought straight toΒ Christ. Therefore we should make our beginning not with the things of this world, but with the gospel, which puts forth one Christ with his cross and holds us in him.Β In view of this, Calvin’s conviction is also:Β indeed it is vain for any to philosophize in the manner of the world, unless they have first been humbled by the preaching of the gospel, and have instructed the whole compass of their intellect to submit to the foolishness of the cross. I say that we will find out nothing above or below that will lift us to God, until Christ has educated us in his school. Nothing further can be done, if we are not raised up from the lowest depths and carried aboard his cross above all the heavens, so that there by faith we might comprehend what no eye has ever seen, nor ear ever heard, and which far surpasses our hearts and minds. For the earth is not before us there, nor its fruits supplied for daily food, but Christ himself offers himself to us unto eternal life; nor do the heavens illuminate our bodily eyes with the splendor of the sun and stars, but the same Christ, the light of the world and the sun of righteousness, shines forth in our souls; nor does the empty air spread its ebb and flow around us, but the very Spirit of God quickens and enlivens us. And so there the invisible kingdom of Christ fills all things, and his spiritual grace is diffused through all things.Β To be sure, this ought to prevent us from looking to heaven and earth as well and in this way fortifying ourselves in the true knowledge of God.Β For Christ is the image, in which God not only allows his breast to be seen, but also His hands and feet. By β€˜breast’ I mean that secret love, by which we are enfolded in Christ; by β€˜hands’ and β€˜feet’ I understand those works which are set before our eyes.Β But:Β As soon as we have departed from Christ, there is nothing is so gross or trivial that we can avoid being mistaken as to its true nature.Β (C.R.Β 23, 10 f.). We do not find in Calvin any more detailed explanation or exposition of this programmatical assertion either in theΒ Commentary on GenesisΒ or in the relevant passages in theΒ Institutio.Β Yet there can be no doubt that he has given us a stimulus to further thinking in this direction. The step which we ourselves have attempted along the lines he so impressively indicated is only a logical conclusion which is as it were set on our lips by the statements of the fathers, although they did not draw it for themselves.[2]

This is one reason among many why any serious Reformed person who would ever think that resourcing Thomas Aquinas and his Aristotelianism as a β€˜congruous’ means by which to think God becomes quite staggering. Such a move flatly contradicts a principled and intensive commitment to the so-called β€˜Protestant Scripture Principle.’ And yet, as the Post Reformed orthodox history bears out this is exactly what many of these Reformers did; they built their β€œReformed” systems of theology on the Thomistic and Aristotelian ground provided for them in the Latin theological heritage so bequeathed. I’m still of the mind that it’s better to actually be principially Protestant rather than functionally Tridentine and Roman Catholic in my theology, as a Protestant. Many like Matthew Barrett, Craig Carter, and more seriously, Richard Muller and David Steinmetz et al. disagree.

[1] Thomas Aquinas, ST 1, q. 39, a. 7 cited by Gilles Emery, OP, The Trinitarian Theology of St Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 328–29.

[2] Karl Barth,Β Church Dogmatics III/1 Β§40 [031] The Doctrine of Creation: Study EditionΒ (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 30–1 [italics mine, they represent the translation of Calvin’s Latin].

Job’s Dramatic Irony: Getting God Right Through Suffering Rather than Nature

Posted on by

The biblical book of Job, literarily, operates with what is called dramatic irony. Here is how the Oxford Dictionary defines dramatic irony:

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.[1]

As a reader, or even movie-watcher, we the audience have the capacity to read or watch with this type of β€˜irony.’ We can skip to the end, and then read the beginning to the end, knowing what the final outcome is. Or we can read through a book or watch a movie in total, and next time we come to read or watch said book or movie we will already know what the characters present in the storyline remain unaware of throughout. Indeed, the drama of our lives before God, could be characterized as a dramatic irony as understood in Christ. We have the capacity, in God’s life of Grace, who is the Christ, to know how it all ends. We don’t have the details of how that looks in our daily and personal lives, but we know the One who does; and in a general way, with important specifics in tow, we know what we can expect in the end/Eschaton. As such, we can look at our unfolding stories in light of the End, the Beginning and End, and rest in the knowledge that no matter what we walk through, both the deep waters and the fire, in this cruci-shaped life, we will indeed resurrect.

In the instance of Job’s story, we have many of the details. We know that God judged, and in the end found Job faithful, and Job’s friends faithless (not even acknowledging the youngster, Elihu’s existence). But I was thinking, as I just finished reading Job again: when you listen to Job’s β€œfriends” and their β€œcounsel” or β€œberatement” of him, at first blush it sounds like they might be offering many profound insights with reference to the character and action of God. But what we know, even from the beginning of the story, is that Job’s friends, while stating, surely, some true facts about God, that they were working off a faulty natural theological assumption based on their own lights. They presumed that Job must have been in some sort of vile sin, thus justly undergoing God’s judgement on his life. Throughout the plotline of Job’s travail, he grows in the grace and knowledge of the LORD, while his friends stay static, thinking of God through static terms, based on their own naturalistic reasoning, their own prefabricated notions in regard to God’s ways, and thus arriving at horrifically bad conclusions as they approached their β€œfriend,” brother Job.

I was just thinking, I don’t want to operate like one of Job’s friends. I want to be Job instead. I want to know who God is as I trust and depend on the One who alone raises the dead. With Job I want to be the one who says β€œI know that my Redeemer lives, and at last He shall stand on the earth.” I don’t want to think God based on my own wits, or others’, thus arriving at faulty and crooked theology and its attending spirituality. I want to know God through the shape of His cross in Jesus Christ; depending upon His grace, which is sufficient, thereby genuinely coming to know the true who-ness of God from His inner-life, as I participate in that through the mediatory person of Jesus Christ, through union with Him by the re-creative and bonding work of the Holy Spirit.

[1] Oxford Dictionary, accessed 05-05-2024.

On Evangelizing Theological Academia

Posted on by

My approach to so-called theological academia is in an attempt to evangelize it; to redeem it; to frame it within the doxological. Left to itself it only turns inward, and worships its own heights and depths; worships its own theses and notions, as ends in themselves; as a way to promote the self among the other selves within the guild. The reality remains, though, that it is indeed there. There is a body of work produced in the theological guild, that despite itself, has the capacity for being commandeered by the Holy Spirit, in such a way that its veritable witness might point beyond itself; beyond its procrustean boundaries (indeed, as those are provided for, in liminal ways, by the theologian’s own mind); and unto the Reality of all realities, as that terminates in the face of Jesus Christ in the triune life.

I think this is the mistake: I am not an academic, nor ever have been; or aspired to be one. I have done what some might consider to be β€œacademic” work, to a certain extent, but that is not my motivation. My motivation has been and always will be as one of the β€˜beggars all.’ I am a bruised reed in need of the Savior of heaven and earth. This is why I end up reading β€œacademic theological” works: it is because in spite of the culture that produces them, the Lord can take what is presented there and still evangelically nourish the body in ways, with depths, that other writings and teachings, cannot really offer. But again, I think it is all about approach and attitude as we seek to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ; that is in deeper ways. The trick is to not fall prey to the attitude and the theology of glory that often attends the production of these various works. Indeed, this isn’t the only motivation; but after looking at CVs, and how these works are used to populate and promote said authors, it is hard to not come to the conclusion that there aren’t some ulterior things afoot in the souls of those who do such work. Even so, there are parables, even β€˜secular parables,’ or β€˜social co-efficients’ present in all the works of God; even as those are presented in the malformed motives and self-promotions we are all prone to (as we wander around).

There will never be, of course!, a purely presented theological offering, since ALL of its presenters are indeed simul justus et peccator (β€˜simultaneously justified and sinner’). Even so, we must still be vigilant as we attempt to consume such offerings; we must bring them as offerings before the Lord, and allow Him to in-break upon our readings and appropriations of the various thoughts and notions we expose ourselves to in these respective works of theology and biblical studies. Our approach ought to spring from a confessional and warm-hearted love of the risen Christ. For me, this is about the only guard I know of when engaging with a theological world who sees its virtue in being dispassionate, abstract, speculative, and discursive. It is the β€˜love of Christ that constrains us.’ If not, it is probably better not to engage with the academic theological works; it will only serve to make us β€œintellectual giants” in our own minds, leading us into an inward turn that only God in Christ, in His mercy, can in-break and save us from (over and again). It is possible to do and read theology in a way that does the opposite of what it is supposed to do: it can create a hardened interior to the things of the Spirit, leading its practitioners into a numbed world of insensitivity and callousness that will be self-interpreted as simply being rigorous thinkers for God.

We can have all knowledge; but without the love of Christ it means nothing.

Being a Christian as a Theologian: Against the Profession[al] Theologians

Posted on by

44Β Then Moses came and spoke all the words of this song in the hearing of the people, he, with Joshua the son of Nun.Β 45Β When Moses had finished speaking all these words to all Israel,Β 46Β he said to them, β€œTake to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall commandΒ your sons to observeΒ [r]carefully,Β evenΒ all the words of this law.Β 47Β For it is not an idle word for you; indeedΒ it is your life. AndΒ by this word you will prolong your days in the land,Β which you are about to cross the Jordan toΒ possess.” Deuteronomy 32:44-47

7Β For not one of usΒ lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;Β 8Β for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; thereforeΒ whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.Β 9Β For to this endΒ Christ died and lived again, that He might beΒ Lord both of the dead and of the living. Romans 14:7-9

31Β Whether, then, you eat or drink orΒ whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. I Corinthians 10:31

Therefore if you have beenΒ raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is,Β seated at the right hand of God.Β 2Β Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.Β 3Β For you haveΒ died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.Β 4Β When Christ,Β who is our life, is revealed,Β then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Colossians 3:1-4

Many other passages could be adduced; but these should suffice for our purposes. I simply wanted to reinforce the notion that to be a genuine Christian theologian is really to be a growing and moving disciple of Jesus Christ. I have come across theologians out there who treat being a β€œtheologian” like it’s a profession; of the type that you clock in and out of. These are mainly academic theologians, or pastors who look at what they do as a discipline, or again, as a profession that they do, at points of the day, and then don’t do at other points of the day. I don’t actually take this mode of existence, though, to be an iteration of a genuinely Christian theologian. A genuine Christian theologian is someone who understands the gravitas of what the Christian life or existence entails. That is, the Christian theologian understands that all that they do, and are, is consumed by God, who is a jealous God. They understand that they aren’t their own, but have been bought with a price; the price of the blood of Jesus Christ. They recognize they can do nothing apart from the True Vine, and that their lives always have the gift and the burden upon it to represent the Christ, who is their life, to their families, the church, and the world. This type of existence isn’t one where you take your theologian hat off, and put your weekend warrior hat on; so on and so forth. To be a Christian theologian is a totalizing way of life; again, consumed by the One Who is our life: Jesus Christ in the triune God. Being a Christian theologian isn’t merely a β€œlifestyle,” but it is indeed to live life, coram Deo. Being a Christian theologian isn’t a performance we manufacture for others; but it is instead, an existence wherein we are constantly bearing witness to the hope that is within us, for us, and for the world. Being a Christian theologian involves constant labor, motored by the resurrection power of Jesus Christ; indeed, as that power is breathed into our lives, afresh anew, moment-by-moment, in and through the Holy Spirit. Being a Christian theologian isn’t primarily tinctured by being one of the β€˜schoolmen’; instead, being a Christian theologian entails a life of deovtio Christi via participatio Christi. Being a Christian theologian is simply the Christian existence, it is the Christian life before God; from God, in participation with God unto all time and eternity.

I have grown weary of the so-called professional theologians. There is no love or passion of Christ there, for the most part. It is a manual-Christianity wherein the performer walks through the hoops of what being a professional theologian entails. There is a theology of glory underneath the professional theologians’ vector; you know β€œpublish or perish.” The CV is king, and it is used as the reduction of the persons’ life within the professional guild of the theologians. A person, in fact, doesn’t even need to be an actual Christian to be a professional β€œChristian” theologian. A professional theologian is considered a better theologian if they are dispassionate, and discursively removed from the panoply of the lowly regular people Christians out there. For the professional theologian there is a premium placed on the intellect, and its force of brute power while it sits in the room at the annual theological conference[s].

Would Jesus, the Apostles, and Christians who have simply lived life before God, in and from His passion (and of course, Jesus is God’s passion for the world), as they inhabitatio Dei, be certifiable within the professional theologians’ guild today? I would say not! If the regular Christians of God’s in Christ’s declension would not be welcomed at the banqueting table of the professional theologians, what is there to say about the professional theologians? Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

 

23Β Thus says theΒ Lord, β€œLet not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not theΒ mighty man boast of his might, let not aΒ rich man boast of his riches;Β 24Β but let him who boastsΒ boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am theΒ LordΒ whoΒ exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for IΒ delight in these things,” declares theΒ Lord. Jeremiah 9:23-24

St. Martin Luther, the Christian Humanist Against the Glory Theologians

Posted on by

Definitions are important; if for no other reason but to understand what something means. Context provides meaning, and thus definition, for words; whether that is in sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, so on and so forth. When attempting to understand where a particular theologian lies, as far as classification, within the alternative types of being a theologian, it is important that we get a handle on the definitions used to ascertain that. In the medieval period, generally, a theologian could be classified as a scholastic theologian, or a Christian humanist; or potentially, both, depending on the way someone enters into the reconstruction of said history. There are general markers that broadly characterize a scholastic theologian from a Christian humanist theologian. 1) A scholastic theologian was, methodologically, committed to the dialectical methodology. This methodology entailed a presentation of: a) thesis, b) antithesis, c) synthesis. Beyond its formality, more materially, the scholastic was often an Aristotelian, and later, after Thomas Aquinas’ synthesis of Aristotle with Christian dogmatics, a Thomist. 2) A Christian humanist theologian was typified by an attempt to ad fontes (go back to the sources, behind the layers and accretions of beliefs the scholastics had developed), with a focus on understanding the original biblical languages (so getting beyond Latin); and by way of methodology, the Christian humanist didn’t necessarily attempt to synthesize ideas. The humanist believed, by reference to their set of literary and linguistic and historical tools, that they could arrive at a scenario, when deciding on the validity and soundness of this or that theological loci, that the theologian should be able to say: Yes or No.

The above is the world that Martin Luther, and the magisterial reformers in general, were birthed into. There is argument on whether or not Luther was more scholastic or more humanist in his approach. For my money, Luther, fit more broadly, within the school of the Christian humanists (we could refer to Lorenzo Valla here to underscore the genesis of the humanist way). Some would argue that to drive too hard of a wedge between the scholastics and the humanists in the late medieval and early reformation period, would be to engage in presenting a false dilemma. These folks would prefer that we understand that these β€œschools” were not as nice and tidy as we might make them today; that there was an organic crossover between the schools, materials, and methods of the two camps. Be that as it may, Brian Gerrish, via Charles Partee’s engagement, believes Luther fits the Christian humanist, or even the biblical humanist classification; as both a theologian and reformer of the Latin church.

Brian A. Gerrish raises β€œthe possibility that perhaps Luther may be, indeed should be, classed with the so-called β€˜Biblical Humanists” [sic] A sounder basis for excluding Luther, not from humanism in general, but from the notion of Christian philosophy in particular, is the fact that Luther insists that philosophy and theology should be carefully distinguished. Luther sees philosophy as the theology of the heathens. With this understanding Luther is less interested in studying philosophy with appreciative intent than others.[1]

Theologically, we might suggest that Luther’s infamous theologia crucis (β€˜theology of the cross’) fits well with the Christian or Biblical humanist orientation. It rejects the philosophical and speculative measures deployed by the theologians of glory, and instead focuses on the concreto of God’s Self-revelation in Jesus Christ; particularly as the character of God is given full magnification in the Son’s β€œobedience of death, even unto death on the cross.” The theology of the cross, repudiates speculating about a God up yonder, and entrenches itself within the Light of Light of God that is given for the world in God’s life for the world, in the person of God for the world in Jesus Christ.

This type of orientation, as the one we have just ostensibly observed in Luther, is present in someone like John Calvin; and beyond, into the modern period, we see this mood picked up by folks like Karl Barth and Thomas Torrance, respectively. It is this orientation that has drawn me to such theologians. I am, broadly speaking, a proponent of a form of Chrisitan humanism, as described in this post; and as illustrated by a suggestive proposal with reference to St. Martin Luther. So let it be written, so let it be done.

[1] Charles Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1977), 12-13.

The Lion-Lamb God versus the God of Classical Theism and orthodoxies

Posted on by

I think part of the problem is that there is a lot of theological insecurity out there, so there is a desire to find stability and safe-haven in a bulwark of theological enterprise that has time and development behind it. The problem with that approach, though, is that time isn’t God. A major aspect of the incarnation of God in Christ is the Revelation that God’s stability is filial and vulnerable. There is a sense of vulnerability and nakedness before God that characterizes God’s relationship with us, and thus ours with Him. Attempting to find repose in the God who isn’t just a Lion, but a Lamb crucified, doesn’t always seem that inviting to those who are pressed here and there by the polemical winds of mass theological confusion out there. So, for some Protestants, Reformed or Lutheran orthodoxy seems inviting, even if the theological proper foundation behind said orthodoxy is philosophically based (Thomist-Aristotelian-Scotist) rather than genuinely biblically based.

But this betrays the supposed formal principle of at least the Reformed iteration of reformational theology: i.e., the Scripture Principle. People can claim that the refuge they’ve found in some form of Protestant orthodoxy is indeed “biblical,” but when in fact the characteristics of said biblicism have been sublimated by an actus purus god, can it really be said any type of sound, biblical stability has been found? It seems to me a sense of history, time, and an ostensible Divine Providence, therein, has become the refuge; more so than the God who has Self-revealed Himself, His character in the cruciform shaped God that He indeed is.