Here is the point of resistance: "What you are saying removes God from the everyday!" This is the resistance constantly offered against my turn toward radical sola scriptura, this is the real sticking point against all my talk of psychologism and serendipity and revelation and God-breathed and authority and law and gospel and stuff. And, I must admit, there is an element of truth in this. The direction I'm facing does remove "God" from the everyday moment, in a manner of speaking.
Now, this is not to say it secularizes everything, it doesn't. There is no doubt that God upholds and orders all things (Genesis/Ephesians/Colossians passim). What it does remove is the mysterium tremendum et fascinans. It denies every request to look for God in things (en se). It “limits” our knowledge of God, or , if you will, our places of finding God, to Word and Sacrament directly and creation (natural theology) indirectly, but in this latter only in a derivative sense. To explain.
Where natural theology is concerned, it denies that we can begin with the observable world and go on to say anything properly about God. This would be the analogia entis with which Barth beat Catholicism about the ears. Underneath this practice is the Roman Catholic assertion that God does not destroy but perfects nature. Instead, the position to which I am turning begins with Word and Sacrament and only then goes on to say anything about the world which correspond to these things – for example, as a good sermon illustration would do, or in the way we give thanks or that we do good works.
Thus, this is to assert a difference between God and the world. This is to assert the need for special revelation. This is to assert that God redeems the world not as much by perfecting its nature but by killing it and bringing it back to life again. In short, the direction I am looking is, as closely as I can tell, fundamentally Reformational, and fundamentally a "theology of the cross" where any attempt to say anything about God apart from the cross was denounced by Luther as a theology of glory, sure to be an assertion of man and sure to be an eruption of law and an eradication of grace.
This is only a radical move when one considers the evangelical folk-religion Christianity represented by the revivalist/pietist tradition. Indeed, it is because I have begun calling that tradition into question that I’m beginning to wonder whether or not what I'm actually doing is setting off toward another expression of Protestantism entirely; one found in a denomination which discovers it origins closer to the magisterial rather than the radical Reformation. But, of course, one which does not loose the very deposit of faith which has set me off in such an unknown direction. Yes, this is scary, but it is also exciting, in that I am quite sure that by following as best as I can in the direction of the elevation of Scripture, I am discovering a better and more accurate way of understanding Jesus himself, as he is for me, as I am for him, and as this relationship is discovered in the trinitarian economy of God’s saving and redeeming work in the world.
hermeneutics; sola scriptura; canon; natural theology; analogia entis; theology of the cross.
This is an interesting blog.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you think so. Thank you for visiting AND for commenting.
ReplyDeleteQuoting: "Instead, the position to which I am turning begins with Word and Sacrament and only then goes on to say anything about the world which correspond to these things..."
ReplyDeleteI realise I've come in late to this discussion: but is it really legitimate to begin with Word and sacrament? Shouldn't we be aiming to "begin" with Jesus Christ himself (who is by no means identical with either Scripture or sacrament)?
I myself would also approach natural theology from the starting-point of Jesus Christ, since he himself is the creative and redeeming logos who establishes (not by nature, but by grace!) a correspondence between God and the world.
Hi Thom,
ReplyDeleteI read this post with great interest. From reading your blog, I've been wondering for a while whether your disatisfaction with the largely pietist/revivalist traditions may be reaching a certain "tipping point." And I've wondered at times whether you may be going the way of a certain illustrious Gordon-Cornwell graduate (Scott Hahn) in going Romeward.
However, this post clarifies a lot of things. I see that you are more and more identifying with the themes of the "magisterial" Reformers. So at this point, can you see yourself heading ecclesially in a certain direction--Anglicanism? Lutheranism? PCA? I'm also interested in how much a certain German professor emeritus of theology that we both like has influenced your thinking here :).
Good comments all, and very helpful. A scatter of response. First, going over to Rome would be to wriggle out of one fire and fall into another. A move toward Rome would entail the addition of all sorts of quasi-pagan practices. Here is certainly no sola scriptura! On the other hand, Paul, Moltmann's real contribution, a fundamental eschatology, is definitely there. No going back. Ben, you highten the level of accuracy by a few degrees. My post is a bit colloquial, and I think your question about the real source of authority gets at this. Just this morning, I was thinking of Ephesians chapter 1 where all authority in heaven and on earth is given to Christ. Yet, even here there is a trinitarian flow. The Son ultimately completes the "circle" by delivering his authority to the Father. I wouldn't go so far as to repeat Origen's doctrine of cyclical return, but the authority expressed through the Bible and not derived from it, is an authority which is shared among the triune persons respective to their place within the redemptive economy. The authority expressed through Scripture is, thus, not a neutered "power", but an architectonic pull in a thoroughly trinitarian direction - maybe this is what we mean by "adoption". John, I'm not convinced that I contradict Scripture. Romans 1 and Psalm whatever-it-is, to which you refer, were forefront in my mind; note the word "properly" in the line: "it denies that we can begin with the observable world and go on to say anything properly about God." I can see the need for a bit more nuance, but I don't think that makes what I am saying unscriptural. My position is largely against mysticism/pantheism which reads the natural world and its circumstances and tries to make God-talk out of it. (On a side note, I do wish you'd read a bit of Barth. You always bristle everytime he is mentioned. It is a caricature to say that Barth did not love the Bible or hold it in the highest regard.) In terms of my line about the sacraments, admittedly I was not clear. The magisterial Reformation, as far as I'm aware, did and does teach a "sacramental" view of the sacraments. That really wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying was that the sacraments (baptism & the Lord's Supper/Communion/the Eucharist/etc.) preach the gospel and can be meditated on and heard with profit. As for your second-to-last paragraph, we are in total agreement! You write, "There is much to be said for relying on God's presence and guidance ... His will for man's life is vastly preceptive...God's eternal decrees stand firm as we go about our lives." Amen!
ReplyDeleteIn response to John's last comment: "I believe in believer's baptism, which knocks out all the high church for an option." It seems to me that this kind of personal belief doesn't need to "knock out" any ecclesiastical options. Surely you can identify yourself with a church tradition without feeling any obligation to agree with every aspect of that tradition.
ReplyDeleteIf we had to agree 100% with a church tradition before we could be a part of that tradition, then which thinking person would ever find a church to join?
I'm not at all questioning John's own decision to become a reformed baptist. My point is just that John could still be a joyful and whole-hearted reformed baptist even if his personal beliefs began to differ in significant ways from the reformed baptist tradition.
This is part of the essential dynamic of tradition, and it's why a church tradition can still be a living and empowering tradition, not a heavy burden of responsibility or a narrow definition of the boundaries of personal belief. A tradition which is no longer questioned and critiqued from within is, by definition, a dead tradition.
Your hashing things out is all the more reason for you to start a blog, John.
ReplyDeleteLynn-nore and I were just talking about paedobaptism last night. It isn't the forms of baptism that are an issue, but, rather, the underlying anthropologies. I have to say, I am willing to listen in a new way to Reformation arguments about baptism and the eucharist (or whatever you call it -- the Greek is eucharistew.)
Despite John's protest, it seems that both he and Ben agree that there is a difference between core and peripheral issues when one is considering denominational affiliation. You may stay with a denomination despite differences in the peripheral but will probably consider leaving if differences appear at the core.
We have come a long way from discussing sola scriptura. To bring it back a bit. Sola scriptura does not preclude systematic or philosphical theology, just as it does not preclude legitimate historical, linguistic or anthropological research. Sola scriptura is not an incantation which makes the difficulty or complexity go away. It does not circumvent the hermeneutical circle. Sola scriptura has to do with authority. Now, in the case of baptism, we cannot confuse the form with the intent. If a parent unknowingly tells a child to eat something that the child knows would make them violently ill, then they are obeying the parent's will for them by disobeying their particular demand. Baptism is a public declaration of a change in spiritual citizenship. Though the material properties of baptism, namely water, should be adhered to as much as possible, creativity and variations in practice are not to be denied. Sprinkling or even, in a case involving a paraplegic at a local church, a clean, white sheet held over the person and then removed upon completion of the triune blessing does not somehow "undo" baptism any more than grape juice rather than wine undoes communion (or whatever you call that.)
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying things, John -- you're right, I definitely came in late to this whole discussion, so forgive my ignorance of the background and context of all this.
ReplyDeleteI can see that we basically agree that there's no need for a 100% denominational match -- but perhaps we would differ on the question whether infant baptism (or even baptismal theology as a whole) is an important enough issue to change denominations over.
Speaking personally, I know lots of folk in mainline traditions (e.g. Anglican, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) who don't believe in infant baptism or in any kind of sacramental efficacy. And on the other hand I know a life-long Baptist who is an outspoken supporter of infant baptism (!) -- but he still identifies himself fully with his own Baptist tradition.
Anyway, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that people should never change ecclesial traditions (and I don't know anything at all about Thom's own situation) -- I myself changed ecclesial traditions once in the past, and at the time it was quite a radical and difficult change. I think every Christian is free to make such changes according to his or her own conscience -- and my earlier point was simply that every Christian is also free not to make such changes. In all cases, the one essential thing is freedom.
John, Sorry to get back to you so late. My position on baptism has, in the past, been that the form presented to us in the bible, by example and by etymology, is full-on immersion. Yet, I now see that this reading may not be totally clear on its assumptions. First, it understands itself to be an ideal. Should some physical malady or geographic impossibility present itself, changes would be made. The important element, says Believer's Baptism, is public confession, not necessarily the exactness of full immersion. Yet, this demand: for public, personal confession, carries with it a good many assumptions, too, about, for example, the nature of justification (vs free will) and the Christian belief that Jesus is the Truth and the only truth, period, without any possibility of his being a truth among other truths, an option among other options. Indeed, from a certain perspective, believer's baptism may be very much a product of modernity as much as faithful adherence.
ReplyDelete""A lost sheep is, for all practical purposes a dead sheep. It is the admission that we are dead in our sins---that we have no power of ourselves either to save ourselves or to convince anyone else that we are worth saving. It is the recognition that our whole life is out of our hands and that if we ever live again, our life will be entirely the gift of some gracious shepherd. God finds us the desert of death (not in the garden of improvement) and in the power of Jesus' resurrection, he puts us on his shoulders rejoicing and brings us home." ~ Robert Farrar Capon
ReplyDelete