Christianity and Socialist Society

In his article Adapting Christianity to Socialist Society: Theological Changes Xiao Anping postulates, “that changing times and social development also bring about changes and development in theology” and then considers the way in which the adaptation of Christianity to Chinese socialist society should be viewed, which according to Anping is from the perspective of changes in theological thinking – presumably historically, politically, and socially.

Indeed, the whole argument of this article seems to be focused around creating an understanding of the necessity of theological reconstruction within Chinese Christian theology. It should be understood here that Anping is not seeking to change the theology of the Chinese Church for mere change sake, but to contextualize his Christianity into a new and changing socialist society. For legitimate reasons, Christianity has historically been associated with Western civilization. But China is an Eastern civilization with a developing socialist society containing a unique set of social ideals. In many ways it is a world that is completely foreign to the Western mind. And if we as Westerners struggle to understand and integrate ourselves into Eastern culture, then we can’t expect anyone to conform to our ideas of something as central as ones faith.

Anping then demonstrates the flexibility of Christianity to adapt to its socio-political climate by tracing the development of Christian thought from the early Middle Ages through the Reformation. He says that a history of theology is, “the history of the contextualization of theology in different societies and cultures, and its development within that context.”

Here it is interesting to note that a significant assumption of Anping’s is that the progress that is made within Christian theology is also an advancement in and to society. For example he says, “the religious reformation became… directly involved in the great transformation in thinking that took place. Thus the religious reformation can be seen as the expression of humanism within the church, not only causing changes in theology, but also promoting the advancement of the whole of European history and society.”

But while Anping says that theological evolution is a social development, his understanding of this concept is unclear. It seems that while he is arguing for this need of “contextualization” in theology due to an existing socio-political context, he also wants to argue that this change in theology contributes to a change and development in society. He seems to create for himself a contradiction between these two ideas. However, I think that perhaps a better way of looking at this is to view this relationship as a parallel “both and” relationship as opposed to one of cause and effect. Because religion and culture cannot separate from each other. In fact, it is not that one is always influenced by the other, it is that each is continually impacted by the other.

But Anping claims that, “changes in theology are not in contradiction to the Bible” – a statement that may or may not be true depending on the specific nature of the change he discussing. We could accept his statement if it were clear that he were only talking about shifts within orthodox Christian thought. However, he does not make this clear, and only succeeds in creating more questions as to what the specific nature of these theological “changes” entail when he attempts to support this point scripturally.

He first cites the difference in some individuals’ notions of God and how that differed between the Old and New Testaments (where some view God as a strict disciplinarian in the O.T. and as love in the N.T.). This is problematic for two reasons. First, because we numerous cases of God’s love, mercy, and redemption in the O.T. and His justice and righteous indignation in the N.T. And second, because these individuals who might have held such a specific view of God were not (to any fault of their own) privy to the complete spectrum of theological revelation that we are today which could have led them to an incomplete, albeit uninformed, view of God.

Second, and perhaps even more speciously, Anping uses the Acts 15 text of the meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem to argue that theological change is not in contradiction to the Bible. He says that the shift away from a Christianity that required certain law fulfillments to a Christianity that was characterized in “justification by faith” only demonstrated to people that Christianity was not exclusively for the Jews and served as a severance point from Judaism. But, while those things are true, I would argue that the very reason that the Jerusalem council was held was because the gospel that Peter and others were preaching was a gospel that was in contradiction to the gospel of Christ (and by implication the gospel of the Bible). This can be seen by the very fact that Paul has to publicly confront Peter and condemn his behavior towards the gentile believers.[1] In fact, even were the Judaizing gospel the biblical gospel, the shift that we see here in Acts 15 is a contradictory change in theology; the change from the “Judaizing” theology to “Paul’s” theology is a change from a works based theology to a faith based theology – such a drastic change in theological systems as to warrant one or the other outside of orthodoxy.

When we understand the backdrop from which Anping writes, then we begin to be able to understand his reasons for advocating theological change and his means of doing so. Anping is actively involved as Dean of Zhongnan Seminary and is a part of what is commonly known as the “Three-Self Movement”, which is the legally licensed and recognized Christian church in China. As someone involved in the Three-Self Movement, Anping is concerned with national pride and development as a part of his local Chinese theology, which is probably why he spends such a great deal of time discussing the need for theology to be contextualized. Further, he probably does not hold a very high view of the non-registered church movement, as he thinks that they tend to be more what we might refer to as “traditional”, of which he would say that such a theology is irrelevant to the modern Chinese and therefore incapable of reaching him.

In conclusion I would say that Anping is accurate in his assessment of the need for theology to adapt to its socio-political context and that this is the perspective from which we should view Chinese theological reconstruction. However, I am wary of the ambiguous nature of his needed theological “change”, and curious as to the bounds of his defined Christian orthodoxy and how far this said “change” is allowed to develop before it becomes something that is unrecognizable.

---

[1] Further, we have texts like those in Galatians where Paul explicitly condemns the “Judaizers” and their heretical forms of the gospel.

Essays on I Thess. 2.7-12 (Part 6)

‘For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory’ (NIV).

Paul concludes the passage in vv. 11-12 by casting himself in the role of the father of the Thessalonians. This metaphor is perhaps the most important image in the chapter; Paul’s understanding of it illumines all of what he has said thus far and sets precedence for his further discussion.

As the leader of the Roman family the father had complete authority over his household. This included especially the didactic and pedagogical duties that a parent would perform (v.12) and would also include aspects of providing an example by which those children could pattern their lives after. Often times the Roman father was cast as a harsh and domineering figure, however Burke shows that the Roman father could also be very affectionate, which would further elucidate his use of a maternal metaphor as an auxiliary explanation of his fatherly affection.[1]

Verse 11-12 then states the ways in which Paul interacted with the Thessalonians. Mention should be made here that v.11 possesses no verb of its own and should instead be seen as an extension of v.10, in which case “dealt” is probably better translated as “brought up” or “trained,” centering on the didactic role of Paul’s fatherhood.[2]

The three participles in v.12 describe the specific nature of Paul’s paternal care; that is, “encouraging, comforting, and urging.” The first two of these participles are often used interchangeably and are closely tied. Here “encourage” most probably means “to exhort the Thessalonians towards Christian conduct” whereas “comfort” is likely looking back on their distress upon becoming converted (seen in 1.6).[3] The final participle “urging” is the strongest of the three and perhaps the most important as it conveys an idea of insistence, which suggests a “strong moral thrust where he [Paul] charges his converts about the necessity to live radically different lives compared to their previous way of living.”[4] This notion of the way a Christian was to live his life is further supported by Paul’s metaphor of a spiritual walk, of which Paul has provided an example in 2.10.[5]

Verse 12 closes with Paul making mention of God as He who “calls you into his kingdom and glory.” With this he makes reference to the eschatological aim of the believer’s life “[indicating] a believer’s ultimate goal: to live under the dominion and in the presence of God” which is both a partial present reality and future expectation.[6] The Thessalonian believers could identify with this as it referenced the “royal theology” which had already been presented to them (Acts 17.7) and pushed them towards the kind of living involved in God’s “kingdom and glory.”[7]

---

[1] Burke, 148-49.

[2] Wannamaker, 105-06.

[3] Burke, 144.

[4] Best, E. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A. & C. Black, 1977), 107; Burke, 144.

[5] This metaphor is traded out in the NIV to simply say, “live lives worthy of God.” The meaning of the phrase remains unaffected.

[6] Holmes, 68. Here I would like to note that Gorman’s theology of cruciformity, that idea that our Christian experience should reflect the experience of Christ himself, effectively unites all of the differing ideas in this passage together. There is talk of moral instruction, righteous living, and God’s kingdom. These ideas are united in what it means to be a follower or imitator of Christ. Paul himself was a living example of this theology in action as he not only taught others the “way of Christ” but lived it out himself as a self-sacrificing servant, who in living as Christ lived experienced what he came to call “life in Christ” which is regarded as that partial present reality of the future participation in God’s presence and glory.

[7] Green, 138.

Essays on I Thess. 2.7-12 (Part 5)

‘You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed’ (NIV).

Paul continues this discussion of his integrity in v.10 by invoking both the Thessalonian believers and God as witnesses, much like he did earlier in v.5. Here, as in v.5 Paul is calling attention to the testimony of his action towards the Thessalonian believers, further explaining the nature of his treatment of them.[1]

I.H. Marshal takes this invocation of deity and the solemn tone of the statement to infer that Paul has in view the criticism that has been leveled against him.[2] Certainly this is a possibility for the invocation of a deity as witness bearer was not an uncommon practice in antiquity.[3]

Green makes a case for linking v.10 back to 1.9, accusing Paul of “acting impiously towards the gods.” This is supported by the three words that Paul uses to describe his conduct which are words that carry connotations of conforming to both human and divine standards; the three words being “holy, righteous, and blameless.”[4] Paul then, is stating that they had in every way behaved according to both human and divine principles and that they were without fault. The final phrase of v.10 clarifies that Paul and his coworkers did all of these things “among you,” that is, while they in the presence of the Thessalonian believers. There is debate over whether this phrase should be translated “among you” as in the NIV or “towards you” as in the ESV. However, a large distinction need not be made, for Paul is speaking of a time when he was with the believers in Thessalonica. Because this is the case we see that Paul is speaking both of being blameless in terms of his living in proximity to them “among them” as well as “towards them,” which, if he was living amongst the Thessalonians then it is logical to believe that he was interacting with them. Then, when we interpret this in light of what has been previously written in vv.3-9 we see that Paul is in fact speaking of behavior that was inclined specifically towards the Thessalonians.

---

[1] Wannamaker, 105. Though Wannamaker would not support this interpretation, he admits that the thrust of the adjectives in v.10 is “the character of the missionaries behavior” towards the Thessalonians.

[2] Marshal, I.H. 1 and 2 Thessalonians (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1983), 73.

[3] Green, 132. Wannamaker disagrees and sees this as an implicit paranesis, drawing a connection to the upcoming exhortation in 4.11 and 5.14.

[4] Ibid.

Essays on I Thess. 2.7-12 (Part 4)

‘Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you’ (NIV).

Verse 9 then turns to cite one of the ways in which Paul and his companions had given of themselves for the benefit of the Thessalonian believers. Paul evokes them to “remember… our labor and toil” which they had engaged in while simultaneously proclaiming the gospel so as not to be a “burden” to anyone. This verse can be taken quite literally, for the “toil and hardship” which Paul engaged in “night and day” refers to exhausting work.[1] From acts 18.3 we know that Paul was a tentmaker, an occupation which required much time and offered little profit.[2]

While this verse can be understood as Paul contrasting his ministry to the pagan philosophers, Paul is also concerned, as Witherington puts it, “that the gospel be freely offered and freely received.”[3] These ideas, though sometimes separated are linked quite closely. For in as much as the pagan philosophers demanded payment for their services and took advantage of their followers they were charging for the “gospel” that they were teaching. Paul however, engages in manual labor while preaching the gospel, with the primary motivation of not placing any financial burden upon the believing community of Thessalonica – consistent with the declaration he makes of his demonstration of care for the believers. As a result, his message is one that is offered in freedom and cost nothing to listen to.

---

[1] Green, 131.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Witherington, Ben 1 and Second Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 81.

Essays on I Thess. 2.7-12 (Part 3)

‘We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us’ (NIV).

Verse 8 explains these metaphors and begins a description of how Paul and his ministry teams had cared for the Thessalonians. The ESV renders a better reading as follows, “So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us.” In essence, Paul is saying that because of his love for the Thessalonians he was delighted to share not only the gospel, but also his life with them.

The specific language used to express Paul’s love for the believers mirrors language that was used upon funerary inscriptions describing the longing a parent felt for a deceased child.[1] Paul likely states this so strongly to impress upon the Thessalonians his true love and care for them, despite the fact that he was not able to be with them.

Paul declares this as the reason for sharing with them his life in addition to the gospel. As a minister of Christ it was Paul’s mission to proclaim the gospel in whatever geographic locale he visited. But for Paul, merely sharing the gospel was not enough; a vital part of sharing the gospel was sharing his life. The two were so intertwined that Paul could not give one without the other. And so we see that having such a strong love for the Thessalonians Paul made the conscious decision to share everything that he had with them. This would have created a contrast for Paul’s behavior to the behavior of the popular orators and moralists who would have given their teachings in return for praise or payment.[2] Paul gave everything, and took nothing.[3]

Concluding v. 8 Paul reiterates the affection which he has for the Thessalonians, which Michael Holmes suggests stems from the transforming power of the gospel.[4] While there is certainly an element of truth to this, the affection which is here being displayed is probably better understood in view of the many familial references littered throughout the passage, and provides a context for those references.

---

[1] Green, 128.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Gorman, Michael J. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 48-49. This is the beginning of what Gorman terms a theology of cruciformity, which he says is “an ongoing pattern of living in Christ and of dying with him that produces a Christ-like person.” Gorman posits that this is the major idea of Paul, and suggests that the idea which is briefly seen here in I Thess. 2 is later developed in light of Phil. 2 where we observe Christ ignoring a superior status and pouring himself out and I Cor. 9 where Paul also sets aside those things which might lend him superior status to become “a slave to all, that [he] might win some.” Gorman, Apostle, 68-69.

[4] Holmes, Michael W. 1&2 Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 65.

Essays on I Thess. 2.7-12 (Part 2)

Verse 7 - ‘…but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children’ (NIV).

Directly after Paul’s claim of coming to the Thessalonians “not to please man, but to please God… nor with a pretext for greed…Nor seek[ing] glory from people…” verse 7 begins with the phrase “But we were gentle among you” as it is recorded in the majority of English translations.[1] This phrase fits nicely with the illustration of Paul as a nursing mother in the very next phrase. However, there are some marked issues with this interpretation.

The question arises from a difference in the readings of manuscripts. Whereas most MSS read nēpioi (translated “babes” or “infants”) some later manuscripts read ēpioi (translated “gentle”). It is possible that either reading be in view here as a scribal error could have been made in either the addition or omission of the n, though the number and quality of extant manuscripts does seem to favor the use of nēpioi.[2]

Despite this evidence, most commentators choose “gentle” as the proper translation because of the incongruity that the infant metaphor would have with the succeeding nursing mother metaphor.[3] Three primary reasons are give; the sharp contrast between these two metaphors, the violent manner in which Paul shifts from one image to the other, and Paul’s use of nēpioi in his other writings. Together, these three arguments do make a strong case for the choice of “gentle.”[4] Further, if “gentle” is chosen, then it can be interpreted in light of the nursing mother metaphor, and so Paul would be qualifying his treatment of the Thessalonian believers by saying that he had been gentle with them, like a nursing mother would have been with her child. This statement then contrasts the way that Paul did not treat the Thessalonians (vv. 3-6) by showing the way that Paul cared for them (vv. 7-12).

While this seems to mesh nicely with the context of the passage, the textual evidence remains too strong to be ignored.[5] Additionally, it can be shown that “infant” fits contextually as well as “gentle,” for the comparison to an “infant” is to illustrate the apostle’s innocence and sincerity.[6] Thus it can be shown that the two distinct metaphors need not oppose each other, and instead should be understood as parallel thoughts on the same subject.

Responses to the other criticisms are equally as viable. First, that the mixing of metaphors as a ridiculous idea can be easily rectified in the manner that one punctuates v.7. For if v.7c is separated into an independent clause after 7b (but we became infants among you), then the two metaphors can be viewed as distinct thoughts.[7] Second, regarding Paul’s use of “infants,” Timothy Sailors concludes that “infants” is employed in a neutral manner seventy-five percent of the time and also finds a number of times where it is used positively, which is congruent with the fact that “infants” is used both positively and negatively within the Pauline corpus.[8] Finally, what is viewed as a violent transition between metaphors is seen again almost immediately in v.17 where he likens himself to an orphan just after presenting himself as a father in v.11. This kind of shifting and mixing of metaphor is also seen in Gal. 4.19.[9]

The latter phrase of verse 7, as has already been stated, sets up Paul as “nursing mother.” The word used here, trophos, is most literally translated “wet nurse,” or someone who feeds and nurtures a baby in place of its biological mother. However, because of the use of a reflexive pronoun it seems likely that this is an image of a nurse caring for her own children and not someone else’s – leaving us the image of a nursing mother.[10]

Thus the imagery in v. 7 serves as an illustration of the way Paul and his colleagues treated the Thessalonian believers. They did not abuse their apostolic authority or throw their weight around to feed their selfish ambitions as the self-serving charlatans would have done. Instead, they were first, infants; pure, guile-less, and unable to impose themselves on others.[11] Second, they were nursing mothers who showed the utmost of tender care to their children, in this case the Thessalonian congregation.

---

[1] The NIV, NASB, ESV, NAB, RSV, and ASV all accept this translation, noting that there is an alternate translation of “gentle” that is possible.

[2] Wannamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 100. See also Green, 126.

[3] Green, 126.

[4] Wannamaker, 100.

[5] Burke, Trevor J. Family Matters: A Socio-Historical Study of Kinship Metaphors in I Thessalonians (New York: T&T Clark International, 2003), 139-40; 154-55. Burke gives an overview of the basic evidence in favor of nēpioi, as well as an excellent bibliography for more in depth study.

[6] Williams, David J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 59. In fact, Williams notes that the meaning of the passage remains essentially the same whether “infant” or “gentle” is chosen as the correct reading.

[7] Burke, 155-56.

[8] Sailors, T.B. “Wedding Textual and Literary-Rhetorical Criticism To Understand the Text of I Thessalonians 2.7,” JSNT 80 (2000), 91; see also Burke, 155-56; and Weima, Jeffrey A D. O 2000. "But We Became Infants Among You": The Case for NHPIOI in 1 Thess 2.7. New Testament Studies. 46 (4): 563. Weima establishes that the common understanding of infants in antiquity was rarely one that was seen as morally evil. Babies were generally seen as morally neutral beings. This seems to be the inference that Paul is making with his use of infant language.

[9] Burke, 156.

[10] Williams, 59.

[11] Gaventa, B.R. First and Second Thessalonians (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1998), 25.

Essays on I Thess. 2.7-12 (Part 1)

The next few posts will be a series of excerpts from a paper I wrote for my Pauline Epistles III class titled: A Defense of Paul’s Ministry of Christ-like Faithfulness and Love Portrayed in the Images of I Thessalonians 2.7-12.

Framing the Passage

Upon a cursory study of 1 Thessalonians 2 it would seem that Paul is giving an apologia for his ministry, defending its nature and character.[1] Typically, this is understood as a defense against comparisons to wandering moralist teachers in search of money, fame, and power at the expense of gullible devotees.[2] But, Abraham Malherbe argues that the chief intention of the passage is paranetic; that is, an example of the way that ministers of the gospel should behave.[3] And while Malherbe is correct in his assessment that this passage does not necessitate specific opponents in Thessalonica, casting the passage as mere rhetorical function seems to be inappropriate.

In place of either of these options Gene Green offers that the primary reason for Paul’s vindication of his actions was to acquit himself of accusations leveled from within the church because of his forced sudden departure of the city.[4] It is this situation in light of the dubious behavior of the popular philosophers and moral teachers that Paul is writing from. This is supported contextually by the explanation Paul gives for not returning (2.17-20), his explanation of the measures he took to strengthen the church in their persecution (3.1-5), and his expression to see the church again (3.6-12).[5]

Each of these positions holds its strengths, but there is no reason to assume that the text is offering a solution to only one of these problems. Green says, “In the end, due to the intimate relationship between Paul and the message he preached, what was at stake was not simply the message of the Christian messenger among the believers but rather the Thessalonians continuation in the faith.” In fact, as Paul clarifies the nature of his ministry in light of the culture around him he also offers his ministry as “an example of Christ-like faithfulness and love.”[6] In this way 1 Thess. 2 should be viewed both as an apologetic for Paul and his team as well as a paranetic of what it means to be conformed to Christ in every day life, of which both paradigms are provided for under the paternal image of Paul that is presented in 2.7-12.

---

[1] Simpson, J.W. “Letters to the Thessalonians,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 936.

[2] Bruce, F.F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 26.

[3] Malherbe, Abraham J. Ap 1970. Gentle as a nurse: the Cynic background to 1 Thess 2. Novum Testamentum. 12 (2):203-217.

[4] It should be noted that included in the address of the letter was Sylvaus and Timothy. However, Paul is commonly held to be the one writing the letter (for further discussion see Simpson, 937). Thus, when Paul is referenced in terms of what is said in the letter to the Thessalonians, Sylvanus and Timothy may also be inferred, though it is not found to be necessary to include them in every mention of the author or his intentions.

[5] Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 114. Green understands chapters 2 and 3 to be a cohesive unit and can thus argue for the continuity of thought between both.

[6] Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 154-55. Gorman says, “The language of selfless, accommodating behavior is at the core of Paul’s self understanding of his apostleship, for in relinquishing a right for the welfare of others, he reenacts the story of Christ who chose not to exploit his equality with God but emptied himself (Phil. 2:6-8).

Feuerbach: Part 3

In light of Feuerbach’s anthropocentric theology the church should mimic the proclamation of John the Baptist as he says:

The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him (John 3:31-36, NIV).

May our prayer to Him who is transcendent over all be that He become greater even as we ourselves are reduced, that the world may see His good work and glorify our Father who is in heaven (John 3.30).

Feuerbach's Misinterpretation of Augustine: Part 2

Pelagianism and Augustinianism compared

As Feuerbach continues to make his case for his projection theology, he argues for the classic liberal notion of belief in the inherent goodness of humankind. Indeed, he must make such an argument; for without the idea that man in his essence is good, none of Feuerbach’s ensuing thought would be possible. It would be utterly illogical for him to argue for the “ultimate good” to be a projection of a decadent humanity.

Upon establishing that is sin a contradiction of the absolute considered as another being, and therefore having no meaning Feuerbach turns indirectly to a discussion of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. Rather than offer an outright refutation of Augustine’s arguments, he instead attempts to compare the Augustinian understanding of the depravity of man with the Pelagian doctrine that man is essentially good. But instead of finding the two to be opposed Feuerbach argues that both doctrines concerning the human beings moral nature vindicate the essential goodness of man; Augustinianism by means of religion and Pelagianism by means of rationalism.[1]

It almost seems ridiculous that Feuerbach would attempt to unify the two opposing doctrines of original sin. They possess fundamentally opposite presuppositions and are built off of completely distinct conceptions as to the nature of humanity. Feuerbach thought he could do so because of the nature of his anthropologically oriented theology. He undertook this mode of argumentation because if it is right and he is able to reduce these two opposing views into a single conclusion, then he is able to build a case for his projection God by making the “notion of God dependent on the notion of activity, or rather human activity, for he knows of none higher.”[2] This is possible according to Feuerbach because Pelagianism is reduced to forcing man into action and Augustinianism is reduced to forcing God into action, which means that God must either be completely passive or that he must act morally; and as has already been stated that if morally, then humanly.

Feuerbach then cites Augustine’s refutation of the Pelagian doctrine in “On Nature and Grace.” Feuerbach quotes Augustine, “Pelagianism denies God” because, he says, “It has only the Creator, i.e., Nature, as a basis, not the Saviour, the true God of the religious sentiment… it denies God… it elevates man into a God since it makes him a being not needing God.”[3] Feuerbach then inverts this reasoning for Augustinianism saying, “Augustinianism denies man; but, as a consequence of this, it reduces God to the level of man, even to the ignominy of the cross, for the sake of man.”[4] Using either of these systems will warrant the same conclusion; the idea that either man is God or God is man. Indeed, Feuerbach goes on to say, “What a man declares concerning God, he in truth declares concerning himself.”[5] Then, thinking his argument complete he says, “…so long as a man adores a good being as his God, so long does he contemplate in God the goodness of his own nature.”[6]

But this is not at all the meaning that Augustine intended. When he critiqued Pelagianism and declared that “Pelagianism denies God” he did not mean that this denial literally cause man to ascend to godhood based upon his lack of need for a God figure. Instead he was referring to the fact that as Pelagianism denied the depravity of man he also denied the need for a Savior. Once Christ’s atoning work on the cross is reduced to example it becomes the responsibility of the individual to achieve the moral perfection God requires to enter into relationship with him. What is left is a works based system of salvation, which violates the biblical text (Eph. 2:8-9).

Counter to Feuerbach’s inferences, Augustine’s doctrine of the total depravity of man does not encourage the believer to live a life of complete religious non-action. As has already been demonstrated Augustine is concerned with redemptive living as he strives towards participation in God and the pinnacle of existence as the “greatest good.” This basic understanding of Christianity opposes Feuerbach’s interpretation and attempted synthesis of his thought with Pelagianism.

Based upon the situation of this passage in Feuerbach’s larger manifesto it seems as though this discussion were almost unnaturally inserted. There is no evidence to warrant this notion, however it would fit if Feuerbach is trying to provide his new thought with frames that people will easily recognize and understand.

Saint Augustine has been a pillar for Western theology for centuries, and as such his work has been oft called upon to lend credence to the ideas of numerous subsequent theologians and religious thinkers. Feuerbach’s treatment of the Augustinian text is certainly a unique example of this. However, Feuerbach fails to take into account his own certain presuppositions; those being, that humanity is essentially good, that the senses are the way that we validate existence, and that notions of God must be reflective of humanity.

---

[1] Feuerbach, 28.

[2] Feuerbach, 29.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

Feuerbach's Misinterpretation of Augustine: Part 1

This paper will show that Feuerbach misinterprets Augustine, ignoring the literary and philosophical context from which he pulls the passages and foists his own presuppositions about the nature of humanity and existence onto the Augustinian text. This will be accomplished by providing an understanding of the nature of Feuerbach’s arguments and subsequently, critically examining Feuerbach’s use of the Augustinian texts in light of their original context.

Mans knowledge of and relation to the Divine

Feuerbach embarks on an attempt to show that the relationship between subject and object or between the individual and that which the individual senses or perceives is really nothing more than the subject’s objectification of himself. Feuerbach says, “…the object of any subject is nothing else than the subject’s own nature taken objectively.”[1]

He begins this argument by drawing a contrast between the consciousness of object and self in terms of the senses and this same consciousness in terms of religion. He says that when dealing with consciousness in and the senses one is easily able to distinguish between the consciousness of the self and that of the object. But when speaking in terms of religion “…consciousness of the object and self-consciousness coincide.”[2] This is so because Feuerbach says that while the object of the senses is outside of the man, the religious object is within the man himself.

It is here that Feuerbach inserts Augustine to assist in making his point. He makes the claim that being within us and a part of us, our own self-consciousness is easier to know even than those things which can be observed even by sensory perception. He quotes Augustine saying, “God… is nearer, more related to us, and therefore more easily known by us than sensible, corporeal things.”[3] Then, having previously established the difference between the object of the senses and the object of religion and having marked the relation of the self to the object of religion as dually more significant and easier to cognize, Feuerbach is able to arrive at a basis for his conclusion that there is “…a discrimination between the divine and the non-divine, between that which is worthy of adoration and that which is not worthy.”[4]

Once this presupposition has been established then religion, or the consciousness of God becomes the self-consciousness of man. What we take away from this twofold. First, the groundwork is laid upon the subject/object relationship for understanding self existence in terms of the subjects predicate, that those qualities or the essence of the subject (the predicate) is the foundation for the existence of the subject. The reality of the predicate becomes the sole guarantee of existence, and it is founded upon the subject’s ability to sense and perceive. Second, the nature of the divine, being seen as the projection of mans own notions of himself is also recognized to be known strictly in terms of anthropomorphic language, a fact which Feuerbach uses to further his case that God exists in man, as man, based upon the idea that man can only conceive of a “greater being” in terms of himself.

Having grasped the anthropological thrust of Feuerbach’s argument, it can now be examined in light of the very passage that Feuerbach used to buttress his line of reasoning. The passage that Feuerbach quoted from is a passage from Augustine’s commentary On Genesis. It is a section that is only three paragraphs long, but it provides enough material to seriously inquire into Feuerbach’s treatment of it.

Feuerbach quotes Augustine as saying, “God… is nearer, more related to us, and therefore more easily known by us than sensible, corporeal things.”[5] According to Feuerbach, Augustine is saying that God is more easily understood by the human self than are sensual and corporeal things because his nature is such that it is closer to our nature than anything that can be perceived through the senses.[6] For Feuerbach this is achieved as the subject self objectifies certain desirable “attributes” such as absolute love, justice, or mercy and projects them as the essence of the conceptual religious object, thus making these qualities the religious object. Then, the religious object, the essence of which is attributed to one’s own sense of behavioral idealism becomes an extension or a projection of the self, the subject.

This seems to be a mistranslation at the very least, but it is more likely that Feuerbach was casting his new and radical ideas in language that was traditional, orthodox, and therefore acceptable. He was kicked out of his teaching post at Erlangen, banned from any use of the facilities at the University of Heidelberg where he had once studied, and was leading a small fanatical political faction in favor of the revolution sweeping across Europe called the Young Hegelians. Consequently, his ideas were often looked upon with suspicion.[7] Perhaps Feuerbach’s use of Augustine stems from an attempt to make his revolutionary ideas more socially palatable by providing them with an acceptable historic anchor.

According to the translation put out by New City Press this same passage is translated, “God is nearer to us than are many of the things he made. For in him we live and move and are (Acts 17:28), while most of these things are remote from the human mind on account of their dissimilarity in kind, being corporeal.”[8] This passage is a part of a discussion focused upon our relationship to God as humans as compared with the rest of creation and its relationship to God; not, as Feuerbach uses it, to prove that the sensing of the “religious object” by the self, while remaining a “sensed” phenomenon does not behave as a “religious object” but instead as a “religious predicate” which is ultimately understood as the projection of the ideal self.

In fact, the context of the passage seems to imply that some of those “substances” Augustine mentions, while being “sensible or corporeal things” in that they are physical and able to be sensed seem to also include the things in the far reaches of the universe – things which are “corporeal” but not necessarily able to be sensed. Towards the end of the passage Augustine says, “…it is incomparably more satisfying and worthwhile for the devout mind to come into the slightest contact with him, then for it to comprehend the whole universe.”[9] This understanding is furthered as he makes specific reference to these “substances” as being “remote from our bodily senses… cut off from observation” and the fact that “we do not see them with the senses of the body.”[10]

Feuerbach’s use of this passage ignores the primary message Augustine is communicating. God is relationally closer to us than the rest of his creation because our existence is realized in him, as opposed to the rest of creation, which though we may be situated in close proximity to it we do not find that our existence is at all tied to it. In this way we have a special bond with God that we do not experience with the rest of his created work. This is on account, Augustine says, “of their dissimilarity in kind [to us as human beings], being corporeal;” but not only being “corporeal”, because as the human being was created in the image of God so we share in some way a nature similar to God, albeit one that has been corrupted and can only represent at best a fragmented mosaic of that divine image and nature.

As if to compound his transgression Feuerbach edited out what is the central phrase in Augustine’s statement “For in him we live and move and are”. This phrase is the crux of Augustine’s concept of existence – that we not only exist in God, but that we also subsist in him.[11] But to make the passage fit his own ontology, Feuerbach casts aside this notion of an existence dependant upon an outside entity. In its place he constructs the sentence so as to assume his own subject/predicate interplay, as he finds the individuals existence validated by his senses.

Where Feuerbach sees mans existence validated by the conscious interaction that is produced when a man (subject) perceives something as an object, Augustine looks to establish existence in God as the greatest good.[12] In doing so he does, as Feuerbach would accuse him, discriminate between the divine and the non-divine. But this distinctness between the Creator God and his created creature is for Augustine the place where the human finds existence, identity, and knowledge. In fact, according to Augustine, apart from God the human would be nothing, a non-existence. In this way God is scene as the defining factor of existence, and because of God’s status as the greatest good, the idea of existence becomes an inherently good thing.[13]

---

[1] Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Christianity, Translated by George Eliot (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1989), 12.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 12.

[6] Where God is perhaps better understood as religious object.

[7] Harvey, Van A, “Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, July 31, 2007, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/ (accessed May 4, 2007).

[8] Augustine, On Genesis, Translated by Edmund Hill, v. 13 “The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21^st Century” (Hyde Park, New York: New City Press), 293.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Augustine, Exposition of Psalms, Translated by Maria Boulding, v. 20“The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21^st Century” (Hyde Park, New York: New City Press), 19. “No human being is in his or her own right, for we are inconstant and subject to change, unless we participate in Him who is the Selfsame. A human being truly is when he sees God. He is when he sees Him Who Is, for, in seeing Him Who Is, the creature too comes to be in his measure.”

[12] Feuerbach, xv. Feuerbach is blatant in this rejection. He says, “This philosophy has for its principle, not the Substance of Spinoza, not the ego of Kant and Fichte, not the Absolute Identity of Schelling, not the Absolute Mind of Hegel… but a real being, the true Ens realissimum – man.”

[13] Charry, Ellen T. Review of Augustine's Invention of the Inner Self: The Legacy of a Christian Platonist, by Philip Cary, Theology Today, July, 2001.