the liturgy of sport

people often question how the two passions in my life - theology and sport - coincide. as a result i have done a lot of thinking about the integration of sport into the liturgy of the covenant community. here is my thesis:

“Knowing God – having an appropriately awe-filled yet intimate relationship, or partnership with the creator, redeemer of Israel, and sovereign of the universe – is and was the life goal of faithful Jews.” It could easily be added that this is also the life ambition of faithful Christians. As the faithful, we pursue such communion with God via liturgy; that is, by engaging in certain actions with the purpose of drawing us into the presence of God. This paper will then argue that sport is a legitimate liturgical expression by providing a discussion on the definition and history of liturgy and by demonstrating that sport not only adequately satisfies “liturgical criteria” but in fact allows human beings to creatively involve themselves in an act of worship that reaches far beyond the emotional catharsis, existential validation, or intellectual assent that is so often the motive of worship.

i won't bore you with the rest, but i found both an encouraging and stimulating study and hope it has piqued your interest as well.

food for thought

Here is an article from the Times discussing the "New Calvinism." Thanks to Jacob from 21stcenturytabletalk for posting this.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part VI

Summary
The unifying concept that links these four passages is the idea of a Spirit given ministry – not Spirit given abilities for service. Kenneth Berding makes this point when he says, “Undoubtedly, no one can engage in a particular ministry without being able to do so, but when we mistakenly equate the entity we call “spiritual gifts” with special abilities, we end up reading special skills into a place where special ministries... are in view.” It seems obvious to say that one cannot perform a particular ministry without being able to do so. However this ability is precisely the point. At the moment of salvation the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and receives His general empowerment for ministry, which in this sense is defined by Berding as “any edificatory activity in the Christian community which serves to build up the Christian community.”

A spiritual gift may then be defined as a God given ministry, function, or activity that builds up or strengthens the body of believers. Essentially, gifts are specific roles that are designated by the Holy Spirit and given to the believer to fill. Prominence is placed upon the performance of the function or the doing of the service, not the ability to do the ministry. This definition allows for individual personality and natural ability, for God has individually formed each of us before we even entered the womb. The Spirit then uses our unique personalities and talents in practical ways to grant success in the ministry to which he has appointed them.

The purpose of these ministry gifts then seems to be the development, growth, edification, unification, and common good of the Christian community in conjunction with the glorification of God. Relationship of the members of the body is not only implied in all of the passages, but is a necessity. Without the relationship of the believers to one another in a faith community these instructions would be both without subject and purpose. In conclusion, it can be said that a gift is a God-given ministry, function, or activity that one uses to faithfully and unselfishly contribute to the common good, mutual care and edification of the whole church community. Consequently, gifts aid the church in bearing witness to the world, for when the people of God operate in love and harmony they will have a redemptive impact on a lost world.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part V

I Peter 4
Peter’s mention of the gifts is the only such mention outside of the Pauline corpus. Peter does however use the term in much the same capacity as Paul. Before making specific mention of any gifts Peter exhorts the believers to maintain the specific attitudes of sound judgment and love for one another, both dispositions seen in the other gift passages. Further, Peter, like Paul posits that the end of exercising the gifts is to serve others and glorify God.

Peter mentions only generally “speaking” and “serving” as gifts that may be possessed. Because of the lack of a list and combined with the exhortation to use the gifts to serve the community we can see that Peter’s emphasis was not on any specific gifting or extraordinary spiritual capacity the people might have had but was instead on the objective of the gifts; that being mutual service to the Christian community and glorification of God. And because the focus seems to be on the purpose of the gifts it is logical again to understand particular functions within this community as being what Peter had in view.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part IV

Ephesians 4
The discussion of the gifts here resembles the previous two passages in that there is made reference to a body which is made up of different parts. Most significantly to note is that while the same word for “gift” is used as was used in I Corinthians 12, here Paul is using it to describe the “gifted men” as the actual gift.

Though different from the other passages it seems that we may still conclude that supernatural ability is not what is meant by gifting. Indeed, this is especially clear in this passage as the believers themselves are explicitly stated to be the gifts. Also of importance is the fact that this passage makes specific mention of unity in the body. This combined with the idea that each person who is given to the church is vital and necessary for the growth and building up of the entire body leads us to understand this passage as a discussion of the way in which the body functions in relationship to itself. This is accented by the understanding that all of these things occur in a spirit of love – which not coincidentally mirrors the I Corinthians 12 passage which is followed directly by a discussion on love. We can take from this then that the roles that each individual is to play should be done in community alongside of the other believers for the mutual edification of all in addition to the glorification of God. Again, such an understanding finds a focus on roles and functions within a community as opposed to a capacity or divine enablement for service.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part III

I Corinthians 12
The message of I Corinthians 12 is that every part of the body has a function. Paul includes a lengthy metaphor discussing the human body in order to illustrate this. The question for the Corinthian church then seems to be “What ministry do you have to contribute” instead of “What is your special ability”.

The word for “gifts” in verse 4 is a common usage that comes from the same word for “grace” and emphasizes “that which is given freely and generously.” In verse 5 Paul then mentions “varieties of ministries” which puts the focus on “the role or position of serving.” In verse 6 Paul mentions “varieties of effects.” This word for “effects” means “activities or deeds” and stresses “that which is done with possible focus on the energy or effort involved.” Lastly in verse 7 Paul speaks of the “manifestation of the Spirit” where this word “manifestation” means revelation and refers to something that is made known.

Each of these words are significant because Paul seems to be using them interchangeably in these texts to communicate the same ideas – ideas which he uses language regarding role and action, not power or supernatural capacity. Much like the Romans passage there seems to be significant evidence which would lead us to believe that the gifts being referred to are better understood as divinely given ministries to be performed as opposed to divinely imparted special abilities for ministry. It is the role that is highlighted, not the power or right to fulfill it even if divinely given. This accented by Paul’s statement that these manifestations are “for the common good” or the well being of the community as a whole.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part II

It is unmistakably apparent that the gifts were given to the early church to fulfill a specific purpose. Much of the evangelical community maintains that these same gifts were given not only for the establishment of the early church but also for the continuing maintenance of the church. It must be asked however what the true nature of the spiritual gifts were in the early church and then how they relate to the church today.

A Spiritual gift is commonly defined as “…divinely given capacities to perform useful functions for God, especially in the area of spiritual service.” The focus here seems to be on the divinely given supernatural ability or capacity though many follow Charles Ryrie in including natural talent within their definition. The gifts are then seen as a permanent part of the Holy Spirit’s new covenant ministry, though this point is often disputed. However this debate is an irrelevant one if we look to a different understanding of the spiritual gifts.

In this new understanding the spiritual gifts should not be viewed so much as a spectacular ability or a supernatural capacity but instead as a fulfillment of divinely designated function. This “functional” perspective comes after an examination and comparison of key texts concerning spiritual gifts.

Romans 12:3-8
The immediate context in which Paul discusses spiritual gifts in this passage is the manner in which believers are to operate in relation to one another; that is in harmony which is brought about by attitudes humility and “sound judgment.” The community of believers is here being viewed as a collective body in which each person is a different part. Paul makes a point of stating that just as we are all “one body in Christ” so we are also “individually members one of another.” The context would then lead us to believe that the gifts being discussed should be understood primarily as the functions or tasks that are to be executed.
The word “function” in verse four implies “sustained activity and/or responsibility”. This also suggests as does Paul’s metaphor of the body that each believer has a different responsibility, activity, or work to do. It is interesting to note that even in the listing of certain specific gifts Paul’s emphasis seems to be on the manner that these gifts are exercised or carried out which Paul says is according to the measure of grace that has been given to each individual.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part I

This commences part one of my reflections on the nature of what is often referred to as "spiritual giftings". I will begin by reviewing the nature and mission of the Church, so that we have a context in which to understand the "gifts".

Robert L. Saucy says that “The church is God’s assembly… It is a people called forth by God, incorporated into Christ, and indwelt by the Spirit.” Theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer considers this divinely called assembly as a “new order or class of humanity”. He furthers this understanding by noting that there is a visible expression of this “new order” where there exist any who convene together in the name of Christ and includes within that local gathering any ministry or service that they are involved in.
Within this context the church seems to be called for one purpose: “the glorification of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit." I believe that this glorification should be understood in a very specific way according to the manner in which it has been revealed to us - which that the whole of the Scriptures can be understood as an account of the Creator God revealing Himself to created man with the intention of His own glorification by means of cosmic redemption. It reveals that the God who created all and is in control of all wishes to establish with us, the dependant created creature, a lasting covenant – establishing with us a precedent for an understanding of ourselves in relation to God.
It is from this relationship that the human draws his entire existence (indeed, according to Colossians it is from this relationship that all of the cosmos draws its existence). In order to have a correct understanding of oneself and the world in which we live one must understand himself in light of humanity and his relationship to the Creator God. Then, understanding the broken nature of our relationship to that Creator God, we realize the importance of His covenant redemption. Which, upon entrance into the promise, by means of Christ’s sacrificial death, as established in His Holy Writ, provides for the human being a communal context in which to live, create, love, work and worship according to man’s reflection of the divine nature, and will one day result in the redemption of the whole cosmos as it is submitted to the supremacy of Christ, at which time God will deal justly with the forces of evil. The Church then is an outworking of this cosmic intervention of the Trinitarian God as is the mission of the church. In fact, theologian Jurgen Moltmann posits that mission does not come from the church but that the church is a result of Christ’s mission, and as a result functions as an extension of that mission. Thus the goal or mission of Christ/Holy Spirit is cosmic redemption of which the church is an integral part of in the present age. Further, as we function in the body of believers as an extension of Christ so also our role in the world can be seen as an extension of this divine mission. This would cast the work of the believer in a way that should be seen as the redemption of human civilization, which is understood as a collective term generally embodying the sum of human relationships but more specifically refers to culture; that is, the traditions, institutions, and communal structures that form the context in which our consciousness is aware of existence, interacts with reality, and interprets all experiences. Thus the goal of the church is the worship of God which happens as a result of the building up of the Christological community.
This view of the church, that is, understanding the church as a universal body of believers that is expressed locally with the ultimate purpose of worshiping and glorifying God will serve as the broad basis within which we inspect the more specific ministry roles and functions of what has come to be known as “spiritual gifting.”

Sola Fide: Part 3

Our righteousness

The primary discussion taking place in Romans 4:1-8 is a matter of how or by what God regards his children as righteous. This is commonly referred to biblically and extra-biblically as justification. The idea behind justification is that because of some reason God in some way deems the unrighteous human being as righteous and therefore worthy of communion with himself.[1]

But what is this “righteousness?” Or rather, what does this term “righteousness” refer too? According to W.E. Vine “righteousness” may carry a couple of different ideas with it. The first is the idea of “righteousness” as “right action.” We see this usage employed by Paul on five occasions in Romans 6, in Ephesians 6:14 and in other places throughout the New Testament. The other usage implies that of a gracious gift given by God to bring those who believe in Jesus Christ into right relationship with himself (Vine, 980).

In my estimation it seems to be this second definition which Paul is implying in his use of the word righteousness. There are two primary reasons here in support of this definition. The first is that we see this idea prominently throughout Paul’s writings and especially in close conjunction to his discussions of justification and reconciliation before God. II Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” just after urging the Corinthians to be reconciled to God in verse 20. Titus 3:5 shows that our salvation is not because of any righteous works that we have committed but because of God’s own mercy upon us. Paul states a similar idea in Ephesians 2:8-9 and says that it is by God’s grace alone that we are saved through our faith with no relation to ourselves and completely apart from any works. And lastly Paul gives us these ideas in Romans just prior to the passage in question. No one will be declared righteous because of law observance, but the righteousness we do have is from God, apart from the law, and through faith in Jesus Christ.

The second reason for my understanding of the word “righteousness” is that if we take “righteousness” to mean “acts of rightness” or “right action” then all of the above statements by the apostle implicitly contradict themselves. We cannot affirm that our righteousness is granted to us apart from our own action while at the same time claiming that it is by our righteous action that we were justified before God. For if we do then either we need to seek a new understanding of such statements, or they must be accepted as logically false statements in which the case we must reject the whole of the gospel.

I believe that Paul was quite intentional of his use of the word righteousness. He quite clearly departed from Jewish tradition showing that the right action idea was wrong. According to both Josephus and Philo righteousness is an “ethical conception” or “chief cardinal virtue which originates in the soul” and “is meritorious” (Bromiley 171). So when Paul goes against the grain of popular Jewish thought and pairs righteousness with faith he is quite clearly making a statement about what he believes righteousness to be and how he thinks it should be viewed in light of the gospel message he is preaching.[2]

---

[1] The reason and way of God’s justification has yet to be addressed. The focus here is on Paul’s understanding of righteousness and how exactly God views this righteousness. Discussion of the means of obtaining righteousness will be included under point II (consult outline for reference.)

[2] It should be noted that Paul’s argumentation against the Jewish train of thought is important to this passage and integral to its proper interpretation. This idea of Paul’s argument against popular Jewish thought will be addressed more completely further on.

Sola Fide: Part 2

Literary Context:

Romans is a letter that contains a number of personal elements to it. But despite its status as an epistle, the body of the letter much resembles that of a treatise owing to its tight argumentative structure and heavy theological content.

In order to gain an understanding of any particular passage in Romans, one must first understand Romans as a literary whole. Paul begins Romans with a prologue in 1:1-17. Then, starting with 1:18 and running through 8:39 Paul shows how God’s righteousness is revealed in His universal plan for salvation. In chapter 9 extending through 11:36 Paul discusses at length Israel’s rejection and the Gentile inclusion into the New Covenant. Chapter 12-15:13 displays precepts for righteous living. The remainder of the book functions as an epilogue.

As we approach Romans 4:1-8 we must notice that Paul has been demonstrating God’s righteousness and man’s lack (and therefore need) of that righteousness. 3:23 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Quite clearly Paul is making a statement as to mankind’s hopeless position before God. With this statement Paul begins to give the answer to man’s problem – faith in Jesus Christ.

Because of the theological issues going on at the time, namely how the law was interpreted and how that came into play with Christianity, Paul then takes the opportunity in 3:27 to introduce the idea of righteousness being obtained through faith instead of observance of the law. And it is here that we find ourselves looking at 4:1-8 and trying to determine how and by what exactly we are justified.

This would have been an important issue in Paul’s day as there were high tensions about whether continued law observance was a necessary part of the conversion experience. We see even among the apostles disagreements happening over this issue, and so Paul seeks to set the Romans straight that they might not fall into some of the same doctrinal traps as other branches of the early church had a tendency to do.

Sola Fide: A Discussion of Abraham's 'righteousness' in Romans 4.1-8 and its implicaitons for the believer.

Yes, this is another multi-part series. I know that some of my readers probably appreciate a single stand alone post, but if I were to attempt that with some of the recent topics I would have to post a short treatise all at one time. Consequently, it is much easier for me to post a page or two at a time and hopefully it allows you to more fully digest the content by taking it in smaller portions.

Part 1: Historical Context:

Unlike some of the other Pauline epistles, Romans is almost undisputedly agreed to have been written by the apostle Paul. Although this is the case, some still argue the integrity of the letter because of the role of a certain Tertius, who is supposed to have been Paul’s amanuensis for this letter. This debate comes into play to determine if we have Paul’s final work or Tertius’ re-mastery of Paul’s ideas. Most likely Paul dictated his letter word for word to Tertius who the copied it down. Structurally, Romans matches up with other Pauline texts that have been accepted as authentic.

Reconstructing Paul’s journeys and the history of the New Testament leads us to conclude quite conclusively that Romans was written sometime between A.D. 55 and 58 from the city of Corinth. If we look at the book of Acts we find numerous evidences that lead us to accept Corinth as the most plausible place of authorship, specifically during his three month visit in Acts 20:2-3. Less certain is the date of writing, but taking Paul’s experience before Gallio the proconsul of Corinth in Acts 18:12-17 to have happened in 51 (according to Cranfield) and adding two years for Paul’s stay in Ephesus (Acts 19:10) plus any significant travel time, the earliest conclusion we can come to seems to be 54 and even more likely sometime between 55 and 58 (Schriener 4).

Perhaps even more pertinent to a discussion of Romans is to observe the audience to which it was written. Due to internal evidence within Romans the conclusion can be made that it was at least written to gentile Christians in the city of Rome, and probably a number of Jewish Christians as well. Some would argue that it was written more for a Jewish audience, however the Jewish population was only just being allowed back into Rome upon the death of Emperor Claudius[1] and so a gentile population would clearly be dominant (Morris 4). Within this context it should be noted that even the gentile Christians would have had a strong grounding in the Old Testament and a familiarity with Jewish customs and ways of thinking. This is because of the influence of the synagogues and Jewish Christians who no doubt played an important part in forming the early Roman church.

As with any letter and especially in the case of one to which we are not privy to have the specific context of, we must ask of the authorial intent. The purpose of Romans seems to be twofold. First, Paul seems to be writing to introduce himself to the Roman church and telling them of his intended visit. In this way his letter is sent out ahead of him to preface his coming and allow for some preparations to be made on his account. Second, Paul writes to address the social-political atmosphere of the church in Rome. As can be seen in a number of other New Testament books, Jew-Gentile relations were high throughout the Christian communities, so Paul writes in order to stress the unity of the body. But in order to do so he first had to establish the credibility of his gospel, which as we notice in 1:11ff was already under substantial attack. This purpose would account for the systematic account of the gospel as well as the prominence of the topics of the Mosaic Law and Israel’s place in redemptive history.

---

[1] Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from the city of Rome, but the decree ended with his death in A.D. 54 allowing Jews to return to the city.

The Least of These (Part 2)

Poverty in the N.T.

Just as we began in the O.T. by looking at the ways that God had prescribed for dealing with the poor in a “perfect” community, we will continue on in the N.T. by looking at the life of Christ and the way that he handled the poor as the perfect man.

The first observation that we make is that while the gospel make mention of many different times that Christ sought to provide for someone in need, it rarely records His discussion of the poor. This is because what mattered for Christ was the doing. He understood more truly than any that the “walk talks louder than the talk talks” and sought to live a life of sacrifice and love for others. We might mention one of the many times He healed a beggar or provided for a widow. We might cite one of His numerous parables involving the poor, or His discussion with Zacchaeus. But in the end there is only one act that needs to be discussed, and it is the act of ultimate provision. Christ gave up His position in heaven and then His life on earth – He became poor – so that we, as spiritually impoverished people, might partake in the divine nature of God and His rich blessing.[1] For Christ, nothing mattered but what He could do for others, especially those who could do for themselves.

Observation of the apostles and their writings also lends to our understanding of what we are to do for the poor, and especially helps to provide us some ways in which we might practically apply these principals to our lives.

The first thing that we notice is that the poor were being cared for within the body of the Church; that is, it was seen as a serious responsibility of the Church to care for the poor. This is evidenced by the fact that there was a conflict over how much the gentile widows were receiving in aid and that the apostles appointed specific people to take care of this area of church ministry.[2]

The second thing is something that is drawn out in the book James. In chapter two James establishes the rich man and the poor man as equal and encourages those in the Church not be partial to the rich simply because they are materially blessed. This is a strand that we also see in Paul when he says that there is no distinction of social class for those who declare themselves to be in Christ.[3] This is significant because it draws the body of Christ closer together, making each individual the responsibility of the rest of the Church. It carries an implication of “no man left behind.” In essence, it makes the responsibility of caring for the poor less a responsibility or task of the church and more of the very definition of what it means to be Christian and live Christ.[4]

Conclusion/Application for the Global Church

Since we are discussing a “global” theology I thought it would be most fitting to try and make this theology of the poor relevant to the worldwide situation our Church finds itself struggling in. We know that the majority of the Church throughout the world is made up of what is materially and financially considered the “lower class” while in America we enjoy the benefits of a nation with a good economy and a stable government. So how is this reconciled? Is it our responsibility as the Church in America to provide aid to the Church in other parts of the world? I would posit that yes, it is our responsibility to address the needs of our fellow believers, no matter where they live.

On a couple of different occasions we see Paul requesting financial support for groups of believers in other geographical locations, and we see specific local churches responding and seeking to help those other churches in need. I think specifically of Macedonian church mentioned in II Corinthians 8-9 whom Paul praises for their generosity even in their own need.[5]

The foundation is laid and the precedence set; all that is left is for us to respond. We have been graciously gifted with much more than we need and it is our responsibility and our privilege to be able to express God’s love to our fellow brothers and sisters around the world. A little self-sacrifice is the least we can do in the name of the one who forfeited everything to ensure that we would not have to spend an eternity living in spiritual poverty.

---

[1] II Corinthians 8:9

[2] Acts 6:1-6

[3] Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11

[4] The distinction between the saved and unsaved here is important to note. As Christians we are called to serve the poor whether saved or not. However, we have a special obligation to provide for fellow brothers and sisters of the faith who are in need.

[5] We might also look to the Philippian church who supported Paul, and the aid sent to the Jerusalem church by the other churches – which, in fact is what we take Paul to be referring to in the II Corinthians passage.

The Least of These (Part 1)

Historically the poor have been one of the most overlooked and compromise people groups in every society, and the world of the present is no exception. As the face of the worldwide church continues to configure itself more and more like the church of the south the poor are becoming a reality we can no longer ignore. Tragically, it seems that in recent years the church has offloaded its responsibility to care for the less privileged to government agencies or Para-church organizations. I submit that God has made it the responsibility of His people to care and provide for the “poor” of society, which I will attempt to show with the support of Scripture.

The first thing to be understood when constructing a theology of the poor is the nature of “poorness” or poverty. Poverty is an opportunity to show God’s love and fulfill our humanity, not a sociological problem with an answer or a disease to be eliminated.[1] In fact, Deuteronomy 15:11 tells us that we will always have the poor to deal with, and sets it [poverty] up as an opportunity to minister to our brothers and sisters in need.[2]

Poverty in the O.T.

When God gave the law to Moses he was not simply setting up a moral code of ethics for which the nation of Israel was to abide by, He was also constructing for them a culture and a way to do life. This is significant because this was the prescribed community of God. If properly instituted and obeyed this would be the prime model of life in community. This was no creation of man, but a series of constructs provided by God. The Pentateuch reports an extensive social policy for the provision of the impoverished. If a man was forced to sell his home and possessions, another was to support him as though he were a guest.[3] Owners of farms, orchards, and vineyards were to leave some of the harvest behind so that the poor and needy would not go entirely without food.[4] Employers were even commanded to pay their workers before the sun set on the same day of their work.[5]

As we continue to follow poverty through the O.T., it is next enumerated upon in the wisdom literature. The nature of poverty and its affects are discussed at some length, but we are more interested in the way that Solomon seeks to deal with those who are poor. There seems to be two common themes here; the first being that the man who blesses the poor will himself be blessed while those who take advantage or subjugate them will be punished.[6] The second theme is the idea of giving the poor the justice that they deserve and yet rarely receive because they lack the means to provide it for themselves.[7]

Finally, we approach the prophetic books, and while at first it be surprising that they include so much discussion about the poor, it is understandable. We must remember the things that the nation of Israel was experiencing at the time. They were constantly under attack from enemy nations and were eventually displaced from their homeland. Many of them were forced to begin new lives in a foreign land with virtually nothing of their own. It was in this setting that the prophets stressed to the people of Israel God’s retribution to those who oppressed them, encouraging them by reminding them of God’s covenant with them.[8]

---

[1] This is important because Matthew 22 tells us that the two greatest things a human can do is love God and love others, which often becomes the same thing in practice – that is, loving others is loving God. This mandate for love is really just the human doing what he was meant to do. Man was created in the likeness of God, who is the very definition of love. So if man is to fulfill and live out the image of God, then it is necessary that he love others. In fact, one could go so far as to say that he who ceases to love his fellow human beings has forgotten what it means to be human; likewise if we treat the poor as less than human we not only rob them of the dignity that they have as image bearers of God, but we also strip ourselves of our own humanity (Proverbs 14:31; 17:5).

[2] Deut. 15:11 - For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.' (ESV)

[3] Leviticus 25:25, 35; Deuteronomy 15:7

[4] Leviticus 23:22

[5] Deuteronomy 24:15

[6] Proverbs 14:21; 19:17; 22:9; 28:27

[7] Proverbs 29:7; 29:14; 31:9

[8] Ezekiel 16:49; Amos 4:1-3; 8:4-7; Zechariah 7:10-14

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.

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.

Introduction and Summary to Feuerbach's Thought

In the course of the next week I hope to post extracts from two papers that I am currently writing. The first will be a discussion of Ludwig Feuerbach and his "religious atheism" and what that means for orthodox Christianity. The second will be a short thesis which will examine Feuerbach's understanding of Augustine's conception of God and the self in relation to God in light of Augustine's actual work. So, as a precursor I decided to do a quick sketch on Feuerbach outlining his thought which will hopefully provide enough background to understand these further explorations into Feuerbach.

In his Lectures on the Essence of Religion Ludwig Feuerbach makes the statement, “Theology is anthropology.” This declaration essentially sums up the whole of Feuerbach’s postulations on religion, which says that ‘theos’ or ‘God’ is “…nothing other than the essence of man.” He illustrates this point by saying that the different nature of different gods in different religions and social settings is nothing more than a varied reflection of peoples differing imaginations and dispositions on both an individual and collective level. Our gods are our ideals for humanity which we have mistakenly separated from ourselves and given divine status to. In this way Feuerbach becomes an extension of Hegel’s theology that creation remains a part of the creator, while the creator remains greater than the creation as he claims that religion is an outward projection of mans inner nature

For Feuerbach, religion is nothing more than a social construct that has been introduced into society as a means of coercing one’s fellow man. It has been used from age to age by those in positions of power to dominate men of ignorance and unformed intelligence and keep them living in fear of something greater, which in reality was nothing more than what their own imaginations would allow them to conjure up at the power of subtle suggestion. It is this idea of religion and this brand of atheism that would later influence the philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (though they ultimately rejected his materialistic inconsistency).

Feuerbach states that his primary concern “…has been to illumine the obscure essence of religion with the torch of reason, in order that man may at least cease to be the victim… of all those hostile powers which… are still employing the darkness of religion for the oppression of mankind.” He attempts to argue for this by showing the depravity of human religion – namely in mentioning human sacrifice. In making this argument he hopes to free society of the constraints that have been placed upon it for the future. Feuerbach believes that this “misunderstood” religion has been the driving force behind politics and ethics and says that if a future generation can come to a proper understanding of the nature of religion then it will “... determine the destinies of mankind.”

By taking such an anthropological view of religion Feuerbach helps to build the bridge from liberal deistic theological speculation to an atheism that is expressed in religious language. In presenting organized religion in such a skeptical manner dealt a significant blow to the church. While initially being viewed as radical, eventually it popularized forms of atheism and gave people a “reasonable” explanation for the existence of religion (as well as a rationale for dismissing it.) Unfortunately over the course of history there are many examples of religion that used as tool for monopolizing power over people. One must only remember the way in which Constantine used Christianity to bind his newly gained empire to recognize that there is enough truth in Feuerbach’s conception of humanity to lend credence to his ideas of religion as a human construction emanating from within himself.

A Look at Drama as Cosmic Redemption

I propose that the relationship of drama to the church should be one that is understood in terms of the role that the church has to play in the present age of God’s restoration of humankind; that is, what the church is and what its purpose is in light of the Trinitarian mission of cosmic redemption. It provides a context for allowing drama to function as a legitimate means of worship, evangelism and recreation all as a result of understanding it in terms of redemption.

In order to explore the use of drama in this redemptive capacity we must first survey the broad nature of God’s work in history. Then, once this is established, the specific nature of drama as redemptive work can be explored.

The whole of the Scriptures can be understood as an account of the Creator God revealing Himself to created man with the intention of His own glorification by means of cosmic redemption. It reveals that the God who created all and is in control of all wishes to establish with us, the dependant created creature, a lasting covenant – establishing with us a precedent for an understanding of ourselves in relation to God.

It is from this relationship that the human draws his entire existence (indeed, according to Colossians 1:17 it is from this relationship that all of the cosmos draws its initial existence and subsequent subsistence). In order to have a correct understanding of oneself and the world in which we live one must understand himself in light of humanity and his relationship to the Creator God. Then, understanding the broken nature of our relationship to that Creator God, we realize the importance of His covenant redemption. Which, upon entrance into the promise, by means of Christ’s sacrificial death, as established in His Holy Writ, provides for the human being a communal context in which to live, create, love, work and worship according to man’s reflection of the divine nature, and will one day result in the redemption of the whole cosmos as it is submitted to the supremacy of Christ, at which time God will deal justly with the forces of evil.

The Church then is an outworking of this cosmic intervention of the Trinitarian God, as is the mission of the church. In fact, theologian Jürgen Moltmann posits that mission does not come from the church but that the church is a result of Christ’s mission, and as a result functions as an extension of that mission. As the Son obeys the Father he glorifies the Father while the Father exalts and glorifies the Son. The Holy Spirit glorifies Christ in the world as well as unites the world with Christ – even as he does so he unites the Son and the Father (Moltmann 59).[1]

Thus the goal or mission of Christ/Holy Spirit is the redemption and reconciliation of the entire cosmos, of which the church is an integral part in the present age. Further, as we function in the body of believers as an extension of Christ so also our role in the world can be seen as an extension of this divine mission. This would cast the work of the believer in a way that should be seen as the redemption of human civilization, which is understood as a collective term generally embodying the sum of human relationships but more specifically refers to culture; that is, the traditions, institutions, and communal structures that form the context in which our consciousness is aware of existence, interacts with reality, and interprets all experiences.

The basis for drama in the church is in this way seen to be the Christians charge of cultural redemption. To many this might be the mere Christianizing of drama and the performing arts or “reclaiming the arts for Jesus.” However, while this may be a part of redeeming the dramatic arts there is a much deeper sense in which this can take place, one that can be understood biblically, theologically, relationally, and personally and finds it’s roots in the liturgical action of the Old Testament Israel.

In his article “Liturgy as Drama” Gordon Graham establishes that the idea of sacrifice was closely linked to the idea of “making holy.” This “making holy” via the sacrifice in the O.T. and the sacraments in the N.T. are ways that people can become reconciled to God. This becomes both more powerful and pertinent when the sacrifice is understood as a “religious action” or liturgy – primarily because this sacrifice becomes more than a symbolic manifestation of worship as a conscious act of self purification, an act of “making holy” (Graham 71).[2] Graham goes on to argue that participation in this liturgy (he uses communion as his example) is really a participation in a reflection of the cosmic salvation drama, and that we, as actors in this drama participate in this act of becoming holy (79).[3] Not only are we ourselves reconciled through this kind of participation in the divine nature, but so too is the world around us by our demonstration or as Michael Moynahan put in his article “Drama and the Word”, “This type of imaginative engagement is ultimately transforming” (Moynahan 72).[4]

This is not an in depth or exhaustive treatment of the subject, but if it causes us to think about ourselves and our work in terms of God and His work then it is a success.

---

[1] Moltmann, Jürgen. The Church in the Power of the Spirit. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
[2] Graham, Gordon. "Liturgy as Drama." Theology Today. 64.1 (Ap 2007): 71-79.
[3] Ibid., 79.
[4] Moynahan, Michael E. "Drama and the Word." Liturgical Ministry. 5 (Spr 1996): 70-78.