This last week I had the wonderful task of reading For The Life of The World by Alexander Schmemman. This was not only a wonderful read, but also a breath of fresh air. Reading this book was not only my first major encounter with Eastern Orthodoxy, but a good one. Schmemman attempts to view the Church and culture, nature and grace, and the mission of the Church through the lens of liturgy and the sacraments. It was really nice to see someone looking at the Church's engagement with culture from a different lens. To be all honest I am just sick of hearing about the Barth and Brunner debate on natural theology. Schmemman didn't even touch the subject. My personal favorite part of his book and the most beneficial part of our seminar discussion this last Tuesday was on the Eucharist. Schmemman believes that we must, as the Church, encounter culture through the sacraments, primarily "eucharistically." What he means by this is, that we encounter creation with "thanksgiving." That the Church's role is to regain culture for the purpose of giving God thanks for his good creation. So, grace permeates and redeems nature through the sacraments. Creation was made to give thanks to God for being his good creation and the mission of the Church is to help restore this. The Church encounter's culture through the sacraments because the sacrament's urge the Church to go out and be missional. Those who the Church minister to encounter God through partaking in the sacraments, in experiencing the Eucharist one could therefore then live their life eucharistically. For Schmemman the sacraments aren't merely a means of receiving grace and encountering the resurrected Lord, but also the fuel for the fulfillment of the "great commission." The Spirit not only works in the life of the believer through the sacraments, but also compels the believer to mission's and therefore works in the non-believer by bringing the non-believer to encounter the Lord by means of the Church and sacraments.
Although, I do find Schmemman to be inconsistent at times, I like his direction and his emphasis on both the Church and creation. He takes mission's seriously as well as the preservation of the Church. His point about living "eucharistically," that is a life of giving thanks, is a wonderful example of how the Christian should live. Schmemman even goes as far as saying that when we take the Eucharist we eat and drink and remember end even ascend to the risen Lord, therefore whenever we eat and whenever we drink we should remember the taking of the Eucharist and that should compel us to live lives of thanksgiving and to fulfill the mission of the Church. Great book and if you have not had an encounter with Eastern Orthodoxy I highly recommend For The Life of The World.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Post #2: Natural Law
For this last week we read Robert P. George's book In Defense of Natural Law. To be quite honest with you I am not really interested in natural law, especially the Thomist/Catholic view of natural law, as opposed to the Reformed view. I really do not have much to say in regards to the topic and to be frank, I wasn't that impressed with the book.
I find natural law problematic because it assumes humanity's capability of gaining knowledge and revelation through nature apart from God. It asserts that reason is our means by which we gain our ethic and moral qualities. Natural law puts too much stock in human capability. It is also too subjective. If there are a multitude of moral qualities and ethical boundaries that one can gain from observation of the natural order, than how is one to be sure that it is of the natural law. A crazy person could assume that killing is part of the natural order and claim natural law, there are not enough checks and balances. Also, George's argument about sex and marriage is kind of ridiculous. I don't think scripture supports the claim that all sexual activity including oral sex and any sort of foreplay, even in the context of marriage, is strictly forbidden and sinful. Song of Solomon certainly does not agree with this statement. I also think it limits and confines physical unity within a marriage to mere "penetration," please excuse the crassness. I don't find his arguments to be overly convincing
That's about it. I really don't have much to say and am really not that interested in natural law. If you are really interested in the topic of natural law read A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law by Michael Cromartie. Sorry for the lame post
I find natural law problematic because it assumes humanity's capability of gaining knowledge and revelation through nature apart from God. It asserts that reason is our means by which we gain our ethic and moral qualities. Natural law puts too much stock in human capability. It is also too subjective. If there are a multitude of moral qualities and ethical boundaries that one can gain from observation of the natural order, than how is one to be sure that it is of the natural law. A crazy person could assume that killing is part of the natural order and claim natural law, there are not enough checks and balances. Also, George's argument about sex and marriage is kind of ridiculous. I don't think scripture supports the claim that all sexual activity including oral sex and any sort of foreplay, even in the context of marriage, is strictly forbidden and sinful. Song of Solomon certainly does not agree with this statement. I also think it limits and confines physical unity within a marriage to mere "penetration," please excuse the crassness. I don't find his arguments to be overly convincing
That's about it. I really don't have much to say and am really not that interested in natural law. If you are really interested in the topic of natural law read A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law by Michael Cromartie. Sorry for the lame post
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Seminar Series "Common Grace" and General Revelation: Post #1
Last Monday was a wonderful discussion and debate about G.C. Berkouwer's book General Revelation. First off I must say that although I do not agree with Berkouwer on many points, he is an excellent scholar and theologian. He also did a very nice job interpreting Barth, and he did so quite fairly. Berkouwer's book starts with an introduction and background to General Revelation and then moves on to Barth's offensive against Emil Brunner and Natural theology and then to Brunner and Althaus's reaction to Barth. He examines the "Nature Psalms," discusses the ideas related to revelation and knowledge, revelation and the law, revelation and illumination, article II of the Belgic confession, and finally Universality and particularity in relation to revelation. This is a very thorough book that I would recommend to anyone interested in studying General Revelation, "Common Grace," and for a better understanding of the critique of Barth and Barth's argument.
In my seminar this last Monday we discussed Berkouwer and the relationship between revelation and grace. I am coming from a Barthian background, and the rest of my colleagues and Dr. Mouw are all Neo-Calvinist's and for the most part Kuyperian's. I am widely out numbered. But, as I suspected we had a fruitful conversation and discovered that we do indeed have many similarities. Once again the crux of our theological engagement is mostly do to the use of language. Primarily the use of the words "grace" and "revelation." For Barth these two words are not only inseparable, but also unique in there relationship to each other and to Christ. For Barth "grace" involves "revelation" and vice versa. What makes these two unique is there direct relationship to Jesus Christ. For Barth grace is salvific and has been uniquely revealed in the revelation of his own being in the person of Jesus Christ. So, revelation has to necessarily include grace and the revelation of God himself. Christ is not just the giver of grace, he is grace itself, he is not just the one who imparts revelation, he is revelation itself.
"Only in the incarnation God himself comes to us and that we, therefore, only in this respect are dealing with real, actual revelation. 1" As you can see our problem has to do with language. For Berkouwer and the Neo-Calvinist school, grace does not exclusively have to do with Jesus Christ in the sense that Christ saves us, but there are also "good" things in creation which are also graces. What they mean here is not that grace is salvific in the created order, but that God's good gifts are abundant and made evident. Grace in this sense, is the act of God sustaining, preserving, and providing within creation. The problem for Barth and Barthians alike, is the word "grace." Grace is unique to Jesus Christ and therefore cannot be applied to another. Also, grace is in direct relation to revelation. Therefore, the idea of General revelation assumes grace, and the idea of "common grace" assumes revelation. This is problematic because it does not ontologically ground revelation and grace exclusively in Jesus Christ. This implies, as does natural theology, that creation, on its own, has the capacity for revelation and its reception in itself. We cannot ground revelation or grace in creation and its foundation cannot be anthropological, rather it must be Christological. Because of this distinction Barth is often considered a "christo-monist." Although this term can be a bit overstated, Barth and Barthian's alike are content with the centrality, and even exclusivity, of Jesus Christ as the "one" Word of God, and therefore one grace and one revelation.
Now, if we were to take away the word "grace" from "common grace" and "revelation" away from "general revelation," there would not be a blockade between these two traditions. In Barthian terms "common grace" is the good things that are common between the believer and the heathen. This is on account of the grace of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. "Common grace" is the active work of the resurrected Jesus Christ in creation. It is the rain that falls on the unjust and the just to produce crops, it is gifts received in any manner by all people, it is simply things that God created to be good. But, these things are good and are upheld only because of Christ. Without Christ they would not be good because they would not be attainable. What we have here is not grace, but "common good" and "common witness" created by Christ for Christ and bearing witness on account of Christ to Christ. In General Revelation, we do not have revelation, but witness and testimony. General revelation imparts no knowledge of God's being and character, but testifies and bears witness to Christ' saving act. This witness and testimony is not revelation of grace, "It is at most the herald of the King, but not the King itself. 2" "Common grace" and "General revelation" in Neo-Calvinist terms are not in fact "grace" and "revelation" in Barth's terms.
My conclusion to this whole conversation is that, maybe we cannot agree on the use of these terms, but that we can agree that these "things" are on account of the work of the living Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. So, for Barth this testimony, witness, and goodness in creation are possibly because of Christ and instituted in creation by the Holy Spirit. In this we cannot separate the eternal work of Christ from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is, we can not abstract Christ's actions from his being. Therefore we must attribute both Old and New Testament witness and present and future witness to the work of Christ by means of the Holy Spirit on account of the grace of Jesus Christ on the cross. The Old Testament witness bore testimony to the act of Jesus Christ, the New Testament proclaimed it, and the present and future witness recall and remember it. These things are possible because of Christ and are not "grace" and not "revelation," but witness and testimony actualized by the Holy Spirit. This directly links all "grace" all "revelation," and witness and testimony directly to the work of Christ. So, we really do have much in common, it's merely a matter of how we state things. Finally I would officially restate "common grace" as "commonness," that which is common and good for the the believer and unbeliever, and "general revelation" as "general witness," that which bears witness to the saving act of Christ and is done by the power of the Holy Spirit. I hope this was helpful and informative. Please feel free to comment.
1. G.C. Berkouwer, Generarl Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955) 101
2. G.C. Berkouwer, 25
In my seminar this last Monday we discussed Berkouwer and the relationship between revelation and grace. I am coming from a Barthian background, and the rest of my colleagues and Dr. Mouw are all Neo-Calvinist's and for the most part Kuyperian's. I am widely out numbered. But, as I suspected we had a fruitful conversation and discovered that we do indeed have many similarities. Once again the crux of our theological engagement is mostly do to the use of language. Primarily the use of the words "grace" and "revelation." For Barth these two words are not only inseparable, but also unique in there relationship to each other and to Christ. For Barth "grace" involves "revelation" and vice versa. What makes these two unique is there direct relationship to Jesus Christ. For Barth grace is salvific and has been uniquely revealed in the revelation of his own being in the person of Jesus Christ. So, revelation has to necessarily include grace and the revelation of God himself. Christ is not just the giver of grace, he is grace itself, he is not just the one who imparts revelation, he is revelation itself.
"Only in the incarnation God himself comes to us and that we, therefore, only in this respect are dealing with real, actual revelation. 1" As you can see our problem has to do with language. For Berkouwer and the Neo-Calvinist school, grace does not exclusively have to do with Jesus Christ in the sense that Christ saves us, but there are also "good" things in creation which are also graces. What they mean here is not that grace is salvific in the created order, but that God's good gifts are abundant and made evident. Grace in this sense, is the act of God sustaining, preserving, and providing within creation. The problem for Barth and Barthians alike, is the word "grace." Grace is unique to Jesus Christ and therefore cannot be applied to another. Also, grace is in direct relation to revelation. Therefore, the idea of General revelation assumes grace, and the idea of "common grace" assumes revelation. This is problematic because it does not ontologically ground revelation and grace exclusively in Jesus Christ. This implies, as does natural theology, that creation, on its own, has the capacity for revelation and its reception in itself. We cannot ground revelation or grace in creation and its foundation cannot be anthropological, rather it must be Christological. Because of this distinction Barth is often considered a "christo-monist." Although this term can be a bit overstated, Barth and Barthian's alike are content with the centrality, and even exclusivity, of Jesus Christ as the "one" Word of God, and therefore one grace and one revelation.
Now, if we were to take away the word "grace" from "common grace" and "revelation" away from "general revelation," there would not be a blockade between these two traditions. In Barthian terms "common grace" is the good things that are common between the believer and the heathen. This is on account of the grace of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. "Common grace" is the active work of the resurrected Jesus Christ in creation. It is the rain that falls on the unjust and the just to produce crops, it is gifts received in any manner by all people, it is simply things that God created to be good. But, these things are good and are upheld only because of Christ. Without Christ they would not be good because they would not be attainable. What we have here is not grace, but "common good" and "common witness" created by Christ for Christ and bearing witness on account of Christ to Christ. In General Revelation, we do not have revelation, but witness and testimony. General revelation imparts no knowledge of God's being and character, but testifies and bears witness to Christ' saving act. This witness and testimony is not revelation of grace, "It is at most the herald of the King, but not the King itself. 2" "Common grace" and "General revelation" in Neo-Calvinist terms are not in fact "grace" and "revelation" in Barth's terms.
My conclusion to this whole conversation is that, maybe we cannot agree on the use of these terms, but that we can agree that these "things" are on account of the work of the living Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. So, for Barth this testimony, witness, and goodness in creation are possibly because of Christ and instituted in creation by the Holy Spirit. In this we cannot separate the eternal work of Christ from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is, we can not abstract Christ's actions from his being. Therefore we must attribute both Old and New Testament witness and present and future witness to the work of Christ by means of the Holy Spirit on account of the grace of Jesus Christ on the cross. The Old Testament witness bore testimony to the act of Jesus Christ, the New Testament proclaimed it, and the present and future witness recall and remember it. These things are possible because of Christ and are not "grace" and not "revelation," but witness and testimony actualized by the Holy Spirit. This directly links all "grace" all "revelation," and witness and testimony directly to the work of Christ. So, we really do have much in common, it's merely a matter of how we state things. Finally I would officially restate "common grace" as "commonness," that which is common and good for the the believer and unbeliever, and "general revelation" as "general witness," that which bears witness to the saving act of Christ and is done by the power of the Holy Spirit. I hope this was helpful and informative. Please feel free to comment.
1. G.C. Berkouwer, Generarl Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955) 101
2. G.C. Berkouwer, 25
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
delay of first post
So, my reading schedule for school has been crazy. About 300 pgs. of reading a week. So, I am going to delay my first post on my "common grace" seminar series. It will be up soon, I can assure you that. Peace
Thursday, January 7, 2010
"Common Grace" and General Revelation Series
For those of you interested, I am currently taking a seminar on "Common Grace" and General Revelation. It has been quite interesting so far, especially because I myself am a Barthian, in a room full of Neo-Calvinists. The dialogue has been wonderful and we are making headway on being better conversation partners. I have found so far that although these two traditions disagree on some issues, they are actually in agreement on a majority of topics. I have come to the conclusion that the barrier between Barthians and Neo-Calvinist's is one of language and not necessarily doctrine.
That being said, I am going to start a series on my blog in which, I will blog on my reading and discussion throughout this seminar. My first post will most likely be at the beginning of this weekend. I hope you enjoy and feel free to let me know what you think.
Andrew
That being said, I am going to start a series on my blog in which, I will blog on my reading and discussion throughout this seminar. My first post will most likely be at the beginning of this weekend. I hope you enjoy and feel free to let me know what you think.
Andrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)