Theologians

St John the Theologian

I remember reading an article by an Australian Anglican (episcopal) theologian saying, essentially, that the theologian should have, if not a preeminent place in the church, a place of superiority in the discussions, debates and directions of the church. The problem is that it sounds elitist, and the rejoinder to the claim by the bishop was that the church, with all its various divisions of labour, should be more like a symphony. This sounds right, but it does seem to me that the life and voice of the theologian is one that needs to be particularly nurtured and listened to in the church. We have always done this, although in these days of user-pay some smaller theological enterprises might come tumbling down to the detriment of the whole church. But why listen to the theologian? If the theologian's voice is not one of superiority, it is one that must be listened to. But why? I think this post from Ben Myers over at Faith and Theology is an excellent answer to the question.

Quintessential Jesus

 We read from Luke 14:1-14 on Sunday. 14:7-11 is not quintessential Jesus. He has taken a piece of sensible, common wisdom available in Proverbs 25:6-7. Show a little modesty is the piece of advice, and Jesus makes a more theological point, perhaps that our self-promotion will not trick God (true, and while not below Jesus to say, it just sounds a bit too safe for him), or more likely a blanket warning about success in the world. "For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." (14:11) That is, the kingdom will bring down thrones and raise up the lowly (Lk 1:51-53; 6:20-26; 16:19-31; 18:9-14) There is a rawness about this saying that we want to blunt, even a little. It seems a little extreme and unfocused, to say the least. This kind of blanket assertion is found elsewhere, and early. (Jas 4:4-10; 1Pet 5:5b-6) Why didn't Jesus just go with the more reasonable, 'You can't fool God by self-promotion? Why tack on the pithy, difficult, blanket epithet?

Before answering that question, let's return to the passage in hand. The parable advising against premature self-promotion is followed by a passage quintessentially Jesus. Invite to your party those who can't repay you, or who no one else would even think of inviting! The excluded, reviled and ignored. Those who occupy a humble place in the world without choice, no matter how inflated their ego. Why?  So that we can find a home in the kingdom, because the kingdom is populated with such as these. This is more than Jesus giving us some advice to show compassion or humility. This is about the way our humanity and the world is structured. We divide, exclude, victimise and persecute. It is built into our structure of being, and the way our societies are structured. Jesus invites us to live differently by seeing the world differently. Not from the point of view of those who 'win' or want to 'win' in such a world, but from the point of view of those who 'lose'.The honoured guest, from the point of view of the kingdom,  is not famous or wealthy.

Which brings us to the beginning of today's reading, Lk 14: 1-6, the man with dropsy (edema). He is the honoured guest, and it is only Jesus who recognises him and acts. That's because Jesus chooses to see the world from the perspective of the humility of the cross. (Phil 2:5-11) The Pharisees, and a reader like me, very easily miss the point.

Returning to the question of why Jesus would make such a blanket statement as "For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." (14:11), it is important to see that Jesus doesn't thinks the kingdom is about moderating the excesses of human behaviour. There is something radically wrong, cutting to the heart of our societies and the way we become who we are as members of this society. We are all implicated, and there is no escape through moderation or some kind of self-realisation that relies on one's own resources. The doctrinal name for this is Original Sin, and I will write a little more about it later in the week.

Getting Our Language Right

This article from Hauerwas is good on the importance of learning to speak Christian. It includes the importance of learning when to stop speaking, and the way in which we have been co-opted in other political and social languages by a need to separate ourselves from extremism. An example of the former is not giving solace to the bereaved by saying of a loved one, "They have gone to a better place." That smells of the immortal soul. And he cites the use of 'God' instead of Jesus as an example of the latter. Using Cavanaugh, Hauerwas mentions the way in which the secular state has smoothed out the differences between different faiths for its own political stabilization and control through the universalism of  the words 'religion' and 'God'.

Benedcit XVI, Truth and Reform

 I'm interested in the way Benedict XVI is pilloried in general, and what a more nuanced view might include. Try this from Tracey Rowland, 'The Triumph of Theologians Over Bureaucrats in the Vatican', from the ABC Religion and Ethics portal. Here are a few quotes:

"The Church is currently faced with the problem that the generation of 1968 is now at the height of its social influence and is busy pushing a militantly secularist ideology. In order to contend with this we need ecclesial leaders who are able to intellectually engage with the ideas of this generation. They can't do this unless they are across the intellectual history of the past couple of centuries, including the Nietzschean claim that Christianity destroyed eros and is a crime against life itself."

"One of the hallmarks of his (Benedict's) interventions in this field (dialogue) is his insistence that truth matters and thus that the idea of making praxis take priority over belief (cf. Kueng's Weltethos or "Global Ethics" project) is a flawed approach. This is a position he takes from his early mentor Romano Guardini. It is also the position taken by Professor John Milbank, friend of Rowan Williams and leader of the Radical Orthodoxy circle of scholars in the UK and by Professor Gavin D'Costa, an advisor to the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and author of several best-selling works on the subject of dialogue."

"John Milbank argues that the emphasis on justice and liberation one finds in the "praxis solution" glosses over the fact that religions have differed as much over political and social practices as they have over notions of divinity. He also draws attention to the paradox that those who are most vocal about the need for religious pluralism and building a new world order based upon shared ethical practices tend to be basing their stance on Enlightenment values and attitudes, that is, Western liberal values and attitudes, which run counter to their very project of affirming the non-Western 'others'."

"Let's hope that Pope Benedict continues to appoint to high office people who care about ideas and their social effects, rather than deferring to self-regarding pragmatists and professional paper-shuffling schmoozers. Given he spent 25 years working in the Curia he is well placed to know who fits into what category."

The Dark Green God of Christianity

We had an interesting QT (Question Time) at Holy Innocents last Sunday night. Three excellent presenters with some good questions and discussion following. The topic was "Is God a Greenie?" The answer for most people present (and I think for all three presenters) was 'Yes'. The question is what shade of green? I would say that God is dark green, passionately in love with all of God's creation, a creation interdependent in its complexity and evolution. Can Christianity be a dark green religion? Take the following definition of dark green religion:

"Dark green religion, as I have constructed the term, involves the perception that nature is sacred and has intrinsic value, the belief that everything is interconnected and mutually dependent, and a deep feeling of belonging to nature. Often rooted in an evolutionary understanding that all life shares a common ancestor, dark green religion generally leads to a form of kinship ethics that entails ethical responsibilities to all living things. From this stance, all life is, quite literally, related—a belief that leads naturally to empathy for other living things, who, like us, have evolved through what Darwin aptly called the struggle for existence. Such perceptions generally lead people to see more continuities than differences between their own and other species, and this perception generally leads to humility about one’s place in the grand scheme of things." (Bron Taylor, "Civil Earth Religion Versus Religious Nationalism", http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/07/30/civil-earth-religion/, accessed 16 August, 2010.) 

 On this definition the answer is definitely yes. In fact the author goes on to say that the new sensitivity to nature and the cosmos and all living things, with a concomitant sense of kinship and interconnectedness is being grafted onto existing religions, but that such grafting is not necessary because dark green religion can stand on its own feet. But can it? Once we start digging a little deeper theologically we start asking questions about how God and the interconnected web of living and non-living matter relate. This is where dark green religion will fall back into one of the pre-existing options of pantheism, monotheism, etc, rather than just be grafted onto one of them. Is God in some way different from us (that is, everything in the material universe), or are God and matter co-extensive? Christianity declines to collapse God into the universe, maintaining the difference between God and creation. Christianity does this so that the relationship between the two can be one of loving union. Undoubtedly dark green religion can be poured into a pantheistic religion, even one that appears new. (However, Taylor says that the dark green sensitivity is mostly going in a secular rather than religious direction.) But that isn't really new. Dark Greenies will choose either a secular path or find their place in one of the well worn theological paths of humanity.

Speaking of the dark green God of Christianity is not grafting something totally new onto a Christianity allegedly devoid of greenery. While the green sensitivities of our current age undoubtedly add much to our understanding, it has also helped us recover the green and green friendly core of Christianity. (For example, the hypostatic union of  human and divine in Jesus and, of course, the resurrection of Jesus. Not to mention the sacramental practice of the church and an absolute ton of the Bible.)

Happiness and Joy Now And In the Future

I recently asked a group of Yr 7s to write a short essay on what makes them happy. I then asked them to read the Matthean or Lucan Beatitudes (including woes). It stirs some questions to say the least, especially when some of Luke's woes end up on their happiness list! The gospel runs counter to the tendency to collapse happiness and joy down to a passing feeling or activities that are a little on the superficial side, and usually individualistic in tone. Jesus reminds us that there are things that are more important than the usual shopping list of 'happiness products'.

Moreover,  Jesus links happiness to a future fulfillment. "Happy are ... those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." (Matt 5:4) Hebrews picks this up in writing about Jesus as the pioneer of our faith: "...  who for the sake of the joy set before him endured the cross ..." (Hebrews 12:2). The little Greek word anti, translated above as  "for the sake of" can also mean "instead of". Both possibilities pick up the relative importance of present joys. "For the sake of" reminds us to look ahead to a greater joy for us all (Hebrews 11:39-40). The latter possible translation reminds us that there are times when the joys of life may need to be eschewed for obedience to God's call. No wonder it comes as the climax to the great honour roll of people of faith!

Hermeneutics: Simultaneously Receiving and Creating Meaning

"...meaning is by nature alive to, and structuring of, the present, something we discover to have preceded us at the same time as we collaborate in its creation." (James Alison, The Joy of Being Wrong, p. 1.)

Individual Rights and the Victim Mechanism

James Alison says that our predilection for individual rights is merely the reverse of the victim mechanism. Instead of the single victim against the righteous group, individual rights pits the righteous individual against (or at least suspicious of) the potentially oppressive many. Here is what he writes:

"In exactly the same way, the modern, 'enlightened' equivalent relies on the same distortion, but from the reverse side: it is the individual who is the sacred good, imbued with inalienable rights and with an inalienable freedom and conscience. The 'many', the social other, are the threatening and dangerous element, who may at any moment fetter 'my' freedom of rights, which are always worked out over against the social other. To be able to claim the high ground of victim status is indispensable for furthering whatever cause 'I' seek to sponsor. In this case, as in the previous, there has been no escape from the founding sacrality of the victim, as indeed there cannot be without a recognition that the victim is exactly the same as the many, and that the difference is produced by a collectively held delusion." (The Joy of Being Wrong, pp. 37-38.)

The Omniscient God

We Don't Like Your Preaching

For church members who don't like the preaching at their church they might not be alone; perhaps the preacher agrees! Read this from Faith and Theology to understand this cryptic comment.

The same could be said of  the sacraments. The sacrament's efficacy is due to the presence of Christ and nothing else. Preaching that is helpful isn't helpful because the preacher is a good preacher, and the Eucharist's effectiveness is independent of the holiness of the priest and congregation. People come expecting to receive, and Christ is gracious enough to be present, in word and sacrament.