Going for the Leadership Killing Fields

Dear Wormwood,

Here's one of the hottest topics I'm going to share with you. "How to Kill a Christian Seminary or Bible School: From Top to Bottom." Follow them subtly and you'll succeed if you do:

1. Choose (not elect) a president, administrators, and teachers who do not have effective church leadership experience or those who have indifferent attitude to local churches, spiritual leaders, or church associations in order to discredit his/her credibility to run a more complicated institution that is built to serve the church of Christ by training its leaders.

2. Call and install faculty and staff from the outside camp who do not share loyalty to the ideals of the founding leaders of the institution or church and let them gain power in order to manipulate the politics inside, to generate confusion and distrust, then moving away from serving the church of Christ and fellowship with spiritual leaders where they originally belong.

3. Create an administrative body whose decision making is subject to intimidation and allocate their secure position without accountability to any broader church association. Mutual cooperation between seminary and local churches is harmful to the agenda; the two must not have common goal--that is something harmless but actually rooted in self-interests.

4. Coagulate the secrecy of elite personnel in the financial office to manipulate records, accounting, scholarships, donations, endowments, etc. You can do this during or after installing weak financial assistants who can easily be bent to become scrupulous individuals inside, especially those who do not have moral ascendancy. Never mind the testimony of the higher ups who transact hideous arrangements--perhaps sending them to hell is better. Remember, our highway is "filled with good intentions."

5. Construct an environment of undeterred distrust, favoritism, and double-standard to students so that they will feel helpless and will not be able to make sensible decisions for themselves. When students are demoralized, it gives service to the agenda. What matters most is their money for the treasury. So make the institution as their “milking cow.” Faith is detestable, fee is acceptable--and what matters most.

6. Change the seminary policies to move away from serving the greater body of Christ, the Church, in order to serve and protect the personal interests, lucrative benefits, security of tenure, and secret agenda of the administrative core. The welfare and interests of the core administration are the utmost concern at stake. Hence, do not consult with opposite opinion because it will create a balanced perspective. Stay away from the "enemies" who are loyal to their Master. Exclude them in the meetings if possible.

7. Commercialize everything in the seminary, from teacher’s “professional fee” to parking space, dormitories to facilities, lodge and amenities, tuition and other tiny-gritty details. While students and pastors-to-be see the discrepancies, it will help them commercialize their call into careers because of the set examples. If time is right, sell the institution for closure. Again, Mammon is the asset here. Who can say no to money, especially if they think they "own" the institution now?

8. Compose and provide training without strong biblical foundation or create doubt on the sufficiency of God’s revelation through “scholarship” and theories that undermine it. Because the Word of God is a fierce critic of carnal agenda, place it under attack through sophisticated philosophies. It is better for them to believe in their theological idols, be it theologians or philosophies, than believe in the revelation of our Enemy.

9. Contain and suppress the voice that calls for transparency, honesty, accountability, integrity, even if this accent comes among the administrative staff whose loyalty is still leaning towards the ideals and tradition of the institution. This effort to restrain them will also make them helpless and cannot make sensible decision. Bully them; if they do not stand aside, they must be removed from their positions.

10. If you already have first male and female presidents in your administrative museum, why not try appointing a gay president or lesbian in the near future and you will have a “stormy night” to shaken the very foundation of their faith and tradition. Do this among your staff also through the idea of “tolerance” or "postmodernism" towards corruption of the old ideals of the faith. If there is no moral ascendancy, they can never have authority. That's what we want to see, isn't it, my beloved nephew?

Still, the secret belongs to unchecked leadership. By making them powerful above their fellow brothers and sisters, they will have sense of indispensability as if their work will not emerge someday. But if something will happen that the agenda is discovered, be strong. Just undermine their capability; after all they are not experts in this matter.

As the Filipino adage says, “even if you’re caught in the act, deny, deny, deny.” When this conspiracy comes into fruition and the fruit will reveal its true nature, hold on. You have succeeded in secularizing the seminary. Be proud because you have made them a part of the statistics of some world-renowned and lesser known institutions that were originally meant to built in serving God but now are in-full service to our idols and their man-made gods. Congratulations.

Go for the kill, my nephew.

You Dear Uncle,

Screwtape

P.S. By the way, there are successful attempts made here in the Philippines also. So stick with the plan. Because of their denial or obsession of the existence of the elite “principalities,” it is too way easy for them to go in the direction. Thanks to brother de-supernaturalization; he made an excellent job also. Keep in touch.

Warning: Due to the popularity of C.S. Lewis' works and the response of this article from readers, this original (and fictionalized) article is inspired from his Screwtape Letters. It is obvious, he is far far away a genius than this author.

Republished from: 7/1/08

M. Erickson on Christian Theology

Millard J Erickson. Christian Theology, 2^nd ed. Michigan: Baker Books, 1998. pp. 17-174.

Synopsis

What is Theology?

Initially, theology is the study or science of an active personal God who relates to mankind. Erickson’s definition of theology is: “that discipline which strives to give coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith, based primarily on the Scriptures, placed in the context of culture in general, worded in a contemporary idiom, and related to issues of life”(23). Theology for him must be biblical, systematic, and contemporary, and must relate to the issues of general learning and culture. Systematic theology, as a study falls on doctrinal category, dealing basically on the concept of God. In relation to biblical theology, the raw materials are utilized by systematic theology. As to historical theology, it helps to “systematicians” to be more self-conscious and self-critical of their own presuppositions and learn how to do theology by studying their predecessors so as not repeat their mistakes. Likewise, systematic theology uses philosophical theology. Philosophy may supply content for theology, defend theology, and scrutinize theological concepts and arguments. Nonetheless, the primacy of the Bible over philosophy is still fundamental.

Erickson cited the need for theology to provide correct doctrinal beliefs that are essential to the relationship of God and believer, especially that truth and experience are related. Not only is that, the manifold and confusing alternatives that present times presented, right theology a must enterprise. He suggested that theology must start both from the Bible and the concept of God. It is because Christianity as a christo-centric movement follows Jesus who is basically revealed in the Gospels which happens to be the reliable source for historical information about his life and teaching; of which he also regards the Old Testament as an authentic source of revelation. Nonetheless, Erickson does not close other non-biblical resources such as nature and history.

Theology and Philosophy

Erickson cites types of relationships between theology and philosophy, namely: no relationship at all (Tertullian, Martin Luther), theology elucidated by philosophy (Augustine), theology as established by philosophy (Aquinas), theology judged by philosophy (Deism), and philosophy supplies content to theology (Hegel). As of the present, various philosophies existed like Pragmatism, Existentialism (with its four basic tenets: irrationalism, individuality, freedom and subjectivity), Analytical, Process, and Deconstruction Philosophy. To this, Erickson provides guidelines to theology’s use of philosophy: (1) revelation rather than philosophy will supply the content of theology; (2) philosophy should be thought of as an activity, philosophizing, rather than as a truth-body. Philosophy is not useless, however. It sharpens understanding of concepts; it digs out presuppositions behind a thought-system or idea; it traces out implications of ideas; and it requires test to truth-claims.

The Method of Theology

Within a given context, Erickson argues, doing theology takes place. In reality, the scene today shows the brief life-span of theologies. There is also a demise of great theologies due to clusterings of adherence to individual theologians. Today, there do not seem to be theological giants like in the first half of the 20^th century. Meanwhile, the increasing influence of behavioral science is also creeping in theology as manifested in liberation theologies. Ultimately, globalization is inevitable. With the rise of third world theologies, European and western theologies are not in control anymore. It does pave the way of an independent process of doing theology.

Erickson suggested several steps in the process of doing theology. Doing theology requires: first, is the collection of biblical materials, including the exegetical materials that are helpful in the process. The methodology in doing theology is also a part of this collection before inquiring broadly the concept to be discussed. Second is the unification of the biblical materials under the assumption that the material is not fragmentary as if Paul, Luke, and John have different doctrines. The material should be treated as a whole. Third is the analysis of the real meaning of biblical teachings. Fourth is the examination of historical treatments. This is where analysis of past methodology proves to be helpful of not or whether it requires modifications or a new one. Fifth is the consultation of other cultural perspective to avoid cultural prejudice and misunderstanding. Sixth is the identification of the permanent essence of the doctrine. Seventh is the illumination from extra biblical sources like nature, history, humanity or other disciplines. Eight is give contemporary expression of the doctrine similar to Tillich’s correlation between two poles: the authority (source: Bible) and situation (expression of the mindset of a given society). In this dialogical approach, the question influences only the form of the answer, not the content. There should be an effort to locate a model that makes the doctrine understandable in the existing context, in a sense, “decontextualizing” the 1^st century message into 20^th century context (“recontextualizing”). Ninth is the development of a central interpretive motif in approaching theology as a whole to provide unity to the system but with careful consideration of not forcing meaning (eisegesis) in the passage used. Hermeneutical (exegesis) accuracy is still a basic necessity so as not to distort the theology. Tenth is the stratification or outline of the topics and subtopics (major and minor). Of course, the degree of the weight of biblical statements or implications must be classified clearly. Direct statements are heavier than speculations.

Theology and Critical Study of the Bible

Modern age has brought humanity many questions on doctrines and religious institutions through critical studies. The Bible was not spared. The process of questioning began with the historical and textual criticism of the authors of the Bible. Through the 19^th to 20^th centuries higher criticism begun to develop. Erickson cited the three most influential types of criticism: form criticism, redaction criticism, and reader-response criticism. Form criticism and redaction criticism deals with the origin of the Bible and oral traditions. It is also focused on how oral traditions developed into the written and fixed form. Meanwhile, reader-response criticism is focused on the reader of the Bible and the response of the reader to the passage rather than on the meaning of the text. Each of these exegetical approaches has their own strength and weaknesses. They have contributed to the interest and scholarly treatment to the Bible. Nonetheless, these types of criticism, according to Erickson, are often grounded on natural presuppositions instead of supernatural ones. They can lead to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the biblical message.

Thus, he provided some guidelines for evaluating critical criticisms: (1) be on guard against anti-supernatural assumptions. (2) Be careful of circular reasoning. Ex. Treatment of Sitz im Leben in relation to the origin of the stories of the Bible. (3) Be careful for unwarranted inferences. Similarity of thought does not necessarily mean same origin. (4) Be watchful of arbitrariness and subjectivity. (5) Be alert to the presence of assumptions concerning antithetical relationship between faith and reason. (6) Always remember that in all these matters, theologians-exegetes are dealing with probability rather than certainty. The cumulative conclusions founded on probabilities increases.

Contemporizing the Christian Message

The goal of contemporizing the gospel is to retain the content of the message and biblical doctrines while making the message understandable to the present time. This is so because there is a challenge of obsolescence of which Bultmann dealt much in demythologizing the Scripture from cosmological “primitive” views. Erickson cited on the locus of permanence in Christianity of which many theologians vary in their answers as to which is the abiding element of Christianity. Five permanent elements were suggested: (1) an institution, (2) acts of God as in the Christ-event, (3) experiences, (4) doctrines, and (5) way of life. Some of the criteria Erickson proposed in permanent doctrinal essence to be extracted are: (1) constancy across the cultures, (2) universal setting, (3) a recognized permanent factor as foundation, (4) a binding link with an experience essentially regarded, and (5) final position within progressive revelation.

Erickson highlighted two approaches to contemporizing theology. First are the transformers. Adherents of this approach usually call themselves as liberals, preferably modernists, seeing their roles as updaters of the old-time beliefs. They are not necessarily concern in maintaining the old beliefs held by the early church but that the truth is relative, of which man is the ultimate judge what is right or wrong. Prime examples are Death of God theology, J.A.T. Robinson, T.J.J. Altizer, W. Hamilton and P. Van Buren. The second approach is that of translators. One of their goals is to retain the essence of the message and put them into the language of the hearer. Translators attempt to speak what the Bible would say if it were written today. This is manifested in contemporary translations of the Scripture. Translators maintain that humanity is not the ultimate judge between right and wrong or the measure of truth. They distinguish the message from interpretations and traditions.

Theology and its Language

Theology has been accused of meaninglessness since most of its language transcends sensory and empirical language. It is unverifiable by cognitive observations. Some of the answers offered by other theologians argued on the personal aspect of theological language. Some attempt to use eschatological verifications. But Erickson maintains to reject narrow criterion of meaningfulness proposed by logical positivism. Knowledge can not be attained only by sense experience for there is such thing as special revelation of God. Meaning can be found in symbols as well as anything that goes beyond the symbols represents. He argues that while it is true that theological languages are empirically unverifiable, religious language can be cognitively meaningful through a wide synthetic system. It serves like a scientific hypothesis to evoke understanding and commitment.

Postmodernity and Theology

Modernism, the belief in the universe’ rationality, is the 20^th century’s hallmark. Somehow, there was a growing dissatisfaction with the modern view. As a result, postmodernism movement was born, affecting every aspect of intellectual literary, philosophical, and historical enterprise—even in theology. Theologically, the challenge of postmodernism is inevitable. Some of the tenets of postmodernism are compatible with and supportive of biblical theology while other parts are antichristian. Christian theology therefore is needs to utilize the former while rejecting the later.

Postmodern, however, is diversified. In theology, several types of postmodernism are classified. (1) Deconstructionist or eliminative postmodernism is focused on deconstructing the traditional concepts like God. (2) Constructionist or revisionary postmodernism. They believed that traditional worldview cannot be held but it must be constructed on different grounds and with revised concepts. (3) Liberationist postmodern theology upholds the transformation of the structures of the society rather than epistemological questions. (4) Conservative or restorative postmodern theology tends to reject modernism elements such as relativism, subjectivism, and reductionism. It accepts realism, correspondence of truth, referential understanding of language and other premodern values as well as modern discoveries. Since this form is not permanent, like others before, Erickson suggests that doing theology must not be too tied up with postmodernism but postmodern needs are to be responded considerably knowing that there are some positive contributions it brings. If deconstructionism is to e consistent, then it must be deconstructed also. Nonetheless, a clear distinction between truth and knowledge of truth must be clarified. Knowledge of truth may be relative, but truth is not. Therefore, humility and interaction with the community is important. Postmodernism is, after all, right. Lone scholars can never formulate truth in an independent fashion and monologue approach. Conveying the truth requires dialogue.

Question

What should be the proper attitude of theologians towards postmodernism? Why?

J. Childs Jr. and Anthropological Ethics of the Future

James M. Childs. Jr. Christian Anthropology and Ethics. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.

Synopsis of the Book

This book is a Christian anthropological and ethical study in the context of eschatological theology, particularly in the works of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Motlmann, and Carl Braaten. A contemporary understanding of an authentic human is explicated through this theology of the future or theology of hope.

I. The Heritage of the Tradition

The Search for Man: An Introduction. Childs reiterated the problems of the past search for humanity. Christian history produced variety of outlooks regarding the gospel’s contribution to the fulfillment of the nature and destiny of man and how the church ought to function to that end. All of these differing “humanizing” positions are deeply expressed in H.R. Neibuhrs’ Christ and Culture where Christ is against/of/and culture (and/in paradox). However, due to advancement of science and technology, the present pressure is enormous. The attack to man’s freedom of the will, moral sensibility, and religious inclinations and subjectivity has been deliberately debated. The main issue has something to do with man created in the image of God on which the need to reevaluate the concept is a must. Here, the proleptic emphasis of eschatological theology has called for an important contribution in redefining the meaning of man created in the image of God. The centrality of Jesus, as the prolepsis of the kingdom of God, in his resurrection expresses the true man—the fulfillment of man’s humanity.

Dichotomized Man. The church’s doctrine of man was found inconsistent and complex. What past scholars left to the present can be designated as a dichotomized man. The dualistic notion of humanum was expressed in two concepts. First, it can be defined as structural dichotomies. This means that man’s nature in the image of God is in two parts—an abiding natural image (reason, freedom of will, moral sensitivity, etc.) and the supernatural image that was lost in the fall. This is expresses in the teachings of Irenaeus and Aquinas. Basically man is created by an ahistorical eschatology for historical existence is discontinues with suprahistroical existence. The Reformation theologians tried to solve this case with their theological monism referring to the image as man’s original righteousness (Luther) which was originally lost in the fall. Thus, in the final analysis, Luther’s monism, with that of Irenaeus and Aquinas is evidently dichotomous.

Secularized Man. The secularizing trend in theology is basically identified with Harvey Cox (Secular City) and Paul M. van Buren (The Secular Meaning of the Gospel). It was the works of Schleiermacher that gave impetus to the emphasis of man in the center. The imago Dei refers to the God-consciousness or feeling of absolute dependence characteristic in man. This was a rejection to the original perfection of man in that he is capable by his own inherent structure. This anthropocentric theology was also amplified in the works of A. Ritschl’s history-centered theology in relation to the kingdom of God. Here, the secular outlook of man is identified with history, not with dichotomous man of the past. “Man’s religious nature tends to find its authentic expression in striving at the ethical task rather than in seeking an other-worldly salvation and fulfillment.”(49)

Theonomous Man. This theonomous image of God as concept of man is rooted from Augustine and it is expressed in the modern works of Paul Tillich. The emphasis here is the constitution of the man’s whole being in an ontological communion with the divine (ontological monism). The image of God, according to Augustine and Tillich, is perceived as a single, comprehensive phenomenon. Dualism is intentionally avoided by not restricting the scope of the image for the destiny and being of man to the spirit or soul as in contrast to man’s physical and historical. For them, the fulfillment of humanity would be understood as coming in a state of existence other than or discontinuous with historical, natural existence. The stress on the immediate and integral relationship between the being of God and the being of man makes this designation theonomous.

II. The Eschatological Perspective

The Recovery of Eschatology. While many theologians stressed the eschatological element in theology, most of them are not genuinely historical eschatology. Because of the recent historical eschatology, there was a rediscovery of apocalyptic as an authentic and biblical tradition. The present view of biblical studies on apocalyptic start from the Old Testament and culminates in Jesus and the early church. The proponents of the systematic development of historical eschatology are Carl Braaten, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Jurgen Moltmann. They provided eschatological theology that paved the way towards a new theonomy, a reconstruction under the rubric of God’s image.

The Image of God and Eschatology. In Childs analysis of the imago Dei in Genesis, he concludes that the OT understanding of God is not in anthropomorphic terms. They also look at man as theomorphic in special relationship of immediacy with God but with infinite difference. With support from G. von Rad’s exposition of creation history in the OT as well as exegesis from Pauline and Johannine concept of “image”, he valued greatly the significance of historical and eschatological realization of the new creation in Christ. It is not a recovery of the original, but a fulfillment of it. “The future is prior to the past as the whole transcends the parts.”(102) As creation theology is understood in the light of salvation history, so is the concept of God’s image is understood in the light of Christ; the fulfillment of man’s humanity in his resurrection.

Eschatological Man. Childs proposed four theses concerning the image of God in the light of eschatology.

Thesis 1: The image of God refers to the distinctive way in which man’s whole being as personal and historical being reflects God’s being as personal and historical being. This means the ground of human freedom and subjectivity (in Pannenberg’s term) is derivative and dependent upon God’s personal being and historicity. The ontological concept is similar to that of Ernst Bloch’s philosophy of the future, the ontology of process and becoming against the mechanistic concept of reality. In Moltmann and Pannenberg’s theology of future, this is ontological communion with God.

Thesis 2: The image of God is an eschatological concept which refers to man’s “destiny” for the fulfillment of perfect communion and union with God. The becoming of man in the promise of this destiny is constitutive of his being. This means that man is perceived as “not yet” as seen in God’s futurity. Man is the image of God in every present in human history. In the end, man will see that he has been the image of God as seen in Christ, the proleptic revelation and fulfillment of human existence from the very beginning.

Thesis 3: From the perspective of the law, the relationship of man’s falleness to his creation in the image of God should be understood as man’s rebellion against his own destiny. From the perspective of gospel, man’s hope for fulfillment in the image should be understood in terms of God’s gracious determination, proleptically revealed in Christ, to fulfill the promise of man’s creation in the divine image. This means that the image of God is an eschatological perspective. It stands over against humanity as the law (written in heart) and the gospel. Man’s resistance to God’s future is a rebellion against the image; it a direct refusal to the change promised by God. “The Christ event, therefore, represents the power of the future in contradiction to the destructive forces to the end that human destiny might be fulfilled in perfect communion and union with God.”(117) the prolepsis of the future Kingdom in Christ is God’s act of creation consistent with Pauline emphasis on the centrality of Christ in the promises of God for the fulfillment of humanity through his resurrection.

Thesis 4: An eschatological doctrine of the image of God provides us with significant locus for the theological foundations of the Christian ethic. Based upon the concept of NT eikon en Theou, in reference to Jesus, he is man’s prototype of true imago as the prolepsis of humanity in eschatological fulfillment. The lifestyle of the person who is newly created in the image of God must embody that self-giving love expressed in the kenosis. It stands in contrast to the old humanity typified by Adam. The old nature is put off and the new nature is put on in that the believer’s life is characterized by the qualities of the love of God which Christ reveals as the divine image. The Christina life’s edifice is mediated by baptism and empowered by the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and is built upon the grace of God in Christ; because of such foundation of grace, the basis of the imperative forms of conduct is indicative—a new created being in the image of God.

There are basic thoughts amplified in this eschatological thrust of the future. The new creation in Christ is in continuity with God’s creating action at the origin of man. The image is given as a creation “ex nihilo”—a pure gift of race which came from the “power of the future” as the advent of the radical new. In Christ, the future and fulfillment of man’s humanity, a believer is freed from his own drive to take his own future; “he is freed from the fundamental sin of rejecting his creaturehood and dependency as imago Dei.”(119) The overarching value of the kingdom, therefore, is: Become what you will be.

Here, the agape love—revealed in Christ, the image of God—is the dynamic and criterion of this imperative of becoming. What is in sight here is not just the communion with God but also the mutual relationship with neighbor as well since all, female and female, were created in God’s image. This horizontal dimension is strongly amplified in Barthian tradition. “In the service of this unity, love seeks the values of life, freedom, equality, peace, harmony, and joy for the fulfillment of the individual and the whole community of mankind.”(120) The believer who is in Christ, proleptically participates in the ultimate destiny that these values depict. These values have the force of the absolute and are concrete expressions of the fulfillment of mankind in the image of God. “In that this fulfillment is the completion and the determining future of our historical existence as created in and for the imago Dei, we see in the eschatological promise of the image and the values associated with it continuity between man’s nature and destiny.”(121) Built upon the gospel, in view as an extension of God’s creative action, it is this ultimate continuity that mankind is seeking all along.

III. Eschatological and Ethics

Grounding the Good. This section deals with the answer to the question on what is good and right in the light of eschatological reconstruction of the doctrine of man. Childs stresses the relationship of eschatology in ethics is through their intimate connection on the concept of the kingdom of God. He used the support on the biblical theoretical structures of Richard Hiers’ study of the theology of hope and Norman Metzler’s dissertation on the ethics of the kingdom of God. In general, the ground of good is based upon “the revelation of God’s telos for all mankind and for the universe”(130) and in particular, the imago Dei. The good as the fulfillment of humanity is proleptically present to believers in Christ—the eikon tou Theou. In the futurist outlook, Christian ethics is an ethics of change in terms of repentance and renewal. The eschatological nature of Childs’ anthropological ethics, in the final analysis, “means that the full realization of the humanum participates in the sociopolitical, as well as personal, dimesions of the kingdom of God.”(141) This is what he calls “the way into social ethics as a clear path for Christian theology.” (Ibid.)

Deciding the Right. Childs want to clarify the question of rules. Basically, Christian ethics’ rules are people-oriented and should inculcate the law-gospel interplay implicit in the proleptic nature of the kingdom of God and the human good. Thus, the theonomous ethic that Childs proposed will neither be heteronomous (negate history within history by applying transcendent norms from outside history) nor autonomous (man is the source of his own law guided by his own conviction within history) ethic. Each response to the standard of the kingdom “will be a fragmentary prolepsis of the fulfillment of humanity, of the promised future union of men with God and men with men in union with God, a promised future which is constitutive of our being as men in the present.”(156)

Response

Ethics in the light of the power of the future is scholarly presented here. This is an ethical exposition of the significance of the theology of hope on relation to ethics.

Questions

1. What is the role of church in this theonomous ethics?

2. What is the relationship of theological foundations and normative theory?

Bataan and the Banner of the Cross

I stand in retrospect
memories of war
buried beneath at the feet of the cross
Bataan. Suffering. Blood. Death March.
Indeed, the casualty of war is humanity.
I wonder where we would be
if not for those men who offered the ultimate sacrifice...
their very own lives
for me
for others
for my children
even for the evil regime of nowadays.
war beget bloodshed
violence.
But out of it all
hope dawned upon us all
just like when the Son of God was crucified
sin. atrocity. evil. wickedness finds its conqueror.
CROSS.

Wogaman on Christian Ethics

J. Philip Wogaman. Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction. Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1993. pp.1-145.

Summary of the Book

Legacies of Christian Ethics. This book is about the historical development of tracing the important themes and methodology in Christian ethics and its contribution to the world. Initially, “The New Testament, as the product of earliest Christian thought and tradition, is itself a part of the history of Christian ethics.”(1) But somehow, the evolving story of Christian ethics did not end there.

The Biblical Legacy of Christian Ethics. Considering the production development of the Bible, with various historical periods, settings, and literary genres in more than a thousand years, biblical scholars today are better-off to speak of diversity than of unity in the Scriptures. In other words, the Bible does not have a single theology but theologies or ethical perspective but ethical perspectives by letting the text speak for itself. But others are not just contented of treating the Bible as mere collections of diverse writings but it must have a core unity as basis for it canonization for dealing theological and ethical conflicts. Here, Wogaman tries to settle first the tensions involved rather than taking side which is which is in better shape to stand for the legacy of Christian ethics.

The six biblical points of tensions are: 1) Revelation vs. Reason. This tensions deals with the question of the basis of moral claims. Revelation is exclusive given to persons in the community of faith as in the case of the early OT characters receiving direct, special revelation from God. But biblical stories appeal to reason also as in the case of Wisdom tradition and Hellenistic influence in the Johannine and Pauline stories. 2) Materialism vs. the Life of the Spirit. Anchored in tradition of creation as “good” and many substantial providential teaching of the Bible, the “spiritual” emphasis of life in the Spirit is in constant tension with created, physical, and sensual existence. 3) Universalism vs. Group Identity. The election of Israel or Christians is exclusive identity, though many prophets and apostles’ missionary emphasis are global. 4) Grace vs. Law. The moral laws of Israel and Christ’s emphasis on grace created tensions in ethics. 5) Love vs. Force. Political obedience, lex taliones, and military involvement intensifies against pacifism and love. 6) Status vs. Equality. Wealthy and poor, surely, are in dire contrast to equality and distribution of material blessing and ethical responsibilities.

Philosophical Legacies. Christian ethics in formation assessed in relation to the prevailing philosophies in the past is inevitable. It includes the philosophies of Socrates through Plato’s Apology. Critical reflection is important in human values and virtues. For Plato, truth is universal and eternal. He classified society to three: the artisans, the guardians, and the thinkers representing the three faculties of human psyche namely the appetitive, the spirited, and the rational. Values correspond to the human faculties and the state governed by reason or “philosopher kings.” Moreover, Aristotle’s social and political ideals are reflections of human nature as social and political beings. Stoicism and Epicureanism are remarkably not out of sight in the biblical perspective. But the influence of Greek philosophies are not to be overstated according Wogaman though it certainly helped the ethical formation of the New Testament.

The Ethics of Early Christianity. Multifaceted aspects of ordinary life were in tension in the early Christians of which they were obliged to respond in the situation.

The Formative Years. The attitude of the earliest Christians towards the world is definitively divided: others are in the world but not to live according to the evil systems of the world. Some of the major issues they need to respond are the value of: 1) Wealth and poverty that contributed to the issues on status, slavery, institutional sharing addressed by early Christian writings like Didache, Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas. 2) Sexual ethics that values the sacredness of marriage and purity in relationship. 3) The status and role of women as humanly treated in contrast to the frequent use of male gender in reference to God as Father, Him, etc. 4) Violence and the Political Order divides positions of early Christians in their involvement in war and civil obedience or live in peace and harmony. In all these major social issues, early Christians are not wholly in conformity to the moral rhetoric but lived authentic lives despite of diversities.

Seminal Thinkers and Transitions. Here, the Alexandrians in particular, helped advanced Christian ethics. To Clement, there is no necessary conflict between reason and faith since truth is one. He deals more on the theological and ethical stance concerning wealth where the problem lies not on the material thing itself but on the attitude towards it. Alexandrian leaders utilized classical traditions also in their ethical expositions. Tertullian, in his later ethical standard, held a stricter code of holiness in accordance to Montanists norm. Other formative thinkers include Lactantius (Social justice and activities based upon the centrality of the concept of God as the divine parent of all humanity), Basil (economic values in relation to the poor and against usury), Gregory of Nyssa (rejection of slavery in based on God’s creation of man in his image), Chrysostom (condemnation of unshared wealth), and Ambrose (Justice based on communitarian concept; violence to defend others but refection of violent self-defense).

The Moral Vision of Saint Augustine. The moral will is the source of all evil, according to Augustine, for it is the will that directs the person away from God and towards evil perceived to be good. Thus sin is an intellectual error and misdirection of the will. It is the moral will that is the ground of Christian ethics. On his The City of God in contrast to the city of earth, the moral is driven by love of God, not of self. For him, ethical diversities are complementary for good as long as they are affirmed through God in a universal church setting. Peace is the universal goal of mankind and must be defined by justice. He also provided the doctrine of “Just War” as a moral exception justified by the injustice or heresy of an aggressor. On human sexuality, it is condemnable aside from procreation purposes. Lastly, on the use of riches, it is commendable and enjoyment of riches is rejected for it involves affection towards a material creation.

Medieval Christianity. Remarkably, Christianity had an immense influence in Europe due to its attachment to Roman civilization.

Monastic and Mystical Contributions. Christian morality was somehow shaped in connection to monasticism’s via negativa of renunciation. Influence of Anthony of Egypt and Simeon Stylites, to some extent, Basil of Ceasarea (community monk) and Augustine, flourished as they removed themselves from community life into solitary places. Medieval monasticism is heavily influenced by Benedict of Nursia’ monastic Rule. It includes absolute obedience to superiors, setting aside self-will, humility, etc. But monastic life posits paradoxes, i.e. monastic or inferiority discipline identified with humility,; spiritual elitism and unity of the church; salvation through monastic life; vow of poverty yet possessing immense wealth; and withdrawal and service to the world. The monastic ideal of women also invites paradoxical questions; they were excluded from priesthood but exhibited leadership skills yet remain secondary in status. So far, the mystical contributions of the medieval mystics include the importance of love as a manifestation of ethics (Bernard of Clairvaux) and integral relationship with others while living in communion with God, the ground for morality (Catherine of Siena). But it also encourages careful examination of the basic motives. Their moral judgment, to some extent, is basically intuitive, of course with the influence of their religious orientations.

The Confessional. The development of elaborate confession and penance in the church institution, stricter discipline among adherents became influential and oppressive in Europe. Sins have severe penalties as stated in the penitential books. Salvation and damnation depends upon confessions. As a consequence, ethics is not so much on what good is to be embraced but on what evil is to be avoided. Penitential system is so abusive and crude.

The Thomistic Synthesis. With the surging intellectual renewal, Thomas Aquinas created a new Aristotelian synthesis shaped with Augustinian principles, monastic discipline, and evolving conception of church and sacraments. Ethical stance is seen according to the true end (telos) and of its potentiality. Evil is defined to deviance from the original purpose of being. Cardinal virtues, according to Aquinas, are prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude; derived from classical tradition and the three theological virtues are faith, hope and love which are dependent upon God’s acts. On moral law, Aquinas defined eternal law as the ultimate form of law through its effects in the natural law. Some of the social matters addressed by Thomistic ethics are: Social ethics (emphasis of teleological view), Political ethic (hierarchical conceptions based upon the end goal), just war (as necessary evil presupposed under a sovereign authority and just cause), Economics (property based on natural law), Sex and Gender (necessitated by subjection according to hierarchical concept). Ultimately, the church institution plays a governing role in his synthesis of teleological concepts.

Late Medieval Forerunners. Among the late medieval figures that shaped the ethical norms that challenged the Catholic Church are: 1) Dante Alighiere (1265-1321), the greatest poet of medieval times who wrote Divine Comedy. His support to monarchial authority as directly given from God shook the church hierarchical claims of authority and the Pope. 2) Marsilius of Padua (1280?-1343?) advocates the primacy of the temporal over spiritual, sovereignty of citizens, and independent power of state from church control. 3) John Hus (1372?-1415) challenged the authority of the Pope through the primacy of the scripture. 4) The Conciliar Movement rode with the Papal schism by establishing their own authority. And 5) Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and his The Prince invokes political power through the general support apart from or with traditional or church legitimacy. Fear must prevail instead of love in terms of power control. Morality and religiousness must appear but not necessarily held.

The Era of Reformation and Enlightenment.

The Reformers: Luther and Calvin. Luther’s ethical concepts are focused on Christian liberty based upon the free salvation by faith. External precepts and laws are not the guiding principles. This kind of morality is lived by those who are in the kingdom of God, not of the world. Meanwhile, Calvin based his ethical norms upon the sovereignty of God thus moral effort are responses to the grace of God, i.e. worship, glorify and do the will of God. The love of God is everything and human effort is nothing. Both of them liberated ethics from ecclesial control. Vocation and stewardship are entrusted by God and must be used for God. Both showed support to existing ruling authorities but with reservation on issues on war.

Catholic Humanism and Counter-Reformation. Erasmus (1466-1536) represents the new Catholic humanism. For him, values and ethical insights are to be derived from universal human experience. Thus, he is opposed to dogmatisms of theological reformation, including the abuse of Luther and Calvin in their usurpation of Christ’s authority. Also Thomas Moore’s expression of Christianity is basically ethical manifestation of universal truths represented by religion(s) and philosophy. The Catholic’s counter-reformation and the council of Trent reasserted the importance of works, tradition, and sacraments beside faith for the salvation of adherents. Somehow, RCC’s moral theology includes the controversy over “probabilism” which refers to questions on moral judgment on uncertain and doubtful cases like just wars and pacifism, and other ambiguous situations. Some argued the most probable is the right thing to follow (probabiliorism). But the Jesuits followed more Augustinian principles in their moral theology through Francisco de Suarez.

The Radical Reformation. In response, the Anabaptists’ renunciation of the world clings to the rites of baptism as moral foundation of faith and practice. Their concept of discipleship was strict within their community; they were committed to pacifism and peaceful living. The Quakers’ Rules of Discipline are more tolerant on other religions since they perceived that everyone has inner light to perceive the truth. Moral truth is through intuition. Lastly, the English religio-political movement of “Levellers” and “Diggers” (1646-49) was short-lived. Levellers justified their political stance by natural law arguments, primarily Stoicism. Diggers resisted the suppression of common people in availing properties like lands from the nobilities. But some of their leaders founded their ethical grounds upon mystical experience. Questions on reason and theological visions were raised in organizing life.

Response: If Placher is to Christian Theology, Wogaman is to Christian Ethics. He presents the evolution of the ground for ethical judgment in Christian world.

Questions: What is the relationship between Christian ethics and natural laws? How about intuition? And objectivity?

McGrath on The Concept of God

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD

The Omnipotence of God

God as the almighty is closely associated with the concept of his omnipotence and this idea of God’s all powerful ability is deeply questioned due to the implications of its possibility. Using C.S. Lewis’ arguments, McGrath agreed that God cannot do anything that is logically impossible and inconsistent to his divine nature. But the concept of the omnipotent God was not a good idea according to Anselm of Canterbury. Understood as the ability to do all things, it carried with it the forced implication that God is able to lie or pervert justice.[1]

William of Ockham offered modification on the concept of omnipotence through his idea of the two powers of God. He argued that being omnipotent does not mean “God is presently able to do everything,”[2] but it means he was once free to operate in this manner. Since God established already things--that reflects righteous and loving will--in order, this will remain until the consummation of time. Thus the absolute power (potentia absoluta) of God refers to the existing options before the establishment of the order. The ordained power (potentia ordinata) of God, which is the second power, is referring to the way things are in the present. In the absolute power of God, he is faced with a whole array of options to choose to actualize, e.g. to create or not creating the world. Yet in the ordained power of God, by his decision, he restricts not to actualize other options contrary to what he has established. God, therefore, cannot do everything now for he has deliberately limited the possibilities.[3]

This idea of self limitation is amplified more on the contemporary studies concerning the doctrine of kenosis where the voluntary self-emptying involves laying down unlimited power or knowledge by suffering on the cross—an unlikely portrait of powerfulness or absolute power.[4]

God in Process Thought

Alfred North Whitehead conceived reality as dynamic and not static which is associated with traditional metaphysics. Reality is made up of actual entities or actual occasions—something which happens. Here, becoming, change and event are central to the idea. Whitehead considers God as distinct entity on the grounds of imperishability. Other entities are finite, whereas God is permanent but goes through a process or change. He is affected and influenced by the world-events, particularly as a fellow sufferer who understands. Process thought redefines the omnipotence of God in the light of persuasion and influence in the overall process of the world with direct reference to the problem of theodicy (natural evil, not just moral evil). In process thought, nature is not obliged to obey divine will. God can only attempt to influence from within the process by attraction and persuasion. “Each entity enjoys a degree of freedom and creativity, which God cannot override.”[5] Other entities are, therefore, not bound to obey God and God is absolved of responsibility for all evils.[6]

Theodicies: The Problem of Evil

The problem of the existence of evil posits question on the goodness of God. According to Irenaeus, evil is a necessity for the spiritual growth and development of humanity. To experience and having contact with evil and good is a God-ward growth.[7] This idea was amplified by John Hick who emphasized the incomplete essence of humanity. Working toward the completion of it, choices to respond to God as individuals are fulfilled for meaningful human development. It seems here that evil has a noble role in the whole purposes of God as McGrath noticed it.[8] On the other hand, Augustine’s explanation of theodicy is on the direct result of misusing human freedom by choosing what is evil instead of good. The location of the origin of evil is in the satanic temptation. Though God, as McGrath argued, is not the ultimate source of the existence of evil, he seems to be responsible in creating the origin of it—Satan.[9]

Karl Barth’s explanation of theodicy is that evil is a mysterious power of nothingness. It contradicts God’s will and is grounded upon what God did not will in creation. This nothingness threatens the purposes of God towards reducing to nothing. But some theologians are not satisfied to that explanation or metaphysical speculation. The recent contributions to the problem of theodicy are offered by Liberation Theology. Suffering (of the poor) is seen as a participation in God’s struggle against suffering in the world. Jewish writer, Elie Wiesel, in contrast locates theodicy on several Old Testament themes which states the protest against the existence of evil and suffering. This protest theodicy approach is perceived as the response of faithful people to their God in the midst of uncertainties and anxieties in relation to God’s purposes and presence in the world.[10]

God as Creator

The doctrine of God as creator is foundational in the Old Testament. But the development of the doctrine faced the challenge posited by Gnosticism which teaches the creator god as demiurge (an inferior deity). Greeks in general understands the origin of the world not as creation ex nihilo. Matter was already present in the universe and God was not responsible in creating the world but the architect of the pre-existent matter; giving it shape and framework. Theophilos of Antioch and Justin Martyr took this idea of pre-existent matter. In creating the world, God was limited to the poor quality of the material. It is believed that this is where evil was explained.[11] Origen himself held to pre-existent matter in creation. Some major Christian writers reacted to this concept holding to creation ex nihilo. There was no pre-existent matter and God must have created everything. Irenaeus argued on the inherent goodness of creation. Tertullian held God’s decision to create the world, wherefore dependent upon God for its existence (a view contrary to Aristotle’s independent world existence). Dualism, then, was a major issue early Christian theologians faced. Irenaeus rejected the idea of two gods (the superior god created the spiritual realms and the inferior god created the material world). In 4 ca, most Christian theologians agreed that God is the sole creator of the spiritual and material realms.[12]

Four implications prevailed on the doctrine of creation. First is the distinction between God and creation. Second the doctrine of creation implies the authority of God over the created world. Humans are to be good stewards of creation in terms of ecological and environmental concerns. Third is that since God is the creator of the world, the goodness of creation is implied. And fourth is the implication of man as created in the image of God which gives importance to the proper understanding of human nature, experience and destiny.[13]

McGrath enumerated several models of God as creator. First is the emanation model. It regards creation as derived from God and expresses divine nature. Between God and creation, there is an organic or natural connection. Second is the construction model. God is perceived as a master builder with a purpose, plan, and decisive intention to create. Beauty and order are central to this model of creativity. And third is the artistic expression model. The world as handiwork of God is beautiful in itself and expresses the personality of the creator.[14] In addition, McGrath noticed the relationship of creation in conjunction with Christian approaches to ecology. A later work of Jurgen Moltmann, God in Creation (1985), develops a strongly Trinitarian theology of creation through the Son in the Holy Spirit. The Father is the origin of creation; the Son provides shape to the world and the Spirit breathes life upon it. It is through the Spirit, however, that God experiences the sufferings of the creation. In parallel, God shares in human sufferings through Christ, the Crucified God. Thus, creation must be treated with proper respect.[15]

On creation and the relationship of theology and natural sciences, attempts have been made by Liberal Protestantism in reinterpreting Christian faith in accordance to the present age’s insight. This is particular in the approach of Albert Ritschl as influenced by Schleiermacher’s writings. Ritschl looks at evolution, a natural science, as consistent with divine providence. Modern science finds its way also in Process theology in treating God as the source of order and novelty. These approaches became main concerns for neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth who rejected natural sciences’ interpretation of creation. Langdon Gilkey argues for the independent scopes of theology and natural sciences. In Karl Rahner’s term, theology deals with a priori questions while sciences investigate with a posteriori questions.[16] But Pannenberg does not buy up with those ideas towards sciences. Though both disciplines are distinct, both can mutually interact in dialogue for their own benefit.[17]

The Holy Spirit

The Bible offers three models of the Holy Spirit. First is the Spirit as wind. Though not identical with the wind to the level of natural force, the parallel is taken between the power of the wind and of God. This imagery of redemptive power of God is conveyed in the idea of ruach.[18] The second model is the Spirit as breath which is associated with life. The living man is characterized by the breath of life as in the case of Adam. The third model is the Spirit as charism. Technically, charism is referring to the individual’s filling with God’s Spirit, especially on cases where the person is enabled to do God-given tasks impossible for ordinary man to fulfill. It includes gift of wisdom, military leadership, and prophecy.[19]

Debate over the divinity of the Holy Spirit begun in the 2 ca. Montanus emphasized the Holy Spirit’s activity in the present and his role in visions, dreams, and prophetic revelations. By the 4 ca, another controversy arose concerning the pneumatomachoi (lit. opponents of the spirit) led by Eustathius of Sebaste. They regarded the person and works of the Spirit as not divine in nature. Athanasius combated them and prevailed using the Trinitarian formula in baptism. But some patristic fathers, i.e., Basil of Ceasarea, Gregory of Naziansus, etc. were aware that this practice was not sanctioned by the Word of God, thus they were hesitant to openly talk of the Spirit as God. The Spirit as “God” was not used explicitly, only as “the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and is worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son.”[20] Nonetheless, the patristic fathers were also instrumental in establishing the arguments for the divinity of the Holy Spirit through the titles and functions applied to the Spirit from the Scripture, especially the baptismal formula. Admission of the Spirit’s full divinity was a gradual process. It was Augustine that developed the concept of the Spirit as “bond of love” between the Father and the Son. He is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. The Spirit unites the believers in the church also. He functions in inspiring the prophets and the Scriptures, and response to that revelation for the salvation and life of the believers.[21]

Applications

One of the major issues here in the Philippines, as in the case of other third world countries, is the propagation of theologies that deals with freedom, suffering of the poor, and ecology. People, especially rural dwellers and masses, are more receptive to theologies that deal on the needs of the people not on the discipline that is recluse in the academic department or the spiritual elite. Most Filipino is wholistic in their perspective to things on life and the world. The physical needs are as important as the spiritual needs. It was easy for Filipinos to embrace third world theologies that speak and deal on their struggles for freedom from injustice, oppression and poverty. It does not matter to most of them if there is too much praxis and less orthodoxy as long as it meets up to their ideals. The poor can easily identify the Christ of the poor in the suffering Christ.

On the other hand, in the urban areas, material needs are all the more emphatic. The cost of living and lifestyle are a major concern also. A theology that offers solution to this need is more attractive. It was not hard for them to be easily fascinated to theological beliefs and practices that offer material prosperity which is grounded upon spirituality or prosperity gospel. While there many who are aware to the dangers of these theological ideals, there are more who reserved the possibility than those who chided it away.

Evangelical idealism, however, is gaining momentum among many churches. In the past, Catholics are more active in the political arena. Now, evangelicals are more open to a wider place of witness. While the power of the gospel can never be underestimated, many Christians are skeptical to the perceived impact of such attempt. Nonetheless, this political emphasis among evangelical churches has been practiced already by the third world theologians who were deeply involved in political upheaval, opposition to corruption, oppression, illegal logging (theologies on ecology), and inter-religious dialogue among the Christians and Muslims in Maguindanao.

Questions

Evangelical theology is highly academic, propositional and idealistic. This is one of the reasons why the masses can not be so receptive to it (not to mention the declining Sunday School attendance in indoctrination). To some extent, evangelical theology struggles to reach the lower class of people. Is it not time to return to the initial development of Christian theology where the language is understandable to the common people and where the theology is not so much of proposition but proclamation and narrative that tells the life story of the people as embedded in the gospel? What should be the major consideration of modern theologians towards the people? How much theology do the people need? How should evangelical theology deal up with political concern of the people? How about their humanitarian concern? What place should evangelical theology give to anthropological concerns?

---

[1] Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2d Ed (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc, 1997), 257-58.

[2] Ibid., 259.

[3] Ibid., 259-60.

[4] Ibid., 261.

[5] Ibid., 262.

[6] Ibid., 261-62

[7] Ibid., 263.

[8] Ibid., 264.

[9] Ibid., 264-65.

[10] Ibid., 265-67.

[11] Ibid., 268.

[12] Ibid., 269.

[13] Ibid., 270-71.

[14] Ibid., 272-73.

[15] Ibid. 273-74.

[16] Ibid., 274-75.

[17] Ibid., 276.

[18] Ibid., 279.

[19] Ibid., 280-81.

[20] Ibid., 282.

[21] Ibid., 283-88.