THE ABSOLUTE POWER OF GOD

Overview: William C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction (Philadelphia, PN: Westminster Press, 1983). Pp. 162-180.

14 ca Europe was stormed by major crisis, i.e., hundred year’s war (with France), poverty, starvation, Black Death, and religious schism. Theological development of Christian theology experienced a widening gap between faith and reason brought by a dominant philosophy new to European world called nominalism.

Nominalism

Nominalism posed a challenge to the established religious and philosophical structure provided by their Platonic or Augustinian predecessors. Nominalism questioned the order of the world based on eternal or natural design. They rejected the existence of universals and forms as separate or real entities, for they are just names (nomina); only particular objects are real and existent entities. The classifications of order are not eternal, but only a matter of particular human categorization (163). For the realists who believe that there is an eternal design of universals, the nominalist’s particularism was unacceptable. But theories of knowledge readily accepted the reasonability of human invention in ordering the world rather than an eternal blueprint.

John Duns Scotus supported a philosophical atmosphere inclined towards making theology a matter of belief rather than an intellectual logic. He focused on the arguments of God’s will that made more room for contemplation and belief, rather than reason. For him, there are limitations of reason on which faith can comprehend (164-65).

However, William of Ockham continued the nominalist tradition by showing the limitations of reason. While Scotus started with God’s will as his point of theological reference, Ockham begun with the absolute power of God. He theorized that God cannot do anything illogical; logical contradictoriness is non sense. Thus, theology must focus on what God has revealed or acted rather than on assuming what he is going to do or reasonable would do. God can simply act what he wants; even accepting what seems to be an evil thing for humans. Ockham’s famed-principle called “Ockham’s razor” makes no provision for unnecessary entities in explaining more than what the data provides. Positing for the existence of entities not provided by the data in hand is pointless. Talking about universals forms is going beyond what is particular; the particulars are the only existent entities, whereas forms are meaningless. Ockham’s razor shaves off those unnecessary unreal entities of forms or universals (165-66).

Theologically, the impact of nominalism opened the door in considering God’s act as an operation of will; it should not be treated in generalization or be stereotyped to rigid order of rules and eternal designs. The theologian is to avoid imposing generalization, but must consider a close look on the particular object or act for only the particulars are knowable. Nominalism brought the attitude of reducing the role of reason in theology; faith should be the prevailing atmosphere of taking God’s revelation. Eternal designs are non-existent. As a result, the social structure of hierarchies and institutions are questionable. The authority of the popes is challenged for there is a gradual shift of decision upon the choices of humans rather than the supposedly divine-ordained structure. All external orders are subject to the people’s authority and decision. No universals are immune to corrections or questions (166-67).

Initially, the tension that nominalism faced was that of the established system of realist philosophy (General vs. particular). Nominalism, however, made repercussions in the structure of the church which was considered as a divine order. This is not a tension between state and church or Spirit and structure, but philosophy and structure. On the other hand, in Christian theology, reason and faith is the underlying tension that nominalism gave. Nominalism can be considered as the precursor of scientific method (or attitude) and democracy.

Paths of Salvation

Nominalism’s impact is felt also on the doctrine of salvation. Since nominalism does away with generalizing humanity’s relationship with God, salvation can be a particular issue. God can save anyone without conforming to any rules of salvation. There is a normal place for good people leading a good lifestyle to be saved. Those who are disposed for grace will receive grace and by implication, salvation can be attained with human effort. Grace is never a complete, meritorious cause. Christ’s merits are nonexistent if human effort is not added. Pelagian controversy was awakened as a result of this theory of salvation with human efforts (167-68).

Nominalism contributed to the acceptance of Mysticism. Nominalists maintained that the order was based upon human choices, not some eternal form. General categories, even on issues of salvation, are not plausible. Salvation is a personal matter. Eventually, subjective religious experience gained approval among the intellectual and common people because of its accessibility. Subjective confidence in one’s salvation finds room in mysticism as the person is united with God. The risk of losing the distinction between the Creator and the creature was a potential heresy; yet Meister Eckhart promoted mysticism and maintained his loyalty to the church by recognizing that even though mystical experience is an important part of Christian life, it is not the ultimate whole. Nonetheless, the church have reservations on the threat mysticism may bring for it means they don’t have the monopoly of revelation any more. Encounter with God is more personal, rather than hierarchical. Mystical theology is growingly considered more superior than scholastic theology, especially that its accessibility and emphasis on real piety is advantageous to the common people (169-70).

The evident tension in the rise of mysticism is on the church structure and Spirit. When religious life is so institutionalized, it is often challenged by the Spirit with real piety. The visions of the mystics may be troublesome—e.g. Julian of Norwich’s Mother Jesus—the concern is more on the outside operation of this practice from the church’s structure (170).

Councils and Rebels

The institutionalized structure of the church was shaken in the 14 ca. After Pope Gregory XI in 1378, Rome was in upheaval in that the cardinals were forced to vote for Pope Urban VI. As a result another election was made in favor for a French pope. Europe was in bad shape too because the Papal seat was divided when two popes claimed different authorities —one in Rome, one in Avignon, France. Both excommunicated their opponent’s supporters (170).

Chancellor Jean Gerson stepped in to settle the schism through a General Council. The supporters of this idea were called the conciliarists. The traditional council requires authority from the pope but conciliarists made provisions in relation to this kind of assembly since the papal concern is in serious controversy that must be checked and balanced. It has been made clear that there were many abuses in the church hierarchy. Church corruption was blatant. In the council of Pisa (1410), both popes were deposed but they remained resistant to the validity of the council’s decision. Eventually, at the council of Constance, the assembly succeeded in deposing the two popes when the church was united in supporting the newly elected Pope Martin V. The council gained prominence in heading the church by requiring the pope to hold regular councils in the future (171-72).

A tension between the church and the state (or power from above and power from below) is seen here. Nominalism’s influence particularly that of Marsilius of Padua’s power from below was materialized. But the church structure remains authoritative and not totally democratic. The tension between the pope and the conciliar movement is a significant event that helped the people to be more aware of the corruption and inadequacy of the heirachy to represent their Christian responsibilities as guardians of salvation. The tension, therefore, continued through the resistance of some significant individual outside the church.

Tension between the church and the common people is nearing to a more serious event. John Hus and John Wyclif protested against the hierarchy of the church; they were called “rebels”. The wealth accumulated by the church was in deep contrast to the poverty of the people and the society. The rebels’ outcry is reformation of the structure. Religious groups, like the Lollards, began to spread the awareness for the need and the role of the Scripture for reformation. John Hus was provocative and aggressive in denouncing the corruption of the church clergies. After Hus’ death, his influence ignited the sentiment and convictions of more radical reformers like Luther (174).

Toward Humanism and Simple Piety

Church politicizing and theological technicalities compelled many Christians to be disgusted with the church hierarchy and scholastic impracticalities. Institutionalization of Christian faith paved the way for another movement against the rigid structure. Modern devotion in Netherlands attracted common people. The practicality of faith opened a new way of applying Christian ideals. While humanism carries a negative connotation in contemporary Christianity, humanists during the Renaissance were certainly Christians in good standing. They have deep godliness and orthodox theology. They value the classical texts, philosophy, as well as the importance of practical interaction in this world. Work and world-building are social responsibilities they adhere to. The world is not just a finished raw material of creation to be contemplated, but requires improvements by building homes, bridges, cities, sewerage, etc.

Cultural Engagement

On Filipino Christianity, Politics, and Election.

What has Christianity to do with politics? The separation between the church and the state is an established reality among Filipinos. Both are autonomous and independent of their own. For the same reason, the tension between Christianity and politics is ever-widening. Now that the nation-wide election is nearing to its culmination, Filipinos could expect another face of politicizing the people. And religious institutions are experiencing various responses to the campaign

Lately, Philippines gained prominence among the top most corrupt countries in Asia. No one seems to claim who is responsible for the blatant corruptions that placed the nation on a disgraceful status globally. Ironically, this is the same country known as “the only Christian nation” in the Orient (That could be an overstatement). But it is easy to throw the blame on politics as sole responsible for the anomalies in economy, justice, and law.

From the perspective of Christian communities, politics is generally perceived as a dirty business. This is just one of the complex personalities many Christian Filipinos have. Even those who are known for many abuses and corruptions in politics are the same religious people that can be seen in the churches. Is it a manifestation of split level spirituality or just a façade to cover the anomalies? Meanwhile, common Filipino people continue to struggle for a better living.

Conversely, Filipino Christians have different stance towards politics. On the left side are the “passivists.” They believe that politics is the realm of no concern. They have nothing to do with political affairs and are therefore willing to entrust their social fate as a Filipino citizen to the flow of the masse. Some are critical and suspicious to the game of politics; to some extent, so come what may. They are already comfortable on their own self-reliance. They have spiritual priorities to fulfill in their own local church. On the left side, however, are those “activists.” They are aggressively involved in the struggle for justice, freedom, and rights through protests and campaign. Though some are after social change and righteous revival, many are concerned for their accountability as a witness in a wider place.

But Filipino personality is not complete without the middle. There are the “moderates” in relation to politics. They are concerned about politics and yet involved in a social struggle through responsible citizenship. They take the chance to help the nation towards a national, social change by living a responsible life within their local communities. They bend on their knees and fervently anticipate that their influence will contribute a spark of life and hope to the nation under stress. They believe that election is a bridge that will impact both Christianity and politics. If politics fail, Christians will be affected; if Christians fail by their conspiracy of silence, the nation suffers.

Then, here comes the election. Honestly, this is a fearful event. Even if a president shares common belief with the people, it does not guarantee social change. The impact must start from below--the community. But a wrong majority decision is a landslide also to the minority. The most fearful thing are those religious influence who sold their allegiance to the highest political bidder; without thinking that those who bribe for a position is determined to take a hundred fold than what they gave. That is why communities must take necessary steps to ensure their accountability as Filipino citizens. By earnestly praying for a godly leader who is politically competent to lead the nation, Christians must decide whether they are to leave their decisions on people who sold their rights. This election is not just a matter of electing a person who shares a certain belief but also an experienced political persona entrusted by the people, for the people, and of the people. Exchanging decision to vote for the right person in the seat of government is tantamount to betraying the future of the present and next generation of Filipino children. It will not only devour the other local citizens, but all of community of believers. It is hoped that Christians will indeed live up to their call as change-agents in their own locality. In such a way, they can impact the nation from below.

Questions

How should the Christian community of believers reflect their theological stance on politics?

How should the evangelical pastors/theologians interact with the people involved in politics?

Is it necessary for the convention of churches to make provisions of guidelines in relation to politics?