MISSIOPHONICS

Life-reflections, lyrics of my music, book reviews, paintings, pics, and some foods for the heart.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

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.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

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.