Augustine, Luther, And The Development Of Predestinarianism In Reformation Thought: Part I
August 29, 2009
I felt like I would try to tackle the “free will vs. predestination” debate from a different angle. I am pretty sure that I have settled the argument here (bring on the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes – read sarcasm, if you’re not sure). Consequently, I’m off to solve world hunger and the problem of evil after I have a midnight snack.
Introduction
As Augustine’s predestinarianism was developed by Luther and assimilated into Reformation thought, an inexorably flawed theological system based on double predestination quickly emerged. Prior to Luther’s utilization, prominent figures in church history left Augustine’s doctrine relatively intact. As early as the Synod of Orange in 529 and notably in the Belgic Confession of Faith in 1561, church leaders rejected the assertions of double predestination.[1] Gottschalk hazarded an attempt at interpreting Augustine in a theory of double predestination in the ninth century, but was condemned of heresy because of it in Maiz. Anselm of Canterbury promoted the Augustinian position in the eleventh century. Thomas Aquinas elaborated the Augustinian position by differentiating between God’s general will and his special will in the soteriological realm in the thirteenth century. If any real deviation from Augustine’s predestinarianism took place, it was in the Catholic Church’s general trend toward Pelagianism.[2]
For eleven centuries, then, endeavors to deviate from the Augustinian position on predestination were generally met with condemnation by the church. Though Luther played a seminal role in the Protestant church’s schism with Catholic thought, he too maintained an Augustinian predestinarianism. Scholars cannot agree concerning a cause for the longevity of Augustine’s postulation. However, history makes clear the fact that attempts to create a system of thought centered on his postulation would not be tolerated. The Reformation, though, provided grounds to contradict the wishes of the Catholic Church. This provided opportunity for the Reformation’s thinkers to speculate the value of theological system based on Augustine’s philosophy and theology independent of church councils.
Unfortunately, only one of those thinkers really understood Augustine’s agenda and, perhaps, the doctrinal consequences of basing a theological system on it. The correlations between Augustine and Luther reveal that their theologies sought to accomplish a different goal than those found in the reformed tradition that emerged from Calvin’s influence on the Reformation. The predestinarianism of Augustine and Luther was born out of a personal struggle with sin and served as the means to a soteriological end, not as the framework for a theological system.
Augustine and Early Predestinarianism
Religious upheaval, bearing profound consequences, regularly struck at the core of St. Augustine’s life prior to conversion. This upheaval centered on Augustine’s lifelong struggle over the problem of evil with near exclusivity. While his mother had trained Augustine in the tenets of Christianity, he could not reconcile the existence of evil in the world with that worldview. This and other early irreconcilable differences with Christianity drove Augustine to dabble in Manichaeism and Neo-Platonism. Fatefully, once again through the influence of his mother, Augustine agreed to hear the preaching of Ambrose, and came to a point of personal crisis regarding Christianity. Namely, Ambrose’s preaching inadvertently quelled Augustine’s most vexing contentions. However, having many of his intellectual disputes settled, Augustine struggled with the moral demands that following Christ placed on a person’s life.[3]
Ultimately, this internal upheaval replaced the external, intellectual upheaval that had dominated the landscape of his life prior to conversion. Augustine long remembered the internal struggle, and the point of his will’s desire to fight off grace’s apprehension influenced his defense of the faith. Some like Gerald Bonner suggest that Augustin’s theology of predestination began here long before the Pelagian controversy, and, in fact, that his predestinarianism was a result of his stress on original sin and internal struggling against the Spirit of God. [4] Gonzalez also identifies this internal upheaval as the point of contention between Augustine and Pelagius, noting that Augustine rejected Pelagius’ claims to the simplicity of human will. Because of Augustine’s personal struggle with sin, the reader finds him postulating, “the will is not always its own master, for it is clear that the will to will does not always have its way.”[5] For Augustine, something overrode his internal will that wanted to continue in iniquity; he identifies that “something” as the grace of God.
Consequently, predestinarianism is something that Augustine grows into. Fendt argues that Augustine’s writing in Confessions, De Libero Arbitrio, and the anti-Manichaean works adequately developed the predestinarianism “about which Augustine seems to grow more adamant as he ages.”[6] This predestinarianism, though, analyzes the role of the created will relationally to the holiness of God, not the role of God’s providential rule over the created order. This remains the important difference between Augustine’s predestinarianism as means to understanding justification and subsequent developments of the doctrine as a theological system.
At every point, Augustine’s evaluation of the will indemnifies the Creator against the guilt of creating evil, and at the same time locating the responsibility of justification squarely on the good pleasure of the greatest Good, God. Therefore, God has not created evil, propagated evil, or preemptively damned the existence of any created will; but He alone reserves the right to express grace or not to express grace to that created will. Augustine writes, “The supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace.”[7] Accordingly, Augustine’s predestinarianism involves itself with the business of offering salvation or offering consequences, whereas subsequent theological systems create a priori criteria and preexistent decrees that stem supposedly from the providential rule of the creator. Then all of creation is bound by the content of these decrees and restrained within the parameters of a system where God expressly creates wills in order to damn them.
The seminal stages of Augustine’s predestinarianism play a significant role in the aftermath of the Pelagian controversy as well. If, as Fendt suggests, Augustine cultivates an increasingly rigid predestinarianism, then it is because of polemics and not because of conviction. Augustine seemed destined to contend for Christianity against enemies of the faith and Fendt warns that Augustine’s later writings bear the mark of rhetorical certitude and not necessarily that of an increasingly severe idea of predestination. Fendt writes, “Augustine must feel at the time of writing this part of DCD the threat of Pelagian huzzas, for if we do not make salvation the direct determination of (predestining) grace, it sounds like it is within our power to save ourselves.”[8] Augustine, then, has polarized the issue with Pelagius somewhat. Later writings carry the weight of a hard predestination, only if the reader ignores the rhetorical context. Fendt concludes his argument by observing that Augustine not only has a vaster education in rhetoric than he does in the intricacies of philosophy but also that it is, “required of a bishop in the pressing situation to be forceful and obvious.”[9]
From start to finish, the student of Augustine can appropriately understand his predestinarianism within the context of a personal struggle with sin and the philosophical quandary over the existence of evil. Though the content of Augustine’s later writing bore the mark of reactionary pontificating, his writing should not be held hostage by a situation that can be explained within a historical context. Augustine wrote extensively concerning his early life and conversion, documenting in brilliant commentary the skirmish that he personally waged against the sinful will. This propensity for documentation not only provides modern scholars with insight into his thinking, but it also provided a young Augustinian monk going through a very similar struggle with the means to articulate his own treatises on predestinarianism.
More on that young Augustinian monk in Part II…
[1] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology. Vol. 3, Sin, Salvation. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004): 565-566.
[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998): 925.
[3] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Vol. 1 (San Francisco: Harper, 1984), 208-211.
[4] See Gerald Bonner, Freedom and Necessity: St. Augustine’s Teaching on Divine Power and Human Freedom, (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2007) This contention is indeed the thesis of Bonner’s entire work, and is argued to the effect that Augustine’s predestinarianism stemmed more from this soteriological source than a polemic against Pelagius. See also Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 922.
[5] González, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, 214.
[6] Gene Fendt, “Between a Pelagian Rock and a Hard Predestinarianism: The Currents ofControversy in ‘City of God’ 11 and 12.” The Journal of Religion, 81 (April 2001): 211.
[7] Philip Schaff, ed. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series. Vol. 3, Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2004), 269.
[8] Fendt, “Between a Pelagian Rock,” 222.
[9] Ibid.
REVIEW: The Last “Christian Band” In My Library
August 28, 2009
Artist: Sleeping At Last
Album: Storyboards (2009)
Origin: Chicago, IL
Genre: Alternative, Indie
I must admit I’m not one for the Contemporary Christian Music.
In my mind, the practical distinction between “Contemporary Christian Music” and “music that happens to be made by at least one or more Christians” is slim (this seems to be largely a marketing gimmick propagated by “Christian Record Labels” that are often owned by the bigger music conglomerates anyway). Consequently, CCM is often too quaint in its artistic scope and suffers from a “Sanctified Mimicry” complex (i.e. Hey kids! Let’s go listen to the Christian version of Coldplay!) How could someone push forward into new musical frontiers if their very appeal is built on copying someone else’s sound?
As a result, my 3K+ iTunes library is noticeably lacking the “standards” one might expect from a cradle Evangelical. One could even say I’ve intentionally purged my library in a fit of imagined artistic purity.
And yet over the last few years one name has remained: Sleeping At Last. The young trio from Chicago has consistently survived my cleansings–and I keep buying their albums.
As a college freshman, I was astonished by the maturity of their sound, especially since they weren’t very much older than me. Sleeping At Last introduced me to the epic scale of post-rock. They paired the familiar blend of guitar, bass and drum I knew too well with novel strings and orchestral percussion to create a completely new experience for me, much like when I eventually became old enough to drink wine with my mother’s pastas. I’m not so naive as to believe they were alone in experimenting with these sonant environments–but they were my first.
SAL’s fourth studio album, Storyboards does not disappoint this admitted fanboy. I’m not a musician, so my review can only be written in terms of sensations and metaphor. Storyboards, like any decent piece of art, requires more than a casual encounter. It’s an album I grew into and had to find the right setting to appreciate. Less stadium rock than SAL’s previous efforts, this album is best eased into–like a warm bath or a heady stout. Their opening tracks are listless and airy, a more reflective approach that elevates the lyrics.
The Christian presence is certainly obvious, but they’re altogether poetic and mostly avoid the contrite dogma normally associated with Christian music. Like these taken from the album’s marching-est song, Timelapse:
and every constellation
is a fraction of God’s DNA
that we were made to notice and navigate.as the moon commands the tide
to balance the weight of change,
we must learn to follow all the same.
A surprisingly inventive track is Clockwork which begins like a 50′s sitcom theme with bopping strings and an optimistic pace. The listener waits patiently for the real song to start and tie the intro into the larger work, but the attitude never dies to the end as the vocalist belts out mournfully,
Still unsatisfied,
We chase what we’re denied.
As generations wait,
We can’t resist the taste of possibility.
Gears turn, endlessly,
To bring us back to life again.
Like clockwork, we begin.
I obviously don’t write for Pitchfork and can’t tell you much about Sleeping At Last’s position in the wider world of indie music. I can only include here what they’ve meant to me and how I’ve appreciated their work.
As the soft ballad Side by Side explains, one can’t always find the right words to describe pleasant experiences,
there is no language for what we’ve seen,
only the sweetness that bends us to our knees,
and all of these fumbling words
to explain what it means
So I’d suggest you give them a listen for free here or put up $14 bones (includes S&H) for the album here and listen for yourself.
They Actually Let This Guy Preach?
August 24, 2009
This last Sunday I preached at Oak Hills Church in Eagan, MN. It’s the church where I grew up and came to faith in. Below you can listen to the mp3.
I spoke about the resurrection of Jesus and the nature of our Christian hope. My text was I Corinthians 15. If some of what I say sounds oddly familiar, you’ve probably read a bit of N. T. Wright. I hope you enjoy it.
Extraordinary Balloons and the People of God (29 mins)
The first 60 seconds or so are very poor audio quality. It’ll get better.
Fantasy Literature and Philosophy: Part III
August 22, 2009
|
The Bestiary: Animals Who Think and Talk
The professor in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (aka Digory, Lord Digory, et al) personifies Socrates in Plato’s Republic better than any other figure among the collective writings of Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowling. He questions Peter and Susan after they have had a fight with Edmund over Lucy’s claim to have entered Narnia through the wardrobe, asking whether they ought to believe the report of a known liar (Edmund) over that of a trustworthy person (Lucy) just because the liar’s data seemed to back up what they already believed about the world.[i]
This session with the professor is the turning point in the novel regarding Peter and Susan’s attitudes toward Lucy and the possibility that there is more to reality than the world they can perceive with their senses (a lesson they have to repeatedly learn in the series). While the effect that traveling between parallel universes has on time is a fascinating philosophical problem within the Chronicles, the real elements of Platonic Form are found in Lewis’ Bestiary (yes, that is spelled correctly). The talking animals of Narnia represent what it means to be the true form of the creature. For instance, while there are non-talking (h)orses of the “normal” variety in Narnia, it is the noble, talking horses that are the “true (H)orses.” Furthermore, though there may be true Lions of the talking sort, Aslan is The True Lion. Once again, the desired affect is the creation of an order or system of Platonic Forms that will allow the reader to interact with important truths surrounding justice, forgiveness, and redemption. If the forms interacting with these truths are “real forms,” then the conclusions drawn must ultimately be “real principles.”
Magic: When the Supernatural Is Ordinary
Harry Potter’s journey into the wizarding world is just as much a journey into “real reality” as it is a journey to boarding school. Rowling uses magic in much the same way that Tolkien uses items of lore and Lewis uses the bestiary. Magic in the Harry Potter series stands in direct contrast to the technological boon that we experience on a daily basis. Characters like Mr. Weasley, who work for Ministry of Magic, are fascinated by the gadgetry of our lives. However, they never assume more than an anecdotal or trivial attitude toward modernization. The life they have experienced through magic is in tune with nature, but it is not archaic. It is, in fact, much more convenient than technology and gadgetry makes our lives in a number of ways. All of this serves to set the stage for metaphysics and Plato’s Theory of Forms.
“Them!’ said Stan contemptuously, ‘Don’ listen properly do they? Don’ look properly either. Never notice nuffink, they don’.”
Perhaps more than the other worlds, Rowling challenges other readers to doubt their certainty with reality by constructing her world alongside our own. In one scene in the Prisoner of Azkaban, one character explains to Harry that muggles never notice the wizarding world (even the most outlandish behaviors and mishaps) because they are not open to anything but their own expectations. “Them!’ said Stan contemptuously, ‘Don’ listen properly do they? Don’ look properly either. Never notice nuffink, they don’.” Rowling’s Platonic Forms take the form of the wizarding community itself. They are true people in the sense that they have seen what “real” reality is and have not shied away. It can be chaotic, untidy, and unsettling, but there is wonder in all of it. In a sense, even education becomes part of the mystical. Practices of the most existential or supernatural kind in our world take on the tone of the knowable, testable, and controllable in the classroom for Harry Potter. Something that would never be a suitable conclusion to be drawn for someone like the quintessential muggle family, the Dursleys. This is not to say that there is no danger or evil in the wizarding world. If love and friendship can be had in their truest sense, then evil and conflict take on a danger that is much more “dangerous” than those that concern the muggle world.
Theology and Pipe Smoking, Part III: Resources
August 21, 2009
|
It has been an inexcusably long time since I’ve posted parts I & II of this series, but I hope to make some sort of feeble amends, Gentle Reader, with this, an annotated list of resources for the pipe smoking follower of Jesus together with some further tobacco reviews, and one last theo-liturgical resource. If you are unwilling to forgive me for my tardiness in posting, I suggest that you go out to your front porch and smoke a pipe, and then if you cannot find forgiveness and goodwill toward your fellow man after a soothing bowl of tobacco, you must be doing something wrong (perhaps, your uncharitable disposition comes from smoking cheap gas station tobacco from a Dr. Grabow pipe?).
Resources – Smoking & Theology
Toward a Theology of Pipe Smoking by Arthur Yunker- This pamphlet is by far my favorite resource on pipe smoking and theology. It is hilarious, irreverent in the all the right ways, and reverent in all the right ways. Simply put, it is hands down required reading for any Christian who also smokes a pipe. It was published in 1970 at the Concordia Seminary Print Shop, as Mr. Yunker was a student at the seminary. It is very rare in print–one day I hope to find it–but it floats around the web in PDF format: Part I and Part II
The Churchwarden by Perry S. Fuller- A pioneer web zine devoted to pipe smoking, fly fishing, and reformed theology. This site was there for me back in my college days. It is no longer being updated, but its archives are extensive and rich in interesting reading: essays, reviews, sermons, poems, etc. We here at theophiliacs were recently honored to have Mr. Fuller visit our site, and despite the fact that he’s reformed [wink], he’s really a great person. You need to visit this site and take a look around: The Churchwarden
Christian Pipe Smoker’s Forum- Another excellent resource, full of friendly people always willing to answer your questions about pipes and equally willing to argue theology with you. It’s a well organized and moderated forum, with quite a few commenters including some expert tobacconists and pipe makers, and several ministers. There was once a highly contentious and intelligent high church episcopalian with a thing for Dunhill billiards who frequented the site, but alas, I haven’t seen him in quite a while, but I digress; click over and have a look-see: Christian Pipe Smoker’s Forum
Toward a Theology of Smoking by Andrew Faris- Here’s a blog post from one the guys over at Christians in Context: From Orthodoxy to Orthopraxy, in which he raises some good points about smoking and how it can be used to the glory of God: Toward a Theology of Smoking
Resources - General Pipe Smoking
Just For Him- A tobacconist and “men’s gift shoppe” in Springfield, MO, Just for Him is a NOT a porn shop, but it is staffed by a crack team of bitter former AGers. They have a serious collection of tin tobaccos for sale, as well as a plethora of in-house custom blended tobaccos including the original and famous Middle Earth Series. See here for a review of one of the tobaccos in that series and see below for a review of several more. In short, if you find yourself in Missouri, or Arkansas, or western Kentucky, or southern Illinois, you owe it to yourself to hunt out Just for Him. On their website, you can buy tobacco including the Middle Earth Series, and under the ‘Information Central’ link you’ll find volumes of very helpful information about pipes: cleaning, packing, lighting, storing, etc., etc. A fantastic resource both in real space, and in cyberspace: Just for Him
Pipedia.org- As the clever name implies is a wiki for all things related to pipe smoking. It is a labyrinthine and manifold resource (like any good wiki should be), and I suggest that you explore it on your own. Here, however, I am going to include just a few of my favorite articles and pages — ones that are interesting and helpful. Here’s the main site: Pipedia.org ; below are some highlights:
- Ben Rapaport’s List of Books dealing with Pipe smoking. This man is serious about collecting books about pipes. He has over 3,000 volumes devoted to the subject and shares a list of some of his favorites (in English); if you’re a book nerd you will be interested and astonished.
-Pipedia has an excellent introduction to pipe tobaccos in all their variety. So, if you can’t tell your Cavendishes from your Virginias, this article will fix you up.
-There is also an interesting and detailed article on pipe making, that some of you handy types might find interesting.
Pipes.org- The “big” pipe smoking forum on the web. Although it can be difficult to find, there is some excellent and rare information on this site. If you have an esoteric question about pipes, this is probably the place to take it: pipes.org
Pipe Maker’s Logos & Markings- If you are in to buying estate pipes, this site is a necessity. It is the most comprehensive list of pipe maker’s markings. Fascinating in its own right, it really comes in handy to know some of these when trying to convince your wife that the $5 pipe in the case at the indoor flea market is really an $85 Kaywoodie: Logos & Markings
Pipe Tampers- There are a lot of really cool pipe tampers in the world; here are a few examples: Jagwal made from exotic hardwood and brass, simple, elegant, classy. ZapZap; a horrible name, but this man is a real craftsman, he makes truly beautiful pipe tampers that are works of art in and of themselves.
The Dunhill Pipe by R.D. Fields- Ah, the Dunhill, the Holy Graal of Pipes. This is a very helpful sight consisting of several different pages: a comparison of new and old Dunhills, a guide to dating your Dunhill (finding out how old it is, not taking it to a dinner and a movie [though, to be honest, I wish I could take my Dunhill to a dinner and a movie {we have a purely platonic relationship, of course}. Damn, smoking laws!]). Anyway, very important information for collectors: The Dunhill Pipe
Reviews
Treebeard- Treebeard, the third in the Middle Earth Pipeweed Series from Just for Him, is a masterpiece of allusion. It smokes slow and cool. Don’t try and push it; it will not be smoked hot. This tobacco takes time. Before it is lit it smells of vanilla beans, but once you put a match to it it carries the flavor of pine nuts and yew bark with a very subtle smidgen of creamy sweetness. It is an aromatic, but an English-lover’s aromatic, earthy, and woodsy, not fruity or corn-suripy like so many aromatics. I did not think it possible for a tobacco to so completely channel the zeitgeist of an Ent, slow, ruminous, ancient.
Ancient Mariner-Another custom blend from Just for Him, Ancient Mariner is decidedly an English Blend. Paradoxically it smells as sweet as perfume while it tastes bitter, and slightly leathery. It reminds me of the cheap whiskey called Old Tennessee sold in Lee Chong’s store in the John Steinbeck novel, Cannery Row. All the down-and-out bums who would drink it always called it Old Tennis Shoes. I have a feeling Ancient Mariner would compliment that drink well. It also calls to mind the scene from Moby Dick, where Captain Ahab throws his tobacco pipe overboard in utter despair. Could it be that he was smoking Ancient Mariner, but decided he really prefered an aromatic blend? There are layers of Herman Melville yet to be explored here, I think. But, ultimately, I believe that this tobacco is meant to call up imagery from Samuel Taylor Coleridge’sclassic poem,”The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” in which a crusty old sailor accosts some people on their way to a wedding in order to tell them his tale of woe and foreboding. This poem is the genesis of those classic lines: “Water, water everywhere and all the boards did shrink/ Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.” You’ll need some water if you smoke this tobacco, and, like I mentioned, maybe a stronger drink as well. It’s actually not as bad as I’ve made it sound; its pretty good, in fact, but it is potent and once you’re done I guarantee you will smell like an Ancient Mariner–maybe even like one who’s had a dead bird tied around his neck.
Toward a Daily Office which Incorporates the Pipe
What follows is an outline for Morning Prayer which I’ve pieced together from several resources, but mostly from the Book of Common Prayer. This particular version, of course, uses the ritual of packing and smoking a tobacco pipe as an additional liturgical focus. Thomas Cramner might be rolling in his grave over this, but the more I think about it, I doubt he minds. Though good Episcopalians call it Morning Prayer, I’ve chosen to use the more ancient name, Lauds (the practice can be traced to Apostolic times), not only to pay homage to older customs not in common Episcopal use (the recitation Jesus Prayer), but also because of the reading from the Psalter, which is one of the three Psalms known as “lauds.”
Lauds
[The pipe is empty, with tobacco, tamp and matches all within hand's reach]
Psalm 150
Praise the LORD! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament!
Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his surpassing greatness!
Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp!
Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! [here, lift your pipe up to God]
Praise him with clanging cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!
Let everthing that breathes praise the LORD; Praise the LORD!
Glory to Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.
[In contemplative silence load your pipe with tobacco; and light it as you say the following prayer]
O Lord, whose never failing providence orders all things both in heaven and earth, grant that we, your humble servants, will, in our daily lives, make no distinction between what is sacred and what is secular. Help us, O God, to dedicate all our actions to your glory and your service, all our thoughts to your praise and adoration, and all our words to be reflections of your lovingkindness and mercy; for the sake of our Savior Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
A Reading
Micah 6:6-8
Jesus Prayer
[Meditatively smoke according to the rhythm estabished by the repetition of the prayer; if pipe goes out, pause, repack and relight]
Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner x 100
Silence
[Among other things, contemplate the smoke from your pipe; it is an important liturgical metaphor]
The Apostle’s Creed [or an appropriate Canticle]
Lord’s Prayer
The Collect
Lord God, almighty and everlasting Father, you have brought us in safety to this new day: Preserve us with your mighty power, that we may not fall into sin, nor be overcome by adversity; and in all we do, direct us to the fulfilling of your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
[With praise and thanksgiving, clean out your pipe and let it rest at least 1 day before using it again]
Catholic, Concrete, & Critical
August 20, 2009
Halden recently noted a post by R. O. Flyer about an article by Nicholas Healy critiquing the so-called “New Ecclesiology” of Hauerwas, the RO crew, and the Catholic crew (not that they are so different). Now I haven’t read the article so I am going on Flyer’s take on things. Perhaps I am a card carrying member of the – as Tony Jones puts it – “Hauerwasian Mafia;” and perhaps I’m reading through a Milbank essay as we speak, but I wanted to disagree with their patently Reformed critique that these ecclesiologies lack the ability be be judged by God’s Word and that they are in fact “reactionary.” I wanted to also turn the tables and say that it is the idealism of a “spiritual” ecclesiology that is in need of concrete judgement.
First off, the accusation that these ecclesiologies are “reactionary” needs to be let go right away. All theology, be it ecclesiology or whatever, is done by people; that is to say, theological discourse takes place in history. Being historical we neither come to the task objectively or untraditioned by our own circumstances and upbringing. Perhaps this seems an elementary observation but it begs the question: “Is there any ecclesiology that is not situated ‘for’ and/or ‘against’ the prevailing tendencies of the day?” Obviously not, as the Augustine example makes clear (funny to put in a story that doesn’t much build up ones case). Indeed it is perhaps a the unconcrete ecclesiology that is idealistic, looking to the sky for the “Spirit to act.” Yes, it is the height of irony that Hauerwas et. al. speak “idealistically” of the Church and proceed to judge the Church for remaining in sin but are being accused of being unavailable for such judgement. How might we expect the Spirit to judge the Church but by its own preachers? And it is a categorical misunderstanding of the RO critique to say that the Church must be “saved” from evil “modernity” or the “world.” It is exactly the message that the Church has compromised itself with modernity and the world’s secularity and is in need of a “return” (ie-judgement) to theology, to being itself and proclaiming the Gospel on its own terms and not those of “the world.”
To refuse to speak of the Church idealistically is to refuse to be an escatological Church, who is “already” perfected by the act of Christ. By not living up to this accomplished ‘ideal,’ the Church continually places itself under judgement and because of its concreteness can be sanctified. It is the individualized radically free ecclesiology of Reformed Protestantism that resists judgement and who in the face of struggle inevitably chooses schism over reconcilitation, who in the name of “necessary reformation” chooses a shrunken orthodoxy over a generous catholicity thereby rendering such ‘reformation’ null as the ‘reforming’ group is continually multiplied and pluriform.
From Feuerbach to Freud: an argument of musts
August 18, 2009
When one endeavors on the journey toward understanding the essence of God one of the first questions that rises to the surface, once the constraints of religious tradition are loosed, is the question of necessity. Must God exist? This is the question that one grapples with when confronted apologetically by purveyors of any faith. Presuppositions that were once so easily upheld hang ever so teeteringly on the precipice of this question. Before one can answer if God exists, much less what God is, the question of necessity must be grappled with. The first man to really step to the plate and question the necessity of meta-physicality was Ludwig Feuerbach.As Feuerbach put it
“My first thought was God, reason my second, man my third and last.”
What Feuerbach wrestled with, and ultimately concluded was false, was the argument that the universe is dependant on God. Holistically speaking Feuerbach refuted the aplogetic claim that somehow history was wrapped in God. Why must God be sequestered off to the side slowly to lose ground to the ever growing possession of mans intellectual reason? Would it not be better to accept that God was simply unnecessary, rather than to slowly mitigate his role into irrelevance? The dawn of Darwinism had removed the argument of necessity from the perspective of natural order. It only seemed inevitable that human history would surrender its claims of divine necessity. Feuerbach, free from the burden of reserving ground for God, was able to articulate a truly atheistic worldview in light of human history. God became archaically unnecessary for the continued progression of humanity.
While Feuerbach refuted the apologetic claims of necessity in terms of human history, he did not see the annihilation of religious apologetics that he had predicted. While Feuerbach may have gained ground in the field human history, apologists continued dispersing their energy behind the field of human interaction. If God was not necessary for natural human history, he was most definitely necessary for human social history. How could man hope to be ethical, broadly understood to mean acting socially correct, if God is not the informer and sustainer of mans social interaction? Was not our need for ethical social interaction enough proof for the necessity of God’s existence? To this question Sigmund Freud answered equivocally, no. By pushing the boundaries of nuero psychology, Freud argued that honest psychoanalytic investigation revealed neurosis, not God, as the informer of human social interaction. Indeed, Freud would argue that the neurotic projection of human perfection in the form of God, though not dangerous of necessity, was able to be overcome. More importantly he argued that productive, rather than ethical, social behavior was possible without yielding to neurotic illusory projections.
What does this mean for ones pursuit of God?
I think it must be understood that neither Feuerbach’s nor Freud’s hypothesis disprove the existence of God. Rather they simply removed his necessity from the current equation. If one wants to honestly seek out God’s essence, by first understanding his existence, he is going to have to remove from the equation the presupposition of God’s necessity. Thus the question, must God exist, can only be answered “no” within the confines of our current understanding.
As I continue on my journey toward understanding God, I must always remember that my presuppositions of necessity only serve as hindrances to honest evaluation of the evidence. The question of God’s existence must remain unanswered for me, at this point. Feuerbach and Freud have done nothing to bring me closer to the answers I seek. They have, however, served as warnings of my own inclinations to give into the presuppositions of the necessity of God.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
