[I was encouraged by this today]
Lord, our God, you know who we are: People with good and bad consciences; satisfied and dissatisfied, sure and unsure people; Christians out of conviction and Christians out of habit; believers, half-believers, and unbelievers.
You know where we come from: from our circle of relatives, friends, and acquaintances, or from great loneliness; from lives of quiet leisure, or from all manner of embarrassment and distress; from ordered, tense, or destroyed family relationships; from the inner circle, or from the fringes of the Christian community.
But now we all stand before you: in all our inequality equal in this, that we are all in the wrong before you and among each other; that we all must die someday; that we all would be lost without your grace; but also that your grace is promised to and turned toward all of us through your beloved Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.
We are here together in order to praise you by allowing you to speak to us. We ask that this might happen in this house in the name of your Son, our Lord. Amen.
- Karl Barth
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Final Research Paper.
I am on page 13 or 14 of my Barth research paper that is due on Thursday. I have never been this ahead of schedule in my entire life. I have a detailed outline for the next 5 pages, but need to do some more work on the last part of my paper and a small portion in the beginning. I think with every research paper, in the back of your mind, you are panicking. The same questions roll through your mind over and over again - "Does this make even remote sense?", "Is this complete nonsense, even for my own comprehension?", "Do I really believe this?", "Am I interpreting this correctly?", "Am I even making an argument?", "Do I remember my thesis statement ... wait, did I abandon it at page 7?" Thankfully, I should have ample time to edit this paper with precision.
This experience has really taught me a great deal about research and writing. I never thought I'd say this, but I feel most comfortable when I'm exegeting Barth's work instead of secondary sources. The moments that fear and insecurity hit are usually when I am caught up in secondary sources. There are many differing opinions among scholars, especially when it comes to Barth. But at this point, I just want to understand him more deeply. I can't, at the end of the day, stand in the shadow of another scholar. If I get Barth wrong, it must be because I interpreted and understood him incorrectly. This isn't to say that I am not incredibly and humbly indebted to many scholars for my understanding of Barth. But mostly, my understanding for this paper, especially in terms of the section on election comes from my own time alone with KB himself.
Well, thanks for reading. It was helpful to express all of that. Back to work!
This experience has really taught me a great deal about research and writing. I never thought I'd say this, but I feel most comfortable when I'm exegeting Barth's work instead of secondary sources. The moments that fear and insecurity hit are usually when I am caught up in secondary sources. There are many differing opinions among scholars, especially when it comes to Barth. But at this point, I just want to understand him more deeply. I can't, at the end of the day, stand in the shadow of another scholar. If I get Barth wrong, it must be because I interpreted and understood him incorrectly. This isn't to say that I am not incredibly and humbly indebted to many scholars for my understanding of Barth. But mostly, my understanding for this paper, especially in terms of the section on election comes from my own time alone with KB himself.
Well, thanks for reading. It was helpful to express all of that. Back to work!
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Excursuses
If there is one thing I've learned about Barth it is this: Read the excursuses in the Church Dogmatics. There are so many treasures to be found in that fine print. Sometimes he makes a passive aggressive comment against another theologian, sometimes he makes a statement that is hysterical, and other times he makes historical observations that are priceless.
Today is no exception . . .
Regarding the Reformed "pedagogic usefulness" of their formulation of the doctrine of election:
"Very different judgments can be passed on the value and usefulness of the doctrine, as history has in fact demonstrated. Where Calvin and his followers saw nothing but suavissimum fructum (sweetest fruit), the Lutherans of the 16th and 17th centuries, and many others too, saw only an endangering of assurance of salvation, the sense of responsibility, etc., or even an open relapse into Stoicism, Manicheism, Quietism, and Libertinism. Boettner appears to rejoice at the supposed kinship between the doctrine of predestination, as understood Calvinistically, and the teaching of Islam. But this supposed kinship was the very reason why the older Lutherans sought to discredit the Calvinists by describing them as secret adherents of the Eastern Antichrist." (II.2, p. 37)
Today is no exception . . .
Regarding the Reformed "pedagogic usefulness" of their formulation of the doctrine of election:
"Very different judgments can be passed on the value and usefulness of the doctrine, as history has in fact demonstrated. Where Calvin and his followers saw nothing but suavissimum fructum (sweetest fruit), the Lutherans of the 16th and 17th centuries, and many others too, saw only an endangering of assurance of salvation, the sense of responsibility, etc., or even an open relapse into Stoicism, Manicheism, Quietism, and Libertinism. Boettner appears to rejoice at the supposed kinship between the doctrine of predestination, as understood Calvinistically, and the teaching of Islam. But this supposed kinship was the very reason why the older Lutherans sought to discredit the Calvinists by describing them as secret adherents of the Eastern Antichrist." (II.2, p. 37)
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Human Origins and Evangelicalism.
My friend Watson and I have been talking a lot lately about human origins. How do we reconcile the first three chapters of Genesis with science? Can systematic theology maintain that death only existed once the fall occurred? How do we make sense of these matters and how does it impact one's exegesis of Romans 5?
There has often been times when Watson, an analytic philosopher, pins me to the wall (figuratively) with questions about how systematic theology responds to scientific findings. And I have to simply reply "you know, I just don't know." And I become concerned. When I, Lord-willing, teach systematic theology someday, what will I say if students ask me questions about evolution, death, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the systematic framework of Jesus as the "second Adam"? My first reaction is to think "who cares" and employ a hermeneutic of fear and suspicion. But if I have Christ, what is there to fear? How can science ultimately be a source of fear and anxiety? What does this reveal about my presuppositions, and my overall posture toward theology? Has theology ceased to be doxology and suddenly become an offensive against the world and culture?
Recently, this issue has surfaced in conversation with other friends of mine. It all started when a professor at a reformed seminary resigned after posting a video that the administration at said seminary interpreted as him denying a historical Adam and Eve. They were fearful that this professor might not hold to their particular views of Adam and Eve. While I found this to be very disheartening, I was mostly curious as to what they believed were the devastating systematic implications of denying a historical Adam and Eve. Obviously if they think such a position is such an issue, they would be able to produce a statement justifying their disapproval of a more figurative interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I didn't see any such explanation given.
As an evangelical, I grow increasingly concerned with the type of fundamentalism that is surfacing within evangelicalism. What is worse, this type of fundamentalism is being disguised as truly "evangelical." I don't know where I stand on the issue of inerrancy. However, I don't consider certain theologians like Barth, who hold a different view of Scripture from traditional evangelicalism, to be heretical or worse, not worthy of my study. I wonder if my views will someday be labeled "liberal" and will be easily dismissed by what claims to be "evangelicalism." The culture of fear and exclusion that has surfaced, especially within popular reformed circles, is disheartening. And please, let's not even begin to discuss issues of gender! Sometimes I grow hesitant of even mentioning to anyone that I might be leaning more egalitarian in my interpretation of biblical texts that reference the genders for fear of being labeled "cliche", "feminist", or "liberal."
Has evangelicalism lost its true identity? Has it lost sight of the essentials? Has it become so overtaken by fear and a lack of true scholarship that it actually supports a lack of critical engagement with ideas and culture? What kind of confession is my generation inheriting? Is this the (true) great deposit of faith that should be guarded? And what is worse, is the only home that I can find in the emergent Church? That is not meant to start a debate about emergent Christianity. But I consider myself to be reformed, evangelical, and Anglican. Where are the reformed evangelicals that are saying this trajectory is not acceptable?
This is why I appreciate Barth. For all his faults, the man understood the essentials. And I think evangelicalism has so much to learn from him. I will say though, beyond Barth, the BioLogos Foundation makes me give a big sigh of relief. Perhaps the conversation really is starting. Perhaps my friends and I have hope for change.
Correction: In the aftermath of the professor's resignation that I mentioned above, he formally stated in an open-letter that he willfully resigned and was not forced to do so by the seminary. His lack of carefulness when discussing this issue supposed led to the backlash that ensued from outside parties. For some reason, the open-letter did not seem convincing. No matter what the explanations, a video of that sort should not require it to be taken down from the website that it was posted nor cause for the professor to feel it was appropriate for him to resign from his position. That is the fruit of a much deeper problem.
There has often been times when Watson, an analytic philosopher, pins me to the wall (figuratively) with questions about how systematic theology responds to scientific findings. And I have to simply reply "you know, I just don't know." And I become concerned. When I, Lord-willing, teach systematic theology someday, what will I say if students ask me questions about evolution, death, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the systematic framework of Jesus as the "second Adam"? My first reaction is to think "who cares" and employ a hermeneutic of fear and suspicion. But if I have Christ, what is there to fear? How can science ultimately be a source of fear and anxiety? What does this reveal about my presuppositions, and my overall posture toward theology? Has theology ceased to be doxology and suddenly become an offensive against the world and culture?
Recently, this issue has surfaced in conversation with other friends of mine. It all started when a professor at a reformed seminary resigned after posting a video that the administration at said seminary interpreted as him denying a historical Adam and Eve. They were fearful that this professor might not hold to their particular views of Adam and Eve. While I found this to be very disheartening, I was mostly curious as to what they believed were the devastating systematic implications of denying a historical Adam and Eve. Obviously if they think such a position is such an issue, they would be able to produce a statement justifying their disapproval of a more figurative interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I didn't see any such explanation given.
As an evangelical, I grow increasingly concerned with the type of fundamentalism that is surfacing within evangelicalism. What is worse, this type of fundamentalism is being disguised as truly "evangelical." I don't know where I stand on the issue of inerrancy. However, I don't consider certain theologians like Barth, who hold a different view of Scripture from traditional evangelicalism, to be heretical or worse, not worthy of my study. I wonder if my views will someday be labeled "liberal" and will be easily dismissed by what claims to be "evangelicalism." The culture of fear and exclusion that has surfaced, especially within popular reformed circles, is disheartening. And please, let's not even begin to discuss issues of gender! Sometimes I grow hesitant of even mentioning to anyone that I might be leaning more egalitarian in my interpretation of biblical texts that reference the genders for fear of being labeled "cliche", "feminist", or "liberal."
Has evangelicalism lost its true identity? Has it lost sight of the essentials? Has it become so overtaken by fear and a lack of true scholarship that it actually supports a lack of critical engagement with ideas and culture? What kind of confession is my generation inheriting? Is this the (true) great deposit of faith that should be guarded? And what is worse, is the only home that I can find in the emergent Church? That is not meant to start a debate about emergent Christianity. But I consider myself to be reformed, evangelical, and Anglican. Where are the reformed evangelicals that are saying this trajectory is not acceptable?
This is why I appreciate Barth. For all his faults, the man understood the essentials. And I think evangelicalism has so much to learn from him. I will say though, beyond Barth, the BioLogos Foundation makes me give a big sigh of relief. Perhaps the conversation really is starting. Perhaps my friends and I have hope for change.
Correction: In the aftermath of the professor's resignation that I mentioned above, he formally stated in an open-letter that he willfully resigned and was not forced to do so by the seminary. His lack of carefulness when discussing this issue supposed led to the backlash that ensued from outside parties. For some reason, the open-letter did not seem convincing. No matter what the explanations, a video of that sort should not require it to be taken down from the website that it was posted nor cause for the professor to feel it was appropriate for him to resign from his position. That is the fruit of a much deeper problem.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Paper Topic Change.
I decided to change my paper topic. I realized after talking with my professor that I was not engaging enough with primary sources and at this stage in the game, I really just want to understand Barth more deeply rather than decide from the beginning that I am going to negatively critique him.
I have realized that my primary concern and fascination when it comes to theology is not so much the content of certain theologies but rather the reasoning and method behind said theologies. Whenever I read a radically new construction of a certain doctrine, I am not so much preoccupied with "what" is being said but "why." It has been very interesting to realize this about myself, and seeing this become so apparent in almost every question that I ask, whether in my own mind, in discussion with my peers, or in the classroom setting. I love the theology of Barth, not so much for "what" he does but for "why" and "how" he formulates his theology.
Therefore, I am going to attempt to combine my two presentations - the first on Barth's theological methodology (relying exclusively on his work "Anselm: Fides Quarens Intellectum") and his doctrine of election. My focus will not be Barth's ultimate conclusion that all humanity is elected in the electing and elected God of Jesus Christ but rather "why" and "how" he comes to this conclusion. I am particularly engaging with his critique of the Christian tradition and traditional reformed understandings of the doctrine. It will take a lot of time and effort. Hopefully I will produce something of worth. Most of all, I desire to truly understand Barth and grasp his concepts in order to represent an accurate representation of his theological method and reasonings in my paper. Such a serious theologian deserves at least that much from me.
In other news, PhD programs are never far from my thoughts. I am at a loss as to what I should do. I desire to pursue doctoral studies but I have a deep insecurity regarding my theological preparation. I have considered applying for the MDiv program at Harvard and Princeton since there are no advanced degrees offered for students that hold a general masters. There is only one doctoral program in the United States that interests me primarily for possibility of being able to study under Dr. Paul D. Jones - the University of Virginia. However, I have long considered writing a dissertation under the supervision of John Webster who currently teaches at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. To be honest, my primary concern is finding an advisor with whom I best fit. I have only found two men under whom I'd like to study. I'd be more than honored to work with Dr. George Hunsinger, but in order to get into the PhD program at Princeton, one is required to hold an MDiv. Unless I get that first, Princeton is not an option.
If you think of it, pray for me. I need direction. I am simply a servant of the Lord wanting to be faithful to the service of the gospel. All I need is for Him to show me where He desires me to go.
I have realized that my primary concern and fascination when it comes to theology is not so much the content of certain theologies but rather the reasoning and method behind said theologies. Whenever I read a radically new construction of a certain doctrine, I am not so much preoccupied with "what" is being said but "why." It has been very interesting to realize this about myself, and seeing this become so apparent in almost every question that I ask, whether in my own mind, in discussion with my peers, or in the classroom setting. I love the theology of Barth, not so much for "what" he does but for "why" and "how" he formulates his theology.
Therefore, I am going to attempt to combine my two presentations - the first on Barth's theological methodology (relying exclusively on his work "Anselm: Fides Quarens Intellectum") and his doctrine of election. My focus will not be Barth's ultimate conclusion that all humanity is elected in the electing and elected God of Jesus Christ but rather "why" and "how" he comes to this conclusion. I am particularly engaging with his critique of the Christian tradition and traditional reformed understandings of the doctrine. It will take a lot of time and effort. Hopefully I will produce something of worth. Most of all, I desire to truly understand Barth and grasp his concepts in order to represent an accurate representation of his theological method and reasonings in my paper. Such a serious theologian deserves at least that much from me.
In other news, PhD programs are never far from my thoughts. I am at a loss as to what I should do. I desire to pursue doctoral studies but I have a deep insecurity regarding my theological preparation. I have considered applying for the MDiv program at Harvard and Princeton since there are no advanced degrees offered for students that hold a general masters. There is only one doctoral program in the United States that interests me primarily for possibility of being able to study under Dr. Paul D. Jones - the University of Virginia. However, I have long considered writing a dissertation under the supervision of John Webster who currently teaches at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. To be honest, my primary concern is finding an advisor with whom I best fit. I have only found two men under whom I'd like to study. I'd be more than honored to work with Dr. George Hunsinger, but in order to get into the PhD program at Princeton, one is required to hold an MDiv. Unless I get that first, Princeton is not an option.
If you think of it, pray for me. I need direction. I am simply a servant of the Lord wanting to be faithful to the service of the gospel. All I need is for Him to show me where He desires me to go.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Term Paper Topic.
I apologize for my lack of posting. Life really has been quite busy and it is coming down to crunch time in the next week or so. All of my presentations are finished, I think my professor favored the last one (Lord-willing), and now I just have to focus on my last two research papers - one for the Barth seminar and one for my Luther class. Should be interesting.
This is my idea about my Barth paper:
Barth was not pleased with Calvin's view of election due to fact that double predestination implied a "hidden decree" of God before the foundation of the world. And this decree was made outside of Christ. He didn't find any value in such a doctrine, especially pastorally, since the individual could never have assurance that they were considered among the elect given the hidden nature of the decree. As such, Barth believed that the place where God is most revealed to humanity - via the eternal Word of God made flesh in Jesus Christ - should not contain any such existentially repugnant mysteries.
Therefore, Barth states that before the foundation of the world, Jesus Christ as God HImself was the electing God AND the elected man. He was the one that elected and He was the one who was elected. He took the reprobation that humanity deserved upon Himself. Consequently, all humanity was elected IN Christ (Eph. 1:4).
Given the reformulation of the reformed doctrine of election, Barth has been called a universalist, most notably by Emil Brunner ("soft universalism" to be exact). This is the most classic objection held by the traditionally reformed. And for reasons I don't feel like explaining (most of them are obvious), the traditional reformed view has no room for universal salvation.
Barth has two responses to this objection:
1) He will not affirm universalism because Scripture does not affirm it, even if such a view is the logical consequence of his position. He stops where Scripture stops.
2) To suppose that God will surely save all human beings is to impose an obligation upon God (hope that is clear). This defies the freedom of God. Ultimately, he is free to save anyone that He wants to save and there is no necessity in God to save any individual.
I am fine with the first point. He stands in the reformed tradition by appealing to such boundaries. However, I realized that his second response is problematic. I don't make this objection as one that has something to prove against Barth. I think the man was a genius, and I don't have to defend my admiration for his unapologetic appeal to the freedom and sovereignty of the most merciful, holy, and gracious God. However, it seems like by using this reply, he falls right back into a type of hiddenness that is even more severe than Calvin's. As Anthony Yu writes, "Is God, therefore, exercising another freedom beyond and above what he has concretely determined and accomplished in Jesus Christ?" ("Karl Barth's Doctrine of Election, 'Foundations', 259).
Those are my thoughts. Perhaps my objections stem from my less than sophisticated skills of interpreting the genius of Barth. While I admire his unwavering commitment to the freedom of God, it doesn't seem helpful in this particular situation. Hopefully when I meet with my professor tomorrow, he won't totally shut down my paper idea. He is a kind and gracious man so I won't expect the worse (like I always do!).
This is my idea about my Barth paper:
Barth was not pleased with Calvin's view of election due to fact that double predestination implied a "hidden decree" of God before the foundation of the world. And this decree was made outside of Christ. He didn't find any value in such a doctrine, especially pastorally, since the individual could never have assurance that they were considered among the elect given the hidden nature of the decree. As such, Barth believed that the place where God is most revealed to humanity - via the eternal Word of God made flesh in Jesus Christ - should not contain any such existentially repugnant mysteries.
Therefore, Barth states that before the foundation of the world, Jesus Christ as God HImself was the electing God AND the elected man. He was the one that elected and He was the one who was elected. He took the reprobation that humanity deserved upon Himself. Consequently, all humanity was elected IN Christ (Eph. 1:4).
Given the reformulation of the reformed doctrine of election, Barth has been called a universalist, most notably by Emil Brunner ("soft universalism" to be exact). This is the most classic objection held by the traditionally reformed. And for reasons I don't feel like explaining (most of them are obvious), the traditional reformed view has no room for universal salvation.
Barth has two responses to this objection:
1) He will not affirm universalism because Scripture does not affirm it, even if such a view is the logical consequence of his position. He stops where Scripture stops.
2) To suppose that God will surely save all human beings is to impose an obligation upon God (hope that is clear). This defies the freedom of God. Ultimately, he is free to save anyone that He wants to save and there is no necessity in God to save any individual.
I am fine with the first point. He stands in the reformed tradition by appealing to such boundaries. However, I realized that his second response is problematic. I don't make this objection as one that has something to prove against Barth. I think the man was a genius, and I don't have to defend my admiration for his unapologetic appeal to the freedom and sovereignty of the most merciful, holy, and gracious God. However, it seems like by using this reply, he falls right back into a type of hiddenness that is even more severe than Calvin's. As Anthony Yu writes, "Is God, therefore, exercising another freedom beyond and above what he has concretely determined and accomplished in Jesus Christ?" ("Karl Barth's Doctrine of Election, 'Foundations', 259).
Those are my thoughts. Perhaps my objections stem from my less than sophisticated skills of interpreting the genius of Barth. While I admire his unwavering commitment to the freedom of God, it doesn't seem helpful in this particular situation. Hopefully when I meet with my professor tomorrow, he won't totally shut down my paper idea. He is a kind and gracious man so I won't expect the worse (like I always do!).
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Doctrine of Hell.
I'd like to state this formally: I do not have a specific belief about hell. I am not a universalist. I am not an annihilationist. I am not a traditionalist (when it comes to the doctrine of hell).
I don't know what I believe in regards to this doctrine. This is NOT because I am trying to affirm agnosticism regarding this issue for my whole life. I simply have not given it enough thought and investigation. However, I am heavily considering the option of writing my final paper for the Barth seminar on the doctrine of hell.
I would just like to say one thing - shouldn't we all be hopeful universalists? Even if we never find warrant for such a position in the text, shouldn't everyone who claims to be a Christian embrace a sense of extreme sadness and mourning when we think about hell? Even Christ proclaimed on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." A part of me cringes inside every time I hear a Christian dogmatically affirm the eternal punishment of the non-elect with a bit of glee in their voice. They clearly have never read Jeremiah, nor John 17, nor the sentiments of Paul in Romans 9.
While I don't agree with everything in this article, the last line was very meaningful to me:
http://tiny.cc/F4eQy
I don't know what I believe in regards to this doctrine. This is NOT because I am trying to affirm agnosticism regarding this issue for my whole life. I simply have not given it enough thought and investigation. However, I am heavily considering the option of writing my final paper for the Barth seminar on the doctrine of hell.
I would just like to say one thing - shouldn't we all be hopeful universalists? Even if we never find warrant for such a position in the text, shouldn't everyone who claims to be a Christian embrace a sense of extreme sadness and mourning when we think about hell? Even Christ proclaimed on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." A part of me cringes inside every time I hear a Christian dogmatically affirm the eternal punishment of the non-elect with a bit of glee in their voice. They clearly have never read Jeremiah, nor John 17, nor the sentiments of Paul in Romans 9.
While I don't agree with everything in this article, the last line was very meaningful to me:
http://tiny.cc/F4eQy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)