One of the joys, some might say curses, of historical research is that I am constantly discovering figures whose thought is deep and often revolutionary - particularly for their time - but for whatever reason, have been largely overlooked in the grand narratives of our history books. Irenaeus of Lyons, the second century figure who will command the majority of my attention in my dissertation, was one such figure. Most of the major history books rarely mention anyone earlier than Augustine (4th century). (Of course, this was prior to the Da Vinci Code dabocal, where Irenaeus actually comes to play. Even here, however, his thought is much misunderstood and characterized. But I digress.)
A recent figure that has captured me is the 16th century figure Johann von Staupitz. Generally, he is known to scholarship, if he is known at all, as Martin Luther's teacher and confessor. Thus, he is generally referred to as the "frontrunner of the Reformation", a title which completely overlooks the fact that he remained a member of the Roman Catholic Church to his dying day (though he also refused to condemn Luther). Rather, he worked for reform from within the walls of the Church and his theology is, therefore, much more nuanced and subtle than some of the more polemical works from the hands of the Reformers.
One of the primary ways in which his thought was subversive to the Catholic establishment was in his understanding of the union that is effected between Christ and the Christian. Generally speaking, the Catholic Scholasticism dominant in his day viewed the relationship primarily as a marriage between Christ and the Church. This marriage was, consequently, mediated (or appropriated) by the believers through the grace of the sacraments.
Staupitz picks up this marriage analogy (likely originating with Paul) and subtly changes it, emphasizing the union between Christ and each individual Christian. For Staupitz, the union revealed in Paul's marriage analogy was much more intimate and personal than had come to be interpreted by Scholasticism. It was not mediated by the Church or by the sacraments, the grace of God simply came to the human creature because God elected him or her to marry and therefore, pledged himself to him or her.
The vows which Staupitz believes effect this union express this intimate union in a most profound manner. Christ says to the believer:
"Ego accipio te meam,
accipio te mihi,
accipio in me."
("I accept the Christian to me,
I accept the Christian with me,
I accept the Christian into me.")
Staupitz interprets these progressing vows as Christ and the Christian becoming one in flesh, heart and spirit, such that the Christian can now say "I am Christ." As a result of this intimate union, all of the merits of Christ become ours. We now have a right and a title to heaven because we are Christ, not because we have merited it on our own account. Moreover, the sin that was ours is transferred to Christ, who also says in his vow: "I am the Christian." It is these sins that are put to death on the cross.
Finally, Staupitz envisions this marriage as happening at the point of justification. This is again quite different from Scholastic theology, and even from some of the more mystical theologians of the high medieval age, who believed the union with Christ was the result of much spiritual growth and something that one arrived at at the end of his or her journey. Staupitz sees it as a beginning. Christians are joined to Christ when they are justified and this union adheres throughout their life. What confidence should this inspire in us, if we truly believe that "I am Christ."
Most readers will see in this theology a radically Protestant understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Christian. Historically speaking, it was a Catholic understanding. Johann von Staupitz, for this reason, I think could be a starting point for ecumenical discussions. He is a witness to the fact that there is in the Catholic tradition a place for the concerns that the Reformers were raising. Unfortunately, at this point, he is too little known to history to work effectively in this role. We need more historians!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Wounds
"Our rock, then, is in heaven; in it is strength, and on it security. Is it not said that the rock is a refuge for the conies? And where, in truth, is there a firm and safe refuge for us who are weak, except in the Wounds of our Savior? There I dwell with safety so much the greater, as He is so powerful to save. The world rages around me, the devil lays snares for me; but I do not fall, for I am founded upon a firm Rock. Perhaps I have committed some great sin, my conscience is troubled, but I do not despair, because I remember the Wounds of my Lord; for He was wounded for our iniquities. What sin is there so deadly that it may not be remitted through the Death of Christ?
-St. Bernard of Clairvaux
-St. Bernard of Clairvaux
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Who Can Be Saved?
One of the most difficult theological questions Christians face today is the fate of the unevangelized. The reason this question is so difficult is that it strikes at the heart of two pillars of Christian truth. The first is that God is a God of love who wills all of his creatures to be saved. This truth, despite some Calvinists protests which I can already hear ringing in the background, is sufficiently attested to in scripture. There is the famous statement of God's love: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." To interpret this verse as applying to only a certain number of people, say a predestined elect, one has to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics in his or her interpretation of "world." A somewhat less memorized, but equally important verse comes from one of the epistles: "This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3b-4). In addition to these verses, I think it safe to say that the entire tenure of scripture reveals a God of love who does not want any of his creation to be out of communion with him. This is the God of the cross.
The second truth, however, is the belief that only through Christ can sinners be reconciled to God. The biblical evidence on this point is equally strong. In one of his earliest sermons, St. Peter declares: "This Jesus is 'the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.' There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:11-12). To take the verses we have already cited, God indeed loves the world but the stipulation for everlasting life is belief in Jesus. And the verse which follows 1 Tim 2:4 states: "For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus . . ."
When applying these truths to the fate of the unevangelized - that is those billions of people through history (and existing today) who never had the opportunity to hear the good news of Christ - we are left in a conundrum. For it seems that we cannot adequately maintain both of these truths. If we maintain that since God loves the world and wills the salvation of all, then he will surely provide a way for the salvation of those who have not heard the gospel. Yet the moment we affirm something like this, we put the truth that salvation comes only through Jesus in jeopardy. What is worse, we marginalize the work of the cross. For if God was able to save some humans apart from Jesus, then why did Jesus have to die? This is a theological question without an easy answer.
One of the best recent articles I have read on the subject comes from the hand of the Catholic Cardinal Avery Dulles, "Who Can be Saved?". He lucidly defines the difficulty and what is at stake in our answer. Additionally, he traces the history of thought on the subject which is enlightening in itself. He concludes with an answer that I think very satisfying. If you want to read this article, click here.
The second truth, however, is the belief that only through Christ can sinners be reconciled to God. The biblical evidence on this point is equally strong. In one of his earliest sermons, St. Peter declares: "This Jesus is 'the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.' There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:11-12). To take the verses we have already cited, God indeed loves the world but the stipulation for everlasting life is belief in Jesus. And the verse which follows 1 Tim 2:4 states: "For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus . . ."
When applying these truths to the fate of the unevangelized - that is those billions of people through history (and existing today) who never had the opportunity to hear the good news of Christ - we are left in a conundrum. For it seems that we cannot adequately maintain both of these truths. If we maintain that since God loves the world and wills the salvation of all, then he will surely provide a way for the salvation of those who have not heard the gospel. Yet the moment we affirm something like this, we put the truth that salvation comes only through Jesus in jeopardy. What is worse, we marginalize the work of the cross. For if God was able to save some humans apart from Jesus, then why did Jesus have to die? This is a theological question without an easy answer.
One of the best recent articles I have read on the subject comes from the hand of the Catholic Cardinal Avery Dulles, "Who Can be Saved?". He lucidly defines the difficulty and what is at stake in our answer. Additionally, he traces the history of thought on the subject which is enlightening in itself. He concludes with an answer that I think very satisfying. If you want to read this article, click here.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A Narcissistic Update
I do not know if there is anyone still reading who would appreciate an update on my studies (who has not been in contact with me otherwise), but in the rare chance, I thought I would pause to be a bit narcissistic. But then again who am I kidding? Sometimes it seems that blogging is nothing but one big project in narcissism, especially when your readers are not given to commenting much.
In any case, I am in my fourth semester of classes, which means that I am officially done with course work this May (May 8th to be exact). On that blessed day, I will have completed my course work. This means nothing except that now I have the opportunity to sit for exams. Some places call them boards. The people at Marquette, who I've discovered have a penchant for acronyms, refer to them as the DQEs, or the Doctoral Qualifying Exams. I am planning on sitting for those sometime in the late fall. If I pass them, then and only then, will I have earned the right to be called a PhD candidate. So if some of you have been thinking of me as a PhD student, the joke is on you. Actually, the supreme joke, I think, is on me. For all this means is that the last two years of my life have been in a sort of limbo state. I'm not a PhD student, what the heck am I? Fortunately, this nihilistic problem will be resolved if I pass my exams.
The procedure is as follows: three days, six hours a day, four written essays (averaging 7-10 pages a piece) and an oral exam. I'm not sure what happens at an oral exam but I must admit that it does not sound very pleasant. I have consulted my DQE board, which consists of five distinguished professors, and they have each given me (or required me to give them) a bibliography covering a certain area. For example, one of my history questions will focus on the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century. Thus my bibliography will consistent of primary sources from the major players of that century, as well as past and current secondary sources each having varying theses on what happened. When the test comes, I will be asked a comprehensive question about that time period. The bibliography is the map that guides the question, in other words, my professor cannot ask me something that is not covered by the bibliography. Conversely, I am responsible for everything on the bibliography - and these are long mothers.
So for the next five or six months (following May 8th), I will be reading through my various bibliographies and forming outlines to answer projected questions in my various areas. In the fall I will begin meeting with the professors of my board to discuss what I have read to hopefully focus in on questions. With some professors, I may have a fairly good idea of what I will be answering going into the test. With others, I may know nothing but generalities. Here is what I know so far.
Major area: History
1. Trinitarian thought of the apologists, particularly Justin Martyr (second century)
2. Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century
3. Theory of knowledge in Thomas Aquinas
Minor area: Bible
1. Romans
Minor area: Theology
1. Karl Barth on revelation
This is likely more than any of my readers wanted to know, but I put out there for anyone who does. If you have knowledge of any books or articles that might be useful, please send me a note. Otherwise, I ask for your prayers now as I begin what is sure to be a very long preparation process.
In other narcissistic news, as a celebration of the end of course work, Julie and I will be heading to Italy for two weeks! We will be going with her parents and her great uncle Virgilio Sala who will serve as a tour guide. We absolutely cannot wait.
In any case, I am in my fourth semester of classes, which means that I am officially done with course work this May (May 8th to be exact). On that blessed day, I will have completed my course work. This means nothing except that now I have the opportunity to sit for exams. Some places call them boards. The people at Marquette, who I've discovered have a penchant for acronyms, refer to them as the DQEs, or the Doctoral Qualifying Exams. I am planning on sitting for those sometime in the late fall. If I pass them, then and only then, will I have earned the right to be called a PhD candidate. So if some of you have been thinking of me as a PhD student, the joke is on you. Actually, the supreme joke, I think, is on me. For all this means is that the last two years of my life have been in a sort of limbo state. I'm not a PhD student, what the heck am I? Fortunately, this nihilistic problem will be resolved if I pass my exams.
The procedure is as follows: three days, six hours a day, four written essays (averaging 7-10 pages a piece) and an oral exam. I'm not sure what happens at an oral exam but I must admit that it does not sound very pleasant. I have consulted my DQE board, which consists of five distinguished professors, and they have each given me (or required me to give them) a bibliography covering a certain area. For example, one of my history questions will focus on the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century. Thus my bibliography will consistent of primary sources from the major players of that century, as well as past and current secondary sources each having varying theses on what happened. When the test comes, I will be asked a comprehensive question about that time period. The bibliography is the map that guides the question, in other words, my professor cannot ask me something that is not covered by the bibliography. Conversely, I am responsible for everything on the bibliography - and these are long mothers.
So for the next five or six months (following May 8th), I will be reading through my various bibliographies and forming outlines to answer projected questions in my various areas. In the fall I will begin meeting with the professors of my board to discuss what I have read to hopefully focus in on questions. With some professors, I may have a fairly good idea of what I will be answering going into the test. With others, I may know nothing but generalities. Here is what I know so far.
Major area: History
1. Trinitarian thought of the apologists, particularly Justin Martyr (second century)
2. Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century
3. Theory of knowledge in Thomas Aquinas
Minor area: Bible
1. Romans
Minor area: Theology
1. Karl Barth on revelation
This is likely more than any of my readers wanted to know, but I put out there for anyone who does. If you have knowledge of any books or articles that might be useful, please send me a note. Otherwise, I ask for your prayers now as I begin what is sure to be a very long preparation process.
In other narcissistic news, as a celebration of the end of course work, Julie and I will be heading to Italy for two weeks! We will be going with her parents and her great uncle Virgilio Sala who will serve as a tour guide. We absolutely cannot wait.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Abundant Life
This morning our pastor made an interesting connection between the lectionary readings. The epistle reading came from 1 Peter 2:19-25, a portion of which reads:
"For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly.
If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps."
The Gospel reading came from John 10:1-10, a portion of which reads:
"I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."
So often, Christians want to read the promise that Jesus gives in John 10 as referring to this earthly life. We want this to be a promise that if we follow Jesus than he will abundantly bless this life. Some versions of Christianity have even built their theology around this promise. The Prosperity Gospel, as it was called, preached that God blesses his followers monetarily in this life. The converse implication is that if a person is suffering than he or she must be in sin. There are versions of this perverse gospel being preached today. Sometimes it is subtle, but if you listen for the rhetoric, it is there.
The wise formers of the lectionary must have known the potential danger of misinterpretations of which life Jesus was referring to for they paired it with an epistle reading that makes it impossible to understand Jesus promise of abundant life as referring to monetary blessings. For Peter is crystal clear that followers of Christ are not promised blessings in this life - at least in the way that "blessings" are understood these days. Rather, Peter writes that Christians have been called to suffer unjustly. Bear in mind, he does not say that we may suffer unjustly, he says that this is what we have been called to.
Why would God call us to suffer unjustly, our modern minds may ask. The answer is simple. This is the example that our savior set for us. Jesus suffered unjustly because he was faithful to God in an unfaithful world. The original audience of 1 Peter likewise lived in an unfaithful world and Peter knew that to follow in Jesus' footsteps would likewise result in unjust suffering. Christians today continue to live in an unfaithful world, and if we are faithful to the example of our savior, the result will be the same. There have been more Christian martyrs this year already than in the entire first century.
Abundant life comes in the pure joy of living a Christlike life and the reward that results from such a life. May God give us all the courage and strength to live the life to which we have been called.
"For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly.
If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps."
The Gospel reading came from John 10:1-10, a portion of which reads:
"I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."
So often, Christians want to read the promise that Jesus gives in John 10 as referring to this earthly life. We want this to be a promise that if we follow Jesus than he will abundantly bless this life. Some versions of Christianity have even built their theology around this promise. The Prosperity Gospel, as it was called, preached that God blesses his followers monetarily in this life. The converse implication is that if a person is suffering than he or she must be in sin. There are versions of this perverse gospel being preached today. Sometimes it is subtle, but if you listen for the rhetoric, it is there.
The wise formers of the lectionary must have known the potential danger of misinterpretations of which life Jesus was referring to for they paired it with an epistle reading that makes it impossible to understand Jesus promise of abundant life as referring to monetary blessings. For Peter is crystal clear that followers of Christ are not promised blessings in this life - at least in the way that "blessings" are understood these days. Rather, Peter writes that Christians have been called to suffer unjustly. Bear in mind, he does not say that we may suffer unjustly, he says that this is what we have been called to.
Why would God call us to suffer unjustly, our modern minds may ask. The answer is simple. This is the example that our savior set for us. Jesus suffered unjustly because he was faithful to God in an unfaithful world. The original audience of 1 Peter likewise lived in an unfaithful world and Peter knew that to follow in Jesus' footsteps would likewise result in unjust suffering. Christians today continue to live in an unfaithful world, and if we are faithful to the example of our savior, the result will be the same. There have been more Christian martyrs this year already than in the entire first century.
Abundant life comes in the pure joy of living a Christlike life and the reward that results from such a life. May God give us all the courage and strength to live the life to which we have been called.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Doxology
Though nothing beats, in my opinion, the theology in the old hymns of the church, I find that many of the newer, "contemporary" (oh how I despise that word) songs are also often filled with profound thoughts. Here are a few of my favorites, quotes from some of the younger saints in this communion of ours. Feel free to edify us with some of your favorites.
-----------------
"All the heavens cannot hold you Lord,
how much less to dwell in me?
I can only make my one desire:
Holy unto Thee."
-Third Day
-------------------
"Give me one pure and holy passion,
Give me one magnificent obsession.
Give me one glorious ambition for my life:
To know and to follow after you.
"To know and to follow hard after you,
To grow as your disciple in your truth.
This world is empty, pale, and poor
Compared to knowing you my Lord.
Lead me on, and I will run after you.
Lead me on, and I will run after you."
-Passion Worship Band
-----------------------
"Be my vision and I'll be your delight."
-Point of Grace
-----------------
"All the heavens cannot hold you Lord,
how much less to dwell in me?
I can only make my one desire:
Holy unto Thee."
-Third Day
-------------------
"Give me one pure and holy passion,
Give me one magnificent obsession.
Give me one glorious ambition for my life:
To know and to follow after you.
"To know and to follow hard after you,
To grow as your disciple in your truth.
This world is empty, pale, and poor
Compared to knowing you my Lord.
Lead me on, and I will run after you.
Lead me on, and I will run after you."
-Passion Worship Band
-----------------------
"Be my vision and I'll be your delight."
-Point of Grace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
