It seems to me that the church and her theologians spend an inordinate amount of time these days on the doctrine of inspiration. The idea that Scripture is inspired has, in fact, taken first place in the confessional statements of many churches (and seminaries for that matter), particularly those churches of the non-denominational/evangelical/megachurch variety. I find this odd, given that a doctrine of inspiration is not even present in the historic creeds; they, rather, all address the nature of the God who was revealed in Christ. To be sure, the Fathers believed that the Scriptures were inspired, they just did not feel the need to logically define how that mysterious process took place. In general, pre-moderns are much more comfortable with mystery than moderns are.
I suspect that the doctrine of inspiration has been so elevated in recent times because it has come under so much fire from more liberal (in the original sense of the word) sects of the church and those outside the church who hold a priori (or without even arguing for it) that such a doctrine is impossible. Thus, the great dividing line - what makes one a Christian or not - is shifted from what one believes in Christ (the historic definition) to what one believes about the inspiration of the Scriptures.
In one sense, this shift may be appropriate because unless one believes that the Scriptures indeed come from God, then one will not believe in the truth of the things which are said in them, and thus the entire faith crumbles. But in another sense, this shift is entirely inappropriate for it entails the addition of a creedal component that was not agreed upon by the Fathers when the church was still one entity; and, therefore, a creedal component which all parts of the church cannot agree upon. (Again, the church has always believed in the inspiration of her Scriptures, but not in the manner that it is defined by certain sects.) Moreover, this shift gives the disastrous impression of elevating belief in the inspiration of Scripture as the most important aspect of our faith.
Friends, this is simply not the case, and if this is how you have been taught, then you have been taught a faith that, at least in this respect, is in no way consistent with Christianity as passed on from the apostles. The truth is that the most important aspect of our faith, the aspect which Jesus came to earth to witness to is who God is. And all the creeds agree that God is Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit - and, as such, a relational God who desires relation with his creation and will one day restore that creation to himself. All other creedal points - including the inspiration and authority of Scripture - flow out of this point. And as far as I know, you and I can agree on who God is without being completely in agreement on the nature of the word which tells us this. If the Fathers felt no need to define the great mystery of inspiration, I see no reason why we should.
Showing posts with label Fathers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fathers. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Just who is Irenaeus?
Many of you know that I am studying historical theology at Marquette. Less of you know that the figure of history in which I am particularly interested, and on whom I will hopefully write my dissertation, is the late second century bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. My hunch is that a fraction of you have never even heard of Irenaeus and more than likely wonder to yourselves why I would possibly want to devote my time to such an obscure figure.
In light of this fact, today's post is a bit of a history lesson about this so-called obscure figure. Yet instead of telling you myself, I thought that I would pass on a message from a teacher and pastor much more qualified than myself, namely Pope Benedict XVI. Since the start of 2007, the Pope has been delivering weekly messages in the Vatican teaching each week on a different saint of the Church. The following message he gave on March 28th. Though it is a bit long, I think the pay off is great, and hopefully it will help you understand the importance of this little known Father and why I want to devote my studies to his work.
------------
"Dear Brothers and Sisters!In the catechesis on the great figures of the Church during the first centuries, today we reach the figure of an eminent personality, Irenaeus of Lyons. His biographical information comes from his own testimony, sent down to us by Eusebius in the fifth book of the "Storia Ecclesiastica."
Irenaeus was most probably born in Smyrna (today Izmir, in Turkey) between the years 135 and 140. There, while still a youth, he attended the school of Bishop Polycarp, for his part, a disciple of the apostle John. We do not know when he moved from Asia Minor to Gaul, but the move must have coincided with the first developments of the Christian community in Lyons: There, in 177, we find Irenaeus mentioned among the college of presbyters.That year he was sent to Rome, bearer of a letter from the community of Lyons to Pope Eleutherius. The Roman mission took Irenaeus away from the persecution by Marcus Aurelius, in which at least 48 martyrs died, among them the bishop of Lyons himself, the 90-year-old Pothinus, who died of mistreatment in jail. Thus, on his return, Irenaeus was elected bishop of the city. The new pastor dedicated himself entirely to his episcopal ministry, which ended around 202-203, perhaps by martyrdom.
Irenaeus is above all a man of faith and a pastor. Like the Good Shepherd, he has prudence, a richness of doctrine, and missionary zeal. As a writer, he aims for a twofold objective: to defend true doctrine from the attacks of the heretics, and to clearly expound the truth of the faith. His two works still in existence correspond exactly to the fulfillment of these two objectives: the five books "Against Heresies," and the "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" (which could be called the oldest "catechism of Christian doctrine"). Without a doubt, Irenaeus is the champion in the fight against heresies.
The Church of the second century was threatened by so-called gnosticism, a doctrine which claimed that the faith taught by the Church was nothing more than symbolism for the simpleminded, those unable to grasp more difficult things. Instead, the initiated, the intellectuals -- they called themselves gnostics -- could understand what was behind the symbolism, and thus would form an elite, intellectual Christianity.
Obviously, this intellectual Christianity became more and more fragmented with different currents of thought, often strange and extravagant, yet attractive to many. A common element within these various currents was dualism, that is, a denial of faith in the only God, Father of all, creator and savior of humanity and of the world. To explain the evil in the world, they asserted the existence of a negative principle, next to the good God. This negative principle had created matter, material things.
Firmly rooted in the biblical doctrine of Creation, Irenaeus refuted dualism and the gnostic pessimism that devalued corporal realities. He decisively affirmed the original holiness of matter, of the body, of the flesh, as well as of the spirit. But his work goes far beyond the refutation of heresies: In fact, one can say that he presents himself as the first great theologian of the Church, who established systematic theology. He himself speaks about the system of theology, that is, the internal coherence of the faith.
The question of the "rule of faith" and its transmission lies at the heart of his doctrine. For Irenaeus, the "rule of faith" coincides in practice with the Apostles' Creed, and gives us the key to interpret the Gospel, to interpret the creed in light of the Gospel. The apostolic symbol, a sort of synthesis of the Gospel, helps us understand what the Gospel means, how we must read the Gospel itself.
In fact, the Gospel preached by St. Irenaeus is the one he received from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and the Gospel of Polycarp goes back to the apostle John, Polycarp having been John's disciple. Thus, the true teaching is not that invented by the intellectuals, rising above the simple faith of the Church. The true Gospel is preached by the bishops who have received it thanks to an uninterrupted chain from the apostles.
These men have taught nothing but the simple faith, which is also the true depth of the revelation of God. Thus, says Irenaeus, there is no secret doctrine behind the common creed of the Church. There is no superior Christianity for intellectuals. The faith publicly professed by the Church is the faith common to all. Only this faith is apostolic, coming from the apostles, that is, from Jesus and from God.
To adhere to this faith publicly taught by the apostles to their successors, Christians must observe what the bishops say. They must specifically consider the teaching of the Church of Rome, pre-eminent and ancient. This Church, because of its age, has the greatest apostolicity; in fact its origins come from the columns of the apostolic college, Peter and Paul. All the Churches must be in harmony with the Church of Rome, recognizing in it the measure of the true apostolic tradition and the only faith common to the Church.
With these arguments, very briefly summarized here, Irenaeus refutes the very foundation of the aims of the gnostics, of these intellectuals: First of all, they do not possess a truth that would be superior to the common faith, given that what they say is not of apostolic origin, but invented by them. Second, truth and salvation are not a privilege monopolized by a few, but something that everyone can reach through the preaching of the apostles' successors, and, above all, that of the Bishop of Rome.By taking issue with the "secret" character of the gnostic tradition and by contesting its multiple intrinsic contradictions, Irenaeus concerns himself with illustrating the genuine concept of Apostolic Tradition, that we could summarize in three points.
a) The Apostolic Tradition is "public," not private or secret. For Irenaeus, there is no doubt that the content of the faith transmitted by the Church is that received from the apostles and from Jesus, the Son of God. There is no teaching aside from this. Therefore, for one who wishes to know the true doctrine, it is enough to know "the Tradition that comes from the Apostles and the faith announced to men": tradition and faith that "have reached us through the succession of bishops" ("Adv. Haer." 3,3,3-4). Thus, the succession of bishops, personal principle, Apostolic Tradition, and doctrinal principle all coincide.
b) The Apostolic Tradition is "one." While gnosticism is divided into many sects, the Church's Tradition is one in its fundamental contents, which -- as we have seen -- Irenaeus calls "regula fidei" or "veritatis." And given that it is one, it creates unity among peoples, different cultures and different communities. It has a common content like that of truth, despite different languages and cultures.
There is a beautiful expression that Irenaeus uses in the book "Against Heresies": "The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points (of doctrine) just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world." We can already see at this time -- we are in the year 200 -- the universality of the Church, its catholicity and the unifying force of truth, which unites these so-very-different realities, from Germany, to Spain, to Italy, to Egypt, to Libya, in the common truth revealed to us by Christ.
c) Finally, the Apostolic Tradition is, as he says in Greek, the language in which he wrote his book, "pneumatic," that is, spiritual, led by the Holy Spirit. In Greek, spirit is "pneuma." It is not a transmission entrusted to the abilities of more or less educated men, but the Spirit of God who guarantees faithfulness in the transmission of the faith.
This is the "life" of the Church, that which makes the Church always young, that is, fruitful with many charisms. Church and Spirit are inseparable for Irenaeus. This faith, we read in the third book of "Against Heresies," "which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. ... For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace" (3,24,1).
As we can see, Irenaeus does not stop at defining the concept of Tradition. His tradition, uninterrupted Tradition, is not traditionalism, because this Tradition is always internally vivified by the Holy Spirit, which makes it alive again, allows it to be interpreted and understood in the vitality of the Church. According to his teaching, the Church's faith must be preached in such a way that it appears as it must appear, that is "public," "one," "pneumatic," "spiritual." From each of these characteristics, one can glean a fruitful discernment of the authentic transmission of the faith in the Church of today.
More generally, in the doctrine of Irenaeus, human dignity, body and soul, is firmly rooted in Divine Creation, in the image of Christ and in the permanent work of sanctification of the Spirit. This doctrine is like the "main road" to clarify to all people of good will, the object and the limits of dialogue on values, and to give an ever new impulse to the missionary activities of the Church, to the strength of truth which is the source of all the true values in the world."
In light of this fact, today's post is a bit of a history lesson about this so-called obscure figure. Yet instead of telling you myself, I thought that I would pass on a message from a teacher and pastor much more qualified than myself, namely Pope Benedict XVI. Since the start of 2007, the Pope has been delivering weekly messages in the Vatican teaching each week on a different saint of the Church. The following message he gave on March 28th. Though it is a bit long, I think the pay off is great, and hopefully it will help you understand the importance of this little known Father and why I want to devote my studies to his work.
------------
"Dear Brothers and Sisters!In the catechesis on the great figures of the Church during the first centuries, today we reach the figure of an eminent personality, Irenaeus of Lyons. His biographical information comes from his own testimony, sent down to us by Eusebius in the fifth book of the "Storia Ecclesiastica."
Irenaeus was most probably born in Smyrna (today Izmir, in Turkey) between the years 135 and 140. There, while still a youth, he attended the school of Bishop Polycarp, for his part, a disciple of the apostle John. We do not know when he moved from Asia Minor to Gaul, but the move must have coincided with the first developments of the Christian community in Lyons: There, in 177, we find Irenaeus mentioned among the college of presbyters.That year he was sent to Rome, bearer of a letter from the community of Lyons to Pope Eleutherius. The Roman mission took Irenaeus away from the persecution by Marcus Aurelius, in which at least 48 martyrs died, among them the bishop of Lyons himself, the 90-year-old Pothinus, who died of mistreatment in jail. Thus, on his return, Irenaeus was elected bishop of the city. The new pastor dedicated himself entirely to his episcopal ministry, which ended around 202-203, perhaps by martyrdom.
Irenaeus is above all a man of faith and a pastor. Like the Good Shepherd, he has prudence, a richness of doctrine, and missionary zeal. As a writer, he aims for a twofold objective: to defend true doctrine from the attacks of the heretics, and to clearly expound the truth of the faith. His two works still in existence correspond exactly to the fulfillment of these two objectives: the five books "Against Heresies," and the "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" (which could be called the oldest "catechism of Christian doctrine"). Without a doubt, Irenaeus is the champion in the fight against heresies.
The Church of the second century was threatened by so-called gnosticism, a doctrine which claimed that the faith taught by the Church was nothing more than symbolism for the simpleminded, those unable to grasp more difficult things. Instead, the initiated, the intellectuals -- they called themselves gnostics -- could understand what was behind the symbolism, and thus would form an elite, intellectual Christianity.
Obviously, this intellectual Christianity became more and more fragmented with different currents of thought, often strange and extravagant, yet attractive to many. A common element within these various currents was dualism, that is, a denial of faith in the only God, Father of all, creator and savior of humanity and of the world. To explain the evil in the world, they asserted the existence of a negative principle, next to the good God. This negative principle had created matter, material things.
Firmly rooted in the biblical doctrine of Creation, Irenaeus refuted dualism and the gnostic pessimism that devalued corporal realities. He decisively affirmed the original holiness of matter, of the body, of the flesh, as well as of the spirit. But his work goes far beyond the refutation of heresies: In fact, one can say that he presents himself as the first great theologian of the Church, who established systematic theology. He himself speaks about the system of theology, that is, the internal coherence of the faith.
The question of the "rule of faith" and its transmission lies at the heart of his doctrine. For Irenaeus, the "rule of faith" coincides in practice with the Apostles' Creed, and gives us the key to interpret the Gospel, to interpret the creed in light of the Gospel. The apostolic symbol, a sort of synthesis of the Gospel, helps us understand what the Gospel means, how we must read the Gospel itself.
In fact, the Gospel preached by St. Irenaeus is the one he received from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and the Gospel of Polycarp goes back to the apostle John, Polycarp having been John's disciple. Thus, the true teaching is not that invented by the intellectuals, rising above the simple faith of the Church. The true Gospel is preached by the bishops who have received it thanks to an uninterrupted chain from the apostles.
These men have taught nothing but the simple faith, which is also the true depth of the revelation of God. Thus, says Irenaeus, there is no secret doctrine behind the common creed of the Church. There is no superior Christianity for intellectuals. The faith publicly professed by the Church is the faith common to all. Only this faith is apostolic, coming from the apostles, that is, from Jesus and from God.
To adhere to this faith publicly taught by the apostles to their successors, Christians must observe what the bishops say. They must specifically consider the teaching of the Church of Rome, pre-eminent and ancient. This Church, because of its age, has the greatest apostolicity; in fact its origins come from the columns of the apostolic college, Peter and Paul. All the Churches must be in harmony with the Church of Rome, recognizing in it the measure of the true apostolic tradition and the only faith common to the Church.
With these arguments, very briefly summarized here, Irenaeus refutes the very foundation of the aims of the gnostics, of these intellectuals: First of all, they do not possess a truth that would be superior to the common faith, given that what they say is not of apostolic origin, but invented by them. Second, truth and salvation are not a privilege monopolized by a few, but something that everyone can reach through the preaching of the apostles' successors, and, above all, that of the Bishop of Rome.By taking issue with the "secret" character of the gnostic tradition and by contesting its multiple intrinsic contradictions, Irenaeus concerns himself with illustrating the genuine concept of Apostolic Tradition, that we could summarize in three points.
a) The Apostolic Tradition is "public," not private or secret. For Irenaeus, there is no doubt that the content of the faith transmitted by the Church is that received from the apostles and from Jesus, the Son of God. There is no teaching aside from this. Therefore, for one who wishes to know the true doctrine, it is enough to know "the Tradition that comes from the Apostles and the faith announced to men": tradition and faith that "have reached us through the succession of bishops" ("Adv. Haer." 3,3,3-4). Thus, the succession of bishops, personal principle, Apostolic Tradition, and doctrinal principle all coincide.
b) The Apostolic Tradition is "one." While gnosticism is divided into many sects, the Church's Tradition is one in its fundamental contents, which -- as we have seen -- Irenaeus calls "regula fidei" or "veritatis." And given that it is one, it creates unity among peoples, different cultures and different communities. It has a common content like that of truth, despite different languages and cultures.
There is a beautiful expression that Irenaeus uses in the book "Against Heresies": "The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points (of doctrine) just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world." We can already see at this time -- we are in the year 200 -- the universality of the Church, its catholicity and the unifying force of truth, which unites these so-very-different realities, from Germany, to Spain, to Italy, to Egypt, to Libya, in the common truth revealed to us by Christ.
c) Finally, the Apostolic Tradition is, as he says in Greek, the language in which he wrote his book, "pneumatic," that is, spiritual, led by the Holy Spirit. In Greek, spirit is "pneuma." It is not a transmission entrusted to the abilities of more or less educated men, but the Spirit of God who guarantees faithfulness in the transmission of the faith.
This is the "life" of the Church, that which makes the Church always young, that is, fruitful with many charisms. Church and Spirit are inseparable for Irenaeus. This faith, we read in the third book of "Against Heresies," "which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. ... For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace" (3,24,1).
As we can see, Irenaeus does not stop at defining the concept of Tradition. His tradition, uninterrupted Tradition, is not traditionalism, because this Tradition is always internally vivified by the Holy Spirit, which makes it alive again, allows it to be interpreted and understood in the vitality of the Church. According to his teaching, the Church's faith must be preached in such a way that it appears as it must appear, that is "public," "one," "pneumatic," "spiritual." From each of these characteristics, one can glean a fruitful discernment of the authentic transmission of the faith in the Church of today.
More generally, in the doctrine of Irenaeus, human dignity, body and soul, is firmly rooted in Divine Creation, in the image of Christ and in the permanent work of sanctification of the Spirit. This doctrine is like the "main road" to clarify to all people of good will, the object and the limits of dialogue on values, and to give an ever new impulse to the missionary activities of the Church, to the strength of truth which is the source of all the true values in the world."
Friday, October 13, 2006
The True Image of God
Much is made these days, in both Christian and theist (those who believe in a higher being but not necessarily the Christian God) circles about human beings created in the image of God. I think that what is normally meant by people who say this is that we are created with a soul or perhaps intelligence, thus distinguishing us from animals or other parts of creation. However, as I read the Fathers of the church, and particularly a group of fourth century Fathers known as the Cappadocians, it is becoming clear that the early Christians had a different definition of the image of God, one that was rooted in the question of what it means to be a person. (What follows is a bit theological and philosophical, but I will try to put it into understandable terms for both my readers and myself.)
The Greek philosophers did not have a clearly defined notion of a person. The closest they came was a "unique collection of properties." Thus, I am a person - the specific person Jackson Lashier - because I am a male, white, have freckles, have a right leg that is a bit shorter than the left, and the like. Though there may be other white males with freckles, there is no one else who has the exact same set of properties or characteristics that I do. While Christians incorporated this definition into their work, they expanded upon it, developing, as it were, a new vocabulary and a new definition of person.
So, the divine persons can also be defined as unique collections of properties. The Father is the Father because he is uncreated, he is the creator, etc. The Son is the Son because he is the one through whom all is created and he is the one who came to earth. The Spirit is the Spirit because he proceeds from the Father and he gives spiritual gifts etc. Thus, they are distinguished one from another, just as I am distinguished from my wife because, among other things, I am a male and she is a female.
But here is where it gets good. The Fathers believed that these unique sets of properties, though adequate for distinguishing the different members of the Trinity, were inadequate for making them persons. They took another step. What makes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit persons is that they exist in eternal communion with one another. To quote a Father: "There is apprehended among these three a certain ineffable and inconceivable communion." This communion is what moves them from the abstract notion of a "unique set of properties" to a person, and what distinguishes a Christian from a non Christian view of person.
What this means, I think, for the truth that we are created in the image of God is that we too are created to be in communion with others! The image of God in us is not simply our mind or soul, because people with minds and souls can be profoundly isolated. It means that we are created for relationship, the same kind that the Trinity has experienced for eternity. This is not to say that if someone is isolated that they are therefore not a person, but it is to say that, apart from vital communion, the fullness of our personhood and the image of God in us is not fully realized. This isolated person is in need of salvation. This is why the church is so important, and why the Christian life can never be simply "just God and me." The church puts us in communion with others and with the Trinity. Therefore, a crucial part of the salvation process is not simply "asking Jesus into one's heart," it's getting truly connected with others (Is it any wonder that the central act of the church is communion?)
This is the profound truth embedded in the words of Genesis 1:26, the key image of God text, which reads: "The God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness.'" And when he creates, what does he create, but a communion: "male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27).
I hope that I have somewhat articulated the profound truth that I am currently working through. If you want a much better discussion of the same idea, check out Dennis Kinlaw's book, Let's Start With Jesus. Besides being profound, it is extremely readable and accessible. I believe chapter 3 targets this issue.
The Greek philosophers did not have a clearly defined notion of a person. The closest they came was a "unique collection of properties." Thus, I am a person - the specific person Jackson Lashier - because I am a male, white, have freckles, have a right leg that is a bit shorter than the left, and the like. Though there may be other white males with freckles, there is no one else who has the exact same set of properties or characteristics that I do. While Christians incorporated this definition into their work, they expanded upon it, developing, as it were, a new vocabulary and a new definition of person.
So, the divine persons can also be defined as unique collections of properties. The Father is the Father because he is uncreated, he is the creator, etc. The Son is the Son because he is the one through whom all is created and he is the one who came to earth. The Spirit is the Spirit because he proceeds from the Father and he gives spiritual gifts etc. Thus, they are distinguished one from another, just as I am distinguished from my wife because, among other things, I am a male and she is a female.
But here is where it gets good. The Fathers believed that these unique sets of properties, though adequate for distinguishing the different members of the Trinity, were inadequate for making them persons. They took another step. What makes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit persons is that they exist in eternal communion with one another. To quote a Father: "There is apprehended among these three a certain ineffable and inconceivable communion." This communion is what moves them from the abstract notion of a "unique set of properties" to a person, and what distinguishes a Christian from a non Christian view of person.
What this means, I think, for the truth that we are created in the image of God is that we too are created to be in communion with others! The image of God in us is not simply our mind or soul, because people with minds and souls can be profoundly isolated. It means that we are created for relationship, the same kind that the Trinity has experienced for eternity. This is not to say that if someone is isolated that they are therefore not a person, but it is to say that, apart from vital communion, the fullness of our personhood and the image of God in us is not fully realized. This isolated person is in need of salvation. This is why the church is so important, and why the Christian life can never be simply "just God and me." The church puts us in communion with others and with the Trinity. Therefore, a crucial part of the salvation process is not simply "asking Jesus into one's heart," it's getting truly connected with others (Is it any wonder that the central act of the church is communion?)
This is the profound truth embedded in the words of Genesis 1:26, the key image of God text, which reads: "The God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness.'" And when he creates, what does he create, but a communion: "male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27).
I hope that I have somewhat articulated the profound truth that I am currently working through. If you want a much better discussion of the same idea, check out Dennis Kinlaw's book, Let's Start With Jesus. Besides being profound, it is extremely readable and accessible. I believe chapter 3 targets this issue.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
"The Incredibly Wonderful Mystery of Christ"
The other day I struck up a conversation with a fellow student in the Graduate School of Theology who is Catholic. As we often do in this world, somehow we landed on the subject of Christ. She made the comment that many people in her tradition struggle with the truth that Jesus was literally divine. "Can you believe that?" she asked. I replied: "Actually, most people I run into in my tradition struggle with the fact that he was literally human."
This somewhat amusing exchange reminded me of a quote from the great fifth century saint and Father Cyril of Alexandria, who in his theological masterpiece "On the Unity of Christ", wrote the following:
"Indeed the mystery of Christ runs the risk of being disbelieved precisely because it is so incredibly wonderful. For God was in humanity. He who was above all creation was in our human condition; the invisible one was made visible in the flesh; he who is from the heavens and from on high was in the likeness of earthly things; the immaterial one could be touched; he who is free in his own nature came in the form of a slave; he who blesses all of creation became accursed; he who is all righteousness was numbered among transgressors; life itself came in the appearance of death."
The insight that Cyril and the other Fathers of that era drew out of the Scriptures, is that Christ had to be both human and divine, otherwise we would be left in our sin - that precisely is the incredibly wonderful mystery of Christ.
I'm also reminded of a story told by a more recent saint, the late singer/songwriter Rich Mullins. Once a man approached him to say that he had used Mullins' "Awesome God" as the theme of a protest event. "What were you protesting?" Mullins asked.
"The movie "The Last Temptation of Christ," the man answered.
"Why were you protesting it?" Mullins asked.
The man replied, "Because it portrays Christ as human."
Mullins responded, "Oh. I thought that was the good news."
This somewhat amusing exchange reminded me of a quote from the great fifth century saint and Father Cyril of Alexandria, who in his theological masterpiece "On the Unity of Christ", wrote the following:
"Indeed the mystery of Christ runs the risk of being disbelieved precisely because it is so incredibly wonderful. For God was in humanity. He who was above all creation was in our human condition; the invisible one was made visible in the flesh; he who is from the heavens and from on high was in the likeness of earthly things; the immaterial one could be touched; he who is free in his own nature came in the form of a slave; he who blesses all of creation became accursed; he who is all righteousness was numbered among transgressors; life itself came in the appearance of death."
The insight that Cyril and the other Fathers of that era drew out of the Scriptures, is that Christ had to be both human and divine, otherwise we would be left in our sin - that precisely is the incredibly wonderful mystery of Christ.
I'm also reminded of a story told by a more recent saint, the late singer/songwriter Rich Mullins. Once a man approached him to say that he had used Mullins' "Awesome God" as the theme of a protest event. "What were you protesting?" Mullins asked.
"The movie "The Last Temptation of Christ," the man answered.
"Why were you protesting it?" Mullins asked.
The man replied, "Because it portrays Christ as human."
Mullins responded, "Oh. I thought that was the good news."
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
What is Theology?
I've come to believe that this question is critical for any follower of Christ to answer. For many, the ubiquitous authors Grenz and Olson immediately come to mind, will tell us that "everyone is a theologian." I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, but nevertheless it begs the all important question, what then is theology? I found the following anecdote, to which I am indebted to Father Alexander Golitzin, extremely helpful.
The standard Lexicon for classical Greek (Liddell and Scott), despite voluminous entries spanning pages and pages of miniscule type, lists only two definitions for theologia as used by the classical writers: 1. stories about the gods; and 2. rational discourse about divinity. We might identify our own thoughts with one of these two definitions. However, the standard Patristic Lexicon (covering the language of the Greek Fathers of the early centuries of the church) has five to six pages of entries following theologia. Theology was obviously a rich word to the Fathers, and one which acquired a number of different senses. The definitions take on a hierarchy of importance. To summarize, they are (in ascending order of importance): 1. rational discourse about divinity; 2. Holy Scripture (sometimes called "The Theology"); 3. the liturgy of both the angels and the church on earth (in other words, worship); 4. the visio dei or vision of God; and 5. Trinity, the highest form of theology.
What strikes me about the Fathers' use of theologia is that our place, if we have a place at all, is at the very bottom of this list, the rational discourse. But this rational discourse does not exist for its own benefit, a fact we can often forget in our loquaciousness. The purpose of the theology we do, insofar as it has a purpose, is merely to lead people to the higher forms - the Scriptures and the liturgy - where the Triune God will be experienced and seen. A very good reminder to all of us who aspire to be theologians.
The standard Lexicon for classical Greek (Liddell and Scott), despite voluminous entries spanning pages and pages of miniscule type, lists only two definitions for theologia as used by the classical writers: 1. stories about the gods; and 2. rational discourse about divinity. We might identify our own thoughts with one of these two definitions. However, the standard Patristic Lexicon (covering the language of the Greek Fathers of the early centuries of the church) has five to six pages of entries following theologia. Theology was obviously a rich word to the Fathers, and one which acquired a number of different senses. The definitions take on a hierarchy of importance. To summarize, they are (in ascending order of importance): 1. rational discourse about divinity; 2. Holy Scripture (sometimes called "The Theology"); 3. the liturgy of both the angels and the church on earth (in other words, worship); 4. the visio dei or vision of God; and 5. Trinity, the highest form of theology.
What strikes me about the Fathers' use of theologia is that our place, if we have a place at all, is at the very bottom of this list, the rational discourse. But this rational discourse does not exist for its own benefit, a fact we can often forget in our loquaciousness. The purpose of the theology we do, insofar as it has a purpose, is merely to lead people to the higher forms - the Scriptures and the liturgy - where the Triune God will be experienced and seen. A very good reminder to all of us who aspire to be theologians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
