Alastair's Adversaria

This afternoon I had the opportunity to hear Richard Bauckham lecture on the subject of the historicity of the gospels (thanks to Jon for organizing this and other RTSF meetings). I found Bauckham’s comments very helpful and thought that some might be interested in reading a copy of my notes. Continue reading →

Mark Searle, the late Roman Catholic liturgist, has written a number of deep and thought-provoking works. Reading a collection of his essays a few months ago — Vision: The Scholarly Contributions of Mark Searle to Liturgical Renewal — I was immediately struck by the quality of Searle’s scintillating explorations of the various topics that he addressed. Whether one agrees with him or not, each one of Searle’s essays provides much food for thought. For various reasons I was prompted to revisit one of his essays yesterday and I thought that I would make a few comments on it.

In ‘The Pedagogical Function of the Liturgy’ Searle explores the manner in which the pedagogical process of the liturgy works. He observes that the liturgy is often perceived in the light of the teacher/taught model of pedagogy. Those following this model will focus on ‘such opportunities as the liturgy provides for explicit teaching: introductions, Scripture readings, commentaries, sermons, exhortations.’

This model is called into question by those who appreciate the broader socialization that takes place during the liturgy. Much of the training that the liturgy provides us with is received by us in unreflective and subliminal ways. The process of education that takes place in the liturgy is a lot less structured than some might suppose it to be.

In the modern environment, the ‘socialization’ that the liturgy gives has been problematized by the pluralism of modern society. There is always a danger that the world into which the liturgy of Christian worship socializes us will be marginalized by the many other worlds in which we are participants. No longer is there the ‘total community’ that once used to exist.

Appreciating the unconscious and subliminal ways in which the liturgy socializes us, many Church leaders and liturgists have sought to determine the content of the liturgy and use it to inculcate the values that they hold to. In many respects this raises the problem of the character of the relationship between Church leaders and theologians and the Church as a whole. If the content of the liturgy is selected by the leaders of the Church as a means to socialize the members of the Church in a particular way, doesn’t the liturgy become an ‘exercise of power’? Continue reading →

There has been some recent debate over a controversial book by Steve Chalke which you have endorsed. Chalke has warned that some versions of penal substitution can reduce God to a “cosmic child abuser.” Would you agree with his analysis and do you see that as a danger?

ANSWER: There are some ways of preaching and expounding penal substitution which do indeed reduce it to the crude terms of God demanding that someone suffer and not caring much who it is. This is an attempt to put the vast ocean of God’s saving love into the small bottle of one particular category. When you track penal substitution from its NT statements (Mark 10.45, Romans 8.3, etc etc) back to its roots in Isaiah 53, you discover that in its proper form it is part of a much larger theme, which is God’s vindication of his justice and saving love and his demolition of pagan power and authority. Sometimes evangelicals haven’t wanted to embrace or even notice the larger themes and so have falsely accentuated the sharp edge of penal substitution in isolation from them. I think Steve is reacting to that kind of skewed presentation. Think of it like this. In a musical chord, the ‘third’ (in a chord of C major, this would be the note E) is the critical one that tells you many things, e.g. whether the music is major or minor, happy or sad. That E is vital if the music is to make the sense it does. But if the player plays the E and nothing else, the E no longer means what it’s meant to mean. Likewise, substitutionary atonement is a vital element in the gospel. Miss it out, and the music of the gospel is no longer what it should be. But if you only play that note you are in danger of setting up a different harmony altogether…

Read the rest of N.T. Wright’s recent answers to the Wrightsaid list here.

We talk about God being one and many. The ‘Many’ are the three Persons of the Trinity, but what or who is the ‘One’? The Eastern Orthodox theologian, John Zizioulas, argues that the ‘One’ is not the total, overall unity, but the Father. For Zizioulas the one and the many are mutually constitutive. The Father is the ‘Head’ of the Trinity, just as Christ is the Head of the Church and the man is the head of the woman. Christ is a member of the Church, just as the Father is one of the ‘Many’ (three Persons of the Trinity). However, both Christ and the Father secure the oneness of the Church and the Trinity respectively as the many are constituted relative to them.

I find this approach attractive in a number of respects. However, it seems to differ from the common Western approach, which seems to be that of regarding the perichoresis of Persons as the one nature. I was wondering what others think of this.

Is there any way in which we can bring the two approaches together somehow? The unity of the Trinity is found in a Personal structural bond. The Father is the absolute Person. The Son is the ‘language’ of the Trinity, the One in whom God comes to know Himself. The Spirit is the bond of communion.

When we talk about the ‘one flesh’ union between man and wife, what particularly does that ‘one flesh’ union consist in? Is the headship of the husband an aspect of this one flesh union? I think that it is. Is the self-giving in which the husband gives himself to the wife and the wife to the husband an aspect of this one flesh union? I think that it is. Can the concrete union in biological offspring be an aspect of this one flesh union? One could argue that it is.

Is the unity of the Godhead something similar in character, to the degree that it cannot be reduced to one single thing (e.g. it does not consist in the Father being the arche alone)? The divine unity of self-knowledge is perhaps primarily to be associated with the Son; the divine unity of communion may be primarily associated with the Spirit; the arche of divine personhood is the Father. The unity of the Trinity is found in the Father’s begetting of the Son in the Spirit. Within this act of eternal generation, each of the Persons secures the divine unity in a particular way. However, we must recognize the complex character of divine unity and resist the temptation to think that we have said everything about the oneness of God when we have spoken, as Zizioulas does, about the Father as the arche of the Triune Persons.

Thoughts?

The goal of this extremely long post is that of giving as accurate a description of the various approaches to the doctrine of justification that exist within FV circles as I can. I was recently asked to give my thoughts on this subject on a web forum that I was a participant in. I thought that I would share my rough thoughts with my blog readers. I am not sure that I feel qualified to adequately trace the various lines of argumentation in this complex debate. If anyone wants to dispute an aspect of my account, please do so. I am quite open to constructive critique of my representation of the FV.

I see a number of loosely related approaches to justification within FV circles. There are a set of concerns on the table. Some of these concerns are more deeply held by some parties in the conversation, others are held more closely by others.

Continue reading →