Monthly Archives: August 2007 - Page 2

Zahl’s 25 Theses on Theology

Posted by on August 4, 2007 2 comments

I recently picked up a book by Paul F.M. Zahl entitled A Short Systematic Theology.  In his three-chapter book he expounds a highly Christocentric theology that is punctuated by a total of 25 theses on the nature of theology.  They are as follows:

  1.  Theology is Christology. (p. 7)
  2. The historical Jesus was the first Christian.  His teachings demonstrate it, his associations embody it, and his exorcisms confirm it. (p. 22)
  3. The connection between the historical Jesus and the present-day Christ is Easter Day of the year 29. (p. 24)
  4. In looking for the presence of the risen Christ now, we have nothing that is sufficient to withstand the “moth and rust” that corrupt (Matthew 6:9-20) amd nothing satisfactory to withstand the objection that forms of every kind can be subjected to the tirelessly self-interested human will. (p. 37)
  5. The risen Christ is present in his absence. (p. 36)
  6. The presence of Christ’s absence is found within the works of love. (p.37)
  7. The absent Christ is present in human love where and when such human love resembles his love when he was here. (p. 38)
  8. The risen Christ expands to reach the frontiers of the world and cosmos, geography and time.  Because he is, since the Ascension, nowhere in particular, he is, since the Ascension, everywhere in general.  But this “in general” is not the generality of the whole creation.  It is the generality of every expression of compassionate love. (p. 41)
  9. Christ is the subject of theology because he begins the conversation and also because he concludes it.  He concludes it in the sense that the final condition of life consists of the unending and unbroken position of access to him. (p. 43)
  10. Satan is the second subject of theology. (p. 43)
  11. The Holy Spirit is God’s unseen presence operating through the works of compassionate love and in closest relation to Providence.  (p. 46) [Note: This thesis is repeated on p. 49 as "The Holy Spirit is the presence of the risen Christ operating through the works of grace and in subjection to Providence."]
  12. The governing center of Christian theology is atonement. (p. 52)
  13. Christ died for our sins. (p. 53)
  14. Christ died for our sins. (p. 56)
  15. The “for-ness” of God in regard to the human race is prior in theology to the “with-ness” of God. (p. 59)
  16. Christ died for our sins. (p. 60)
  17. Christ died for our sins. (p. 69) [Note: this is further specified on on p. 71 to include and ground the doctrine of the Trinity]
  18. The Trinity is the developmental logic of systematic theology. (p. 73)
  19. The atonement conveys the God who is moved both by the suffering and by the sin of the world. (p. 76)
  20. The theological method is the same as the method that has been given to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) in the life of every Christian. This method is the gospel, which starts with self-criticism (i.e. repentance) and turns the human being by means of grace to the works of love.  The gospel of forgiveness of sin is the first principle of all theological thinking. (p. 81)
  21. The method of theology grounded in self-criticism and in the confidence of forgiveness from God produces freedom.  This fredome fosters the inductive study of all ideas and phenomena. (p. 82)
  22. The inductive method is the method of Christian theology.  Therefore, theology is not a recieved truth. (p. 84)
  23. In theology without constraints, tradition, on the one hand, and church, on the other, always play secondary roles. (p. 86)
  24. The critical method, both in theology and daily life, exorciszes the world of false gods and false assumptions. (p. 88)
  25. The world exists in the time between the blood of Christ and our death.  The Spirit acts in the present through freedom enaged within the works of love. (p. 89)

The theses I found most interesting were 7-10 and 21.  Certainly, I think some of these theses are problematic (theses 4, 11, 22, and 23 especially beg some major questions), but there was much to chew on here in a small book.

 What do you think of these theses?

Let us always remember…

Posted by on August 3, 2007 Comments Off

http://jeremiahandrews.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/theology.gifhttp://jeremiahandrews.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/theology.gif

Wright is a Good Writer

Posted by on August 3, 2007 Comments Off

Whatever you think of N.T. Wright, you have to love this. 

“Bultmann’s demythologized Jesus sipmly does not belong in the first century; try reading Jesus and the Word straight after reading Josephus.”  (Jesus and the Victory of God, 658)

Brilliant.

John Zizioulas on Intelligent Design?

Posted by on August 3, 2007 4 comments

I’m now reading what I take to be the best book written by an Orthodox theologian in the last 20 years, with the possible exception of Hart’s The Beauty of the Infinite.  John Zizioulas’ Communion and Otherness is a masterpiece that is not only beautifully Eastern, but philosophically erudite and which engages meaningfully with Western theology.  Herein Zizioulas further develops, refines, and defends his relational ontology of personhood that he first put forth in Being as Communion.  Central to his new book is properly configuring the relationship between Otherness, Freedom, and Communion, all of which he takes to be ontologically primordial, and in some sense coterminous. 

Here’s a quote which spurred my thoughts in relation to the whole idea of “intelligent design”, a newish favorite idea among apologetically-minded evangelicals.

What the scientist sees today as a relational, indeterminate, ‘chaotic’ universe does not call simply for a creator God, but for a God who is so personal as to be capable of self-modification to the point of lending his very ‘mode of being’ to constitute and sustain the being of creation. (p. 32)

What Zizioulas means by “self-modification” is made explicit in the book where he, following Maximus the Confessor argues that ontologically we must distinguish between the ‘what’ of being (its logos) and the ‘how’ of being (its tropos).  Thus, Zizioulas argues that in Christ, God “modifies” his tropos, his “mode of being” in such a way as to assume humanity and all of creation in such a way for it to participate in the divine life, without thereby confusing the logos of God with the logoi of creation.  Thus, creation has true, ontological communion with God, through his “mode of being” as the incarnate Son.  Thus, there is an ontological relationship between creator and creation, but because it takes place through the tropos of God as the Son, it is not as a relationship of fusion or confusion between divinity and humanity but of communion in otherness, which is to say communion in freedom.

The point I take to be interesting about the above quote is that Zizioulas rightly notes that the dynamic and chaotic nature of the world that is noted today by science points not to the need to posit an intelligent designer, but a Redeemer who will graciously elect to bring created being into communion with an imperishable, transcendent life.  What we see in creation, as fallen is not an intelligently designed world, but a world whose very be-ing cries out for ontological liberation – from death – in the Triune life.  

Harry Potter & Theology

Posted by on August 2, 2007 2 comments

With the release of the latest Harry Potter book there has been a flurry of interesting theo-blogger posts evaluating the fascinating theological emphases in the final – and clearly most theological – book in this popular series.

Ben opens up a great discussion of the theological themes in Harry Potter.  Alastair at Aversaria has a great post on Boggarts illustrating some important points about fear, evil and the power of truth as seen in Harry Potter.  And Jon MacKenzie has an interesting post on Poteriology.

Being a late-comer to the series and a terrible person for spoilers, I’ve read all this stuff and haven’t yet finished the series.  But I have given my word that I will, and hopefully that will redeem my flagrant participation in reading spoilers.  Regardless, I think there are some great theological themes in Harry Potter, the most profound of which is the power of love over death, as embodied in one the greatest verses in the Bible, which also is quoted in Harry Potter: “The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” (1 Cor. 15:26)

The Westminster Confession is Heretical

Posted by on August 1, 2007 49 comments

The second chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith is entitled “Of God, and of the Holy Trinity”.  The statement consists of three articles, the first two of which expound that God is a “a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions” and that this God is “immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible”.  After expouding these, and other classical themes regarding the attributes of God, there is a final section which briefly says that “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity” and that the Father is unbegotton while the Son is begotten by the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

This statement of faith is heretical from the title on.  It assumes that God and the Trinity are two different things.  And thus it goes on to say that the three persons subsist “in the unity of the Godhead”.  This assumes that the unity of the Godhead itself is not constituted by the Three, but underlies them as some sort of “fourth”.  Thus, the Westminster Confession posits a “god” behind and beneath the Holy Trinity which is modalism.  Of course all this is to be expected when the opening two statments (by far longer) exposit all the real content of what we know about God in a manner totally independent of God’s revelation in Christ.  In contrast, according to the Christian faith God is the Trinity and this is revealed through God’s action through Christ in the Spirit. 

 The Westminster Confession is theology at its worst.  It is sub-Christian and posits a generic God as the “real” deity and then tries to tack on Jesus and the Trinity as an irrelevant afterword.  Christian theology must repudiate statements such as this.

The Christian Intellectual Life

Posted by on August 1, 2007 4 comments

Much ink has been spilt over the question of what it might mean to be a Christian intellectual.  Often such books are either laments concerning the anti-intellectualism in the church or apologetic pleas to the church that intellectualism, or “the life of the mind” be viewed as a valid Christian practice.  Whatever the book or article, there is generally always some sort of perceived gap between the church and the academy. 

This, I would suggest is primarily, if not exclusively the fault of the academy.  The academy, at least in its modern incarnation (and this point is key) sequesters the intellectual life from the church, and then academic theologians are flabbergasted when the church ceases to be intellectual! 

I don’t think there is a “solution” to this problem other than to insist that the academy must undergo a massive change if it is to properly serve the church.  The nature of this change is not easily synthesizable.  However, I would suggest that some thoughts in this direction can be gleaned from monasticism.  It has been monastic orders throughout the ages who have found ways of integrating service, communal life, contemplative spirituality, and academic study into an integrated form of life which serves the church and the world.  If the academy is going to again become an ecclesially based reality, and thereby stimulate a vibrantly Christian intellectual life that is profoundly ecclesial, I think that it must become more monastic in shape and practice.  

Switch to our mobile site