Several years ago, I considered myself an absolute pacifist. To make a long story short, I spent years defending a pacifist reading of the Old and New Testament to my Reformed peers. Unfortunately, I lacked a theological framework that would help me to make sense of the overall Scriptural narrative. Particularly, I had a hard time understanding how I could believe that it is always wrong to do violence, while at the same time believing that God had commanded extreme acts of violence in the Old Testament times without resorting to a dispensational hermeneutic.
I was introduced to The Politics of Jesus via the writings of Duke University professor, Stanley Hauerwas. I turned to Hauerwas because he was a prominent opponents of the Iraq war following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and most importantly to me, he opposed it as a Christian. Living in the Bible-belt and being surrounded by warmongers was starting to get to me, so his non-Americocentric perspective felt (and still does) like a breath of fresh air. Hauerwas seemed to believe that the writings of John Howard Yoder were profoundly important for understanding how a Christian could love and adhere to the complete testimony of the Scriptures while at the same time holding to a strictly pacifist ethic.
As such, I bought my own copy of The Politics of Jesus and began reading ardently through the book in hopes of filling in the missing pieces of my puzzle. I made pretty thorough notes as I read through the book, summarizing what I was reading in hopes of someday sharing my findings with others. The end of my journey (so far) was a little less dramatic than I had hoped. I ended up basically rejecting Yoder's views because I felt it required too much of a theological shift for my own comfort. Where Yoder saw politics in the New Testament, I saw personal salvation. In fact, Yoder seemed to attack people like me who favored a reading of the New Testament which understood the narrative as being more about salvation than about politics.
One of my favorite points which Yoder makes is that wars between nations prevent unity in the body of Christ since Christians from each nation end up subconsciously being nationalists instead of Christians, favoring their own country almost by default. Such biases are difficult to overcome when it comes to matters of war. Pacifism certainly seems to prevent such errors, but as we will see in my study of Yoder, I believe this to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Given my current brief conversation with Jared S. in my Unprofessional Music Review of Derek Webb's new album, I have something of a renewed spark of interest in Yoder and have decided to share what I found when reading through The Politics of Jesus. Also, it seems more and more that I am detecting Yoder's influence in theological conversations, so perhaps my timing on this "series" will be apropos.
In addition, the more I think about it, it becomes obvious to me that Yoder's views stands as a direct contrast to the Two Kingdoms model, and as such I think we all may derive a great deal of benefit from reading Yoder even if we end up disagreeing with him.
Please note that if you are a Yoder fan expecting a glowing summary, you should look elsewhere; I plan mostly to summarize Yoder's work, but I will not restrain myself from pointing out where disagreements (and agreements) occur when I cannot help myself.
A Brief Redemptive-History of Animals
3 hours ago
19 comments:
Sounds fun. I took a 'stab' at exploring how 2K is not necessarily antithetical to pacifism here.
If Nick or Josh reads this, they might recall one of our conversations over pizza about something similar…
Chris,
I do recall that conversation. If memory serves me right, we were in substantial agreement in that conversation, right?
I should probably be clear on something. It is not my contention that 2K is in conflict with pacifism; I think your post, Chris, makes clear that this is by no means the case. But it DOES, prima facie, conflict with Yoderian pacifism's contention that Jesus was, through and through, a political leader.
Part of the reason I'm doing this is because I want to be corrected on my understanding of Yoder where errors exist (and they do). As such, maybe someone will straighten me out and show me why Yoder's pacifism and the 2K model aren't in conflict, after all.
Indeed, Josh, you and I more than others, if I remember correctly.
Adam, that point was left somewhat ambiguous in the post, so thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if you were saying that you had "graduated" out of some kind of pacifism as a result of 2K.
Having read this more personal post, in terms of your theological journey, it seems to me that (and rightly so) your reading of Yoder will be colored by your prior theological readings of Paul. I suspect we will encounter Romans as the pivotal locus where differing interpretations converge. The theological reading of Romans that sustains Yoder/Hauerwas' position is related to the New Perspective on Paul, though not necessarily committed to everything that fits under that perspective. Probably the most helpful book for you to see how it all fits together will be Doug Harink's "Paul among the Post-liberals" where he does an in depth analysis of how Paul is treated by Yoder, Hauerwas, and Richard Hays. The link that was suggested to you on your Derek Webb post was to a blog where Harink was actually one of the main contributors to the discussion!
You might also want to read, if you haven't already, as background for the new perspective, Krister Stendahl's famous essay: "Paul and the Introspective Conscious of the West." in which he dismantles Luther's reading of Paul (which he gets from Augustine). This is germane to the discussion because the tradition which you seem to favor reads Paul as focused primarily on the individual and their plagued conscious as Paul's primary theological motivation, whereas the new perspective (a name i hate) sees it as the triumph of Christ's faithfulness over sin, inaugurating the kingdom of God. Thus salvation for the two schemas are radical different. For the one, individual salvation whose mark is the absolved conscious and for the other, corporate salvation whose mark is the risen Christ.
All of these new perspective arguments have their theological roots in Barth's "The Epistle to the Romans." You will also find the primary thrust, in terms of the new testament text and the textual argument for them, stemming from Richard Hayes' famous dissertation "The Faith of Christ" and the pistis christou controversy. Though these arugments are not all NECESSARILY linked, they sure do aid one another.
I would be interested to know how much of this you have heard/read before, or whether this is all coming out of left field for you.
the article can be found here. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1508631
a good critique of it can be found here:
http://www.thepaulpage.com/Stendahl.html
Well, Jared, the discussion of the New Perspective is one that I am loosely familiar with, since those I run with theologically have spent a great amount of time discussing it. While I have not read the folks from the New Perspective personally, I have read John Piper's book which was written as a response to N.T. Wright. In my readings of this book, I had brief thoughts of Yoder (because Wright also argues that the Gospel is not primarily about getting people to heaven). I had not considered any direct links between Yoder and the NPP - mainly because TPJ was written back in the 70's and this seems to be such a contemporary discussion.
You may recall my saying in a previous post that my main bone to pick with Yoder was this exact issue of minimizing (in my judgment) the aspect of personal salvation which Jesus came to bring to his people and bringing out the political/social elements of Jesus' ministry.
I don't mind the one so long as it isn't a detriment to the other, but I have a feeling this is going to continue to get in the way (as I previously suspected) of my being able to take all of Yoder's argument seriously. I'm glad you made this clear for me, because I had quietly suspected a link here with the New Perspective; I just had nothing solid to go on.
I suspected as much, seeing on your main page the names Calvin, Edwards, and Piper, that that would be your experience of my position, though i wanted to leave open the possibility that you had had some personal interaction with the issue as a result of your surprising interest in Hauerwas and Yoder (critical though it will undoubtedly be, in some respects).
To be forthright, 7 years ago I would have been exactly where you are on most all issues. Double predestination, Lordship salvation, the sovereignty of God, Piper's Desiring God was my favorite book, points of Calvinism was a common debate I had, etc. And then I underwent my "conversion" to what Harink calls the "Post-liberal" tradition. Interestingly, it was precisely because of my background that made this transition so fluid, and so easy. I was supremely committed to the Sovereignty of God (a point I suspect you would sympathize with). And you may be surprised to learn that it is PRECISELY because I am still committed to this principle that I converted to post-liberalism. So how is my position more committed to God's supremacy than the one I previously held?
To answer I would have to diatribe. But as I think/hope it may be of interest to you...
Enlightenment (liberal) accounts of man (his reason, individuated personhood, etc) center on man as the supreme being of the universe (i will leave to Hauerwas the technical proofs of this). Obviously to Christians who believe in God, this is repugnant. Yet most all modern theology is bent towards proving that mankind is indeed the center of the Universe. What I had needed was Hauerwas' critique of liberalism to discern in what ways my previous theology was implicitly liberal. Now, liberal in this sense doesn't mean democrat, as it usually does to people who hold my former opinions. I was on the middle right of most things (and the far right on others). Liberal means philosophically liberal, committed to enlightenment notions of personhood, rationality, reason, and their accounts of epistemology and faith. I came to learn that my theology had been put in the service of furthering liberal nation/state politics (were there any greater war-mongers than evangelicals after 9-11?). And it was only after understanding this that I was able to paradigm shift to the new perspective (though i hate the term because I would say it was recovering the old one).
In preparation for this response, I read up on Piper's response to the new perspective, and found exactly what i expected. A misreading (and some really bad theology flowing from it). Piper's interpretative eyes are blind to the new position because his position is enslaved to liberal modernity. One example from an interview on his website :
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Interviews/2446_Interview_with_John_Piper_About_The_Future_of_Justification_A_Response_to_N_T_Wright/
"Bob Allen: What do you see as the damage to the church that could come from what N.T. Wright is saying here?
John Piper: Justification—being counted by God as righteous with the perfect obedience and righteousness of Jesus Christ credited to my account—is, I think, a key to the doctrine of assurance and a key to what it means to preach the Gospel. I don’t think we’ll preach the Gospel fully and faithfully if we don’t offer this gift in the preaching of the Gospel. And I don’t think we’ll help people who struggle with sin if we can’t point them backward to the moment of justification, when God moved from being against them to for the. So the Gospel seems to be at stake in how you preach it and how you offer salvation. And the ongoing enjoyment of fellowship with God is at stake."
Notice what is fundamental for Piper in rejecting Wright. Though ultimately he goes on to say it is God's glory, it is the how that is interesting. He says that God's glory is at stake with what he sees as Wright's misreading because without Piper's "traditional" understanding of justification, people won't have the assurance they need to worship God. So Piper's understanding of justification is driven by radical self-interest, first on behalf of a God who only loves himself and then on behalf of individuals, who need assurance that this self-loving god won't damn them for not loving him as much as he loves himself. It is this self-interested account of creation and salvation that scares me. There is no room in it for God to really be for the other, nor room for us to love God for who he is and not because of our fear that we might burn in hell for our failure to do so.
So the gospel for Piper becomes nothing more than exactly what Krister Stendahl says it did for Luther (who Piper loves), a means of assurance. The gospel is all the way through anthropomorphized for Piper. The Gospel isn't about what God has done in Jesus Christ to conquer the powers of Sin and Death, it is about how you can salve your pained conscience and avoid the fires of hell if only you can believe a certain set of doctrines.
I mean, look at what he says: "And I don’t think we’ll help people who struggle with sin if we can’t point them backward to the moment of justification, when God moved from being against them to for them."
I would argue that our justification happened 2000 years ago, when God became man and triumphed over Sin and Death in the resurrection. This is the "point" we can look back to as the moment of our justification. Not some brief 5 minute period a few years ago when I had the decency to recognize the truth, that Jesus Christ is Lord!
In the final analysis, Piper's gospel makes man the primary character of the story of the gospel. His creation, his sin, his pained conscience, his salvation by faith (which Piper would define as believing a set of doctrines). An anthropocentric story that fits right in with the enlightenment.
I believe in the new perspective (though not always with what Wright conceives it to be) because its gospel is driven by love and not fear. And therefore, its God receives greater glory because it requires a bigger God. God is the primary character of this story, not man. God sees his good creation enslaved to Sin and Death and unilateral acts to redeem it. Therefore the glory is his, and not the man who believes. And to that extent this position isn't enslaved to the Enlightenment's man fetish.
Up until this point, Jared, you have been the definition of charity. Then, you figured out where I was coming from and you overreached, my friend.
Let me back up a bit. I'm not sure how well acquainted you are with Piper, but it seems like you know his preaching well enough to know that his emphasis - moreso than many in the evangelical world - is one of the most profoundly God-centered that you can think of. This makes me believe that your characterization of him as preaching a man-centered gospel is something beyond a strawman.
You are critical of this idea that we should be afraid of Hell, but Jesus himself warns us to be afraid of Hell and tells us just how horrible it is. Why would he do that if he didn't want us to fear it? (Or is your issue simply with the emphasis on hell in preaching?)
You are critical of the idea that the gospel can be reduced (isn't reductionism something Hauerwas is opposed to?) to nothing more than attaining assurance, and yet the Bible is full of references to personally finding assurance of your own salvation (Phil. 2:12; 2 Pe. 1:10). It is not an either/or proposition, here. It is a both/and. There is room in the gospel for saving sinners AND social action.
I'm really not interested in defending a man, but I'm far more interested in the ideas. I realize you're just using Piper as an example of the problems you have with the traditional perspective on Paul, but your characterization of him darkens things for me, rather than illuminating, since I don't think this interview you've read offers much clarity. Piper has written a book entitled God is the Gospel and there Piper deals quite a bit with evangelicalism's man-centered ideas about what the Gospel is. In particular, he asserts that the greatest gift that God gives to us is not reduced to salvation or assurance, but rather - God Himself. God gives us Himself, because there is no greater gift which He could share with us. Sure this saves us and keeps us out of hell; of course he believes that. But the main message Piper employs is that the Gospel is all about God, and not the gifts that He communicates. Since I have read this book and understand his ideas, I am certain it doesn't square with your contention that for Piper, "The Gospel isn't about what God has done in Jesus Christ to conquer the powers of Sin and Death, it is about how you can salve your pained conscience and avoid the fires of hell if only you can believe a certain set of doctrines."
You may be able to see why I think your characterization is overreaching.
I'm still looking forward to your input as I move forward in Yoder. I have really appreciated the clarity you've given me about what I'm reading through. At present, I'm very interested in a radical form of obedience to Christ that might involve nonviolence, but I'm pretty sure that Yoder's version of it cannot be made to square with the rest of my theology.
Ironically, the purpose of my previous post had the intention of finding common ground between us. I was hoping to relay a shared underlying theological assumption, namely the Supremacy of God. I had thought it unfair, with your theological assumptions and person spiritual journey made evident in your blog, that all you knew of me was that I attended Duke (which really shouldn't tell you much because of the ecumenical nature of the institution). Thus I had attempted both to share my background in the first of the two posts and in the second, to show that the background we share was the exact thing that led me to the "new perspective." This was the intent with which I wrote them, anyway. As I read the posts themselves, I see how it is possible to interpret them as more critical than confessional. This was unintentional (except for the critique of Piper, which of course was intentionally). Unfortunately, due to the nature of blogging and the lack of a personal history for you to draw on, I fear my intentions were thwarted in your interpretation of my responses. Hopefully this goes some way in mitigating what you felt was off- base in regards to form.
To the matter of content: having been on both sides of this issue, I was merely trying to clear the way for hurdles I could sense in your statements to understanding Yoder's argument as I see them (which began this boondoggle that we seem to be verging on).
My mention of the "new perspective" was an attempt to show how the inheritors of Yoder's work are interpreting Scripture, as your primary criticisms of Yoder seemed to be of an interpretive nature. The new perspective is not the only way to be faithful to Yoder. But it is the most prevalent and, in my estimation, the most cogent. Seeing this, I had tried to suggest to you ways of seeing Yoder bolstered by Scripture that would I think clarify his arguments, and, I had hoped, foment assent.
However, due to your overwhelmingly negative experience of the "new perspective" that you received from Piper, I had attempted to critique his position sufficiently (though not thoroughly) to hopefully allow you to see what Yoder was saying without the pejorative taint Piper would place on the new perspective. To accomplish this I had thought to demonstrate how Piper's theological positions are his inheritance from Modernity, received through a particular reading of Luther/other reformation figures, who themselves paved the enlightenment's way. In no way was this intended to "prove" that this was the case, but only to say that the case could be made. Or in other words, I need only show that it is possible that Piper's theology (which affects his view of the new perspective) was determined by his liberal inheritance. The purpose of this enterprise was to provoke your reconsideration of the new perspective, so that you might be able to better assess its merit. Thus, I was not intent on highly nuancing my critique of Piper because I deemed it unnecessary.
For better or worse, the invective of Piper in the article colored my response to his work. Not only was his interview deceptive in its vary nature (posing as a thoughtful interview- when in reality it was a sales pitch for his book, Bob Allen lobbing softballs to Piper [interestingly, Bob Allen is a professional salesman]), I found his overall tone to be condescending. Perhaps this affected my verbiage more than it should have. Piper and I are in agreement on a number of things, though of course the way we would articulate our agreements would expose the overall nature of our disagreements. I will respond to your points about Piper in particular in a separate post. For now i wanted to clarify myself, in hopes that doing so might mollify our dialogue.
I understand, Jared. Like I said; almost everything you've said has been very charitable and not at all polemic. The tone changed with the Piper post, and I felt compelled to disagree with your assessment, which demonstrated, I think, our prima facie differences.
In your next response, I was wondering if you could explain where this idea that what the "old perspective" is saying comes from liberalism. I mean, when I read someone like Piper (since we're using him in this example as a representative), it doesn't sound a whole lot different in many respects to something you might read from - say, St. Augustine (who far outdates the emergence of liberalism, I think you'll agree).
Now to your points about Piper:
Like you I relish theological discourse, and am not interested in defending or criticizing the man himself. However, I have to disagree with your statement that this interview offers nothing important for understanding Piper, as I believe this interview (as most candid responses do) provides a lot in regards to interpreting Piper's theology. He cannot hide behind well chosen, ambiguous words, but must clearly state himself.
I would like to thank you for your bringing to my attention Piper's work in "God is the Gospel." I am in the process of thumbing through it now. {personal note: having looked through the index, I suspect this is going to be a typical Piper book, which doesn't bode well for my liking it I'm afraid. He hasn't done anything approaching academic research, nor put forward an argument in the conventional sense, but he simply proof-texts his assertions with decontextualized scripture cites. He engages no premodern scholars (his citations of Bernard and St. Athansius don't count, for reasons which I think are obvious - Oh that Piper had actually understood Athanasius, as his Reformed counterparts the Torrences do in St. Andrews!), and the only modern scholars he cites are Edwards and Calvin (and of course - the second-most cited person in the book - himself!). All of this to say that Piper isn't interested in drawing through the larger Christian tradition (nor even a fair representation of the Reformed one), regardless of whether the audience is scholarly or lay. As a seminary student I hope it is obvious to you why this type of book is academically and theologically unconscionable).}
I am of course in agreement with his overall (orthodox) point, which (i believe?) he takes from Edwards: that God is himself the Gospel. This is nothing new. Augustine, Aquinas, and for that matter Paul all believed this. I just wish that John Piper actually did.
In response to Wright's assertion that Jesus Christ is the gospel, look at what Piper says:
"Now, I find that misleading at best, because to declare the lordship of Jesus and say that’s the gospel, rather than the gospel being an explanation of how to be saved overlooks the problem that, for the person who has been in treason against the Lord of the universe all his life, the resurrection is not good news. It’s really bad news...How can that be that good news for him unless you begin to explain the meaning of Jesus’ death and what he achieved. What makes the resurrection good news is that now reconciliation with God can be enjoyed by faith, and you can move from being on the wrong side to the right side. All of that is a necessary explanation of what makes the resurrection of Jesus Christ “gospel.” "
Wright was asserting that the "good news" is that Jesus Christ is Lord. As I have mentioned, for Wright and the new perspective this means that Jesus as God has given himself to us (i.e. God is the Gospel). But look at what Piper says:
"what makes the resurrection good news is that now reconciliation with God can be enjoyed by faith, and you can move from being on the wrong side to the right side."
Notice that the news only becomes good for Piper when a person believes in it. Otherwise, it is bad news! That is to say, it is only gospel for people when the news is received by the individual, who makes it good. So if God is the good news, why do I need to receive it for it to be good? That would just make it good news FOR ME. This is in my estimation the essential difference that Piper hasn't understood about the new perspective. While I might participate in the goodness of the Good News through my faith, my faith doesn't make it Good. God does! That is why HE is the GOOD NEWS.
If you have understood this nuance, subtle though it seems, I hope you see why I am accusing Piper's gospel of anthropocentrism. Man controls what makes the news good in Piper's schema.
On the other hand, I believe that what makes the news good is God becoming man and conquering Sin in the resurrection. Whether or not I accept it, it is Good that God has come in the person of Christ and united himself with our lowly nature. Had Piper actually understood Athanasius, he would have discerned that this is the central aspect of his incarnational Christology (especially in "On the Incarnation").
It is good for Christ to come, even when he is rejected. I believe this was as true of his first coming as it will be with his second.
To your other points:
No, I am not critical of the idea that we should be afraid of hell. I am critical of the idea that our fear of hell is what makes the news good. As Piper would have it, the good news is that the way has been paved for me to have faith in God, and move from "the wrong side" to the "right side." Implicit in his framework is the necessary fear of hell that drives the individualistic desire to move from the bad side to the good one. Look at the grammar of his sentence in the quote above as he rejects Wright. He seems to presuppose that the gospel must ALSO be about how to "get saved."
What I suspect Piper doesn't realize is that he is masking additional propositions to his doctrine of "God is the gospel." God is the gospel, yes, but only if by gospel we mean the chance for the individual to "get saved" by believing that God is the good news. I hope you see how Piper's grammar implodes at this point. "God is the chance for the individual to be saved by believing that God is the good news." Absolute nonsense.
I suspect that Piper would have done much better to retain his original title for his book: "Nonsense Happens." (i couldn't resist.)
As I would have it, however, the news is not good because its consequences result in my escape plan from hell. It is good because God has condescended to purify and unite us with himself. He is the Good News. Whether I believe it or not.
To your point about assurance: yes we are to have assurance. Our faith is our assurance (Heb). Our salvation, however, is Jesus Christ, our salvation is not our faith. This has to do with the pistis christou controversy I referenced earlier, but which i believe to be beyond the scope of our conversation at present.
I look forward to seeing your wrestle with Yoder and hope that, even if in the last analysis you find his evidence lacking, you are able to find a way to make your desire towards pacifism concomitant with your theology.
Ill respond to your question on Augustine and liberalism tomorrow. its 1 am where i am...and I just saw that you responded while i composed the second half.
I appreciate what you have said, and I can even see what you are saying. I certainly don't agree with it, and I have a feeling this is ground that has been tread more ably by other better theologians than myself.
I'm tempted to say that it is equivocating to say, "No I am not a universalist, yes I believe that people must repent of their sins and turn to Jesus in order to be saved, but your gospel message doesn't say that it's good news for those who do not believe, and that's wrong." See, to me, it is just as easy to ask you a very honest, point-blank question: "What is so good about the Gospel if somebody can refuse to believe it, and then following their death, face the wrath of God in hell?" I know, I know, you want to know why avoiding hell is such good news, but really - I don't want a cookie-cutter "I'm a new perspective guy" answer to this question - I really want to know. If the Gospel exists objectively, and it is good (I'd agree), what real, lasting benefit is it for the persistent unbeliever? As much as I rack my brain, I can think of no benefit, beyond the peripheral benefits to society of having gospel believers among you who live like Jesus told them to live. Or do you simply want to insist that it's just important that we say the gospel is always objectively true and leave it at that?
Because even then you still end up nuancing things and saying, well of course if you want the benefits of the gospel you must still do all that stuff Piper says about believing the gospel. Do you agree that I am fairly characterizing what you're trying to tell me?
Even if I can see both sides of this, and even if I grant, "Okay, Piper does make acceptance of the gospel the condition of whether it is good or not," how does that change anything at all? How is this not simply hair-splitting?
To your question about liberalism:
This is, as I have said, almost the entirety of Hauerwas' theological project, i.e. the proof of liberalism's effect on the church in the theology of modernity and post-modernity. You will find perhaps more satisfying answers there. But I will briefly respond to your specific question. The reason that Augustine doesn't sound different in tone from your tradition is that your tradition has a very specific reading of Augustine. In fact, he is about the only church father that Reformation theologians cite with any frequency (for the obvious reason that they want his predestination, though not always its metaphysical underpinnings). In reality, there are two Augustines, an earlier and a later. So it depends on what you read of his that might sound different from your theology. Whereas your tradition favors the later Augustine, mine would tend to prefer the earlier. I myself rather like both Augustines. I cite De Doctrina and De Trinitate all the time. I actually use his metaphysics received through Aquinas to support my understanding of the gospel, which I will use to answer your other question.
And yes Augustine certainly outdates the philosophical movement of liberalism. However, this doesn't mean that his ideas didn't in some way contribute to its invention, though i am not implying that this is the case (sidebar, it is currently being argued among post-liberals whether or not Augustine did in fact do so). If I remember correctly, Krister Stendahl specifically addresses the issue of Augustine in his reading of Luther in "Paul and the introspective conscience of the west" though for the life of me i cannot now remember if he defends him or accuses him.
But to your overall point about liberalism: Liberalism saw itself as the continuation of Luther. The perfect example, representing the whole of the German liberal tradition, is Adolph von Harnack's "What is Christianity?" in which he boldly claims to be Luther's successor. The Reformation has long been seen as the begetter of most of the philosophy developed in the post-medieval era, if for no other reason than it loosened philosophy's and (sadly) theology's attachment from the church in Christendom.
So it is not that the old perspective comes from liberalism. It is that the old perspective paved the way to liberalism. It is its offspring, its heritage. This is why, for example, the conservative response to modernity (of which I would argue Piper is the best of its variegated forms)rather ironically uses the logic that gave birth to liberalism, unavoidably hoisting itself on its own petard. To be "conservative" of Luther and the other reformers is to conserve the very things that lead to the liberalism the rightly reject.
For evidence of the movement from the Reformation to Liberalism, one need look no farther than Luther's "Open letter on translating." There not only do we see the hints of a hermeneutic that leads to really bad theology based on the theological compromise he struck with the German Princes and their swords to keep himself alive, we also see his insertion (and I would argue invention) of a gospel unprecedented in the church to that point.
Let me be clear that I believe what he was revolting against was likewise bad theology (sale of indulgences, etc). But he replaced it with the theology that lead to a fractured church and an individuated gospel.
There are of course many chapters to this story and I am just giving you the abstract.
To answer your point blank question:
First I need to foreground my response:
I would argue that the old perspective (and much of the western tradition, through Augustine) depends entirely on two metaphors of God. God as Savior and God as Judge. Usually, as in the case of many old perspective people, these metaphors are completely independent. You have a saving God, a loving God, who freely gives himself to/for people. A God of grace who gives to people more than(or despite!) what they deserve. Then you have a "just" God. A God who doles out to people exactly according to what they deserve. To the good, good things. To the bad, bad things. This rather complicates God. If God is simple, in the theological sense that orthodoxy claims him to be, then we have a contradiction. A God who gives to people more than they deserve, and then a God who gives according to what they deserve. Your tradition developed your doctrine of double predestination in order to solve this quagmire. (God gives to people what they deserve according to what I would call their "predestined merit.") Therefore, God is gracious, willing from all eternity the salvation of some (and the reason I don't follow this logic, the damnation of others) and he is just, giving to each according to his will. The Christ event from this perspective is God's way of saving the eternally elected. His attributes are love on the one hand and wrath on the other. Hell in this schema is where God punishes those he predestined to death.
While the position is consistent, I find it terrible to suppose that God created some in order to damn them. I find this problematic not because God isn't free to do as he pleases. Mankind has his being in nothingness and therefore deserves nothing. God can do as He pleases. Rather, I find it abhorrent because it contradicts the God revealed in Jesus Christ, the long-suffering God, the God of grace and mercy, the God of the Phil Christ hymn. If, as John tells us, God is love, then the love that predestines some to eternal damnation (meant in terms of punishment, as the juristic metaphor requires) is something i find contradictory to everything Christ reveals to us of God. Put differently, I find that this tradition cannot account for in what way God is still self-giving love when he damns some to hell(at all, but especially according to his predetermined creation of them). In what way is this God love?
I, on the other hand, prefer to follow the eastern tradition of viewing the primary metaphors for God as Savior and Healer. This perspective shares the savior metaphor with the west, but rather than following the juristic metaphor of sin (as the pharisees and judaizers did), the east would see sin as a disease, contaminating all of humanity. It is so potent a virus that it is transmitted from father to son. The Christ event in this schema is God's method of healing humanity (following Origen, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians). These metaphors don't conflict but actually compliment each other. God's only attribute here is love, as he saves humanity from the powers of Sin and Death and heals their corruption as a result of sin. So what is hell in this schema? I would say hell is the place where god continue to gives people more than they deserve.
I do not reject the juristic metaphor as it is articulated in scripture. God says "No" so sin. But i see it through the lens of these more dominate metaphors.
So what in hell is giving people more than they deserve? Or as you have said, in what way is hell good news? If, as the doctrine of creation ex nihilo suggests, we come from nothing and would return to it without our subsistence from God, then our due is literally nothing. Nothingness is our proper state and our inheritance (without God). But because God has willed to sustain us despite our sin, and because hell is a place of eternal existence (even though not in consumation with the purposes for our creation) then I would posit that hell is God's way of continuing to be gracious to sinners who reject his love. What they deserve is nothing, what they get is hell, which is more than they deserve. What a truly gracious God who preserves those who deserve nothing less than nothing!
But this preservation does not take away from the fact that hell is not communion with God. It is a dark realm where twisted man twists himself for eternity. A place where God says, have it your own way. It is a place where man wills to return to the nothingness from which he came but is sustained from annihilation by a loving God. This gracious gift is an eternal curse to those who see life as ultimate death.
So to answer your question: "What is so good about the Gospel if somebody can refuse to believe it, and then following their death, face the wrath of God in hell?"
1) This God is merciful to ALL of those who don't deserve it.
2) This God is thoroughly love, and gives of himself to all, even to those who reject it.
What is good about that? I would say everything.
I fear that our dialogue is veering towards polarization, and I don't suspect that this articulation has solved our differences much, though i do hope it clarifies our disagreements. In the final analysis, I hope you will agree that my position is also as internally consistent as yours.
Lest you think that I have invented this position, I would say that i read CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce" as well as this articulation of the catholic doctrine of heaven and hell as supporting it.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM
But perhaps the fullest confirmation of this position is Athanasius' "on the incarnation," especially the part about the universal implications of the Christ event resulting in eternal existence for all.
Thanks for answering my questions, Jared. There are so many things I could say, but as I think about it, I think I will let your comments stand on their own as representative of your overall position.
You are right about the polarizing nature of what we're doing here, so instead of throwing wood on the fire and chasing your "predestination" rabbit down the proverbial hole, I'd rather dodge it for the sake of being germane.
I am currently reading Wright's book Justification, just so you can know that he's doing some of the heavy lifting for you in explaining this or that.
Post a Comment
Think hard about this: the world is watching!