The Heresy of Orthodoxy

I have picked up a copy of The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity by Andreas J. Kostenberger and Michael Kruger.  Well, I don't know if I should say "picked up" as I purchased the book via the iTunes store for my iPad book reader.  I am looking forward to reading the book.  

Essentially the book attempts to overturn what it calls the Bauer-Ehrman theory of the development of earliest Christianity.  According to Bauer and Ehrman, earliest Christianity was a bastion of diverse beliefs about Christ, and only in the fourth century was this diversity crushed by the power of Rome which then imposed a rigid orthodoxy.  This theory has been popularized in recent years by scholars such as Ehrman and Pagels, and by writers such as Dan Brown with his wildly popular Da Vinci Code.

I don't know if I will do a full review of the book or not, but I hope to post some comments as I read.  One thing that I already know will be a problem is citation.  In iBook reader, there is no consistent pagination.  Because you can adjust the font size, the pages are constantly in flux.  Right now, at the font setting I have, I am on page 308 of 1540.  Yet if I go one font size bigger I am on page 421 of 2100, and if I go smaller, 170 of 836.  Has anyone come up with a way of citing a book in iBooks e-reader?

The Trinity

In my Christian Heritage class today we discussed the first four ecumenical councils.  The discussion of these councils inevitably leads to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Every year, before I launch into the lecture, I try to get the class to explain the Trinity from their conception.  What always becomes clear is that any positive attempt to describe the Trinity always leads to some heresy or another.  Take all of the modern examples and analogies and they fall into one of a number of forms of heresy.

For example, the analogy of H2O in three forms: Water, Ice, and Steam.  This is the heresy of modalism, one substance in three modes.  The same goes for the analogy of a person, say myself, as professor, husband, son.  One person in three modes. 

The egg is an interesting analogy: one egg, but divided into three parts, shell, yolk, white.  Yet, these substances can be separated whereas the Trinity cannot.  Once I separate the parts, I am not seeing the entire egg, only a part.  In the orthodox formulation of the trinity, when one views one person of the trinity, they view the entire godhead.  Hence, the egg analogy does not hold up. 

Thus, when one speaks of the Trinity, formulations must be negative, saying what it is not, not what it is.  Hence, when talking about the nature of Christ, Chalcedon could only construct its formula in negative terms, i.e., the Son is two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation (ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως). 

The Trinity, and the dual nature of Christ are mysteries.  They are mysteries not to be solved, but to be wondered at.  Not to be figured out, or brought under our control, but rather to be marveled at.  It is in the mysteries of Christianity, in the places where we cannot conform the reality of God to the finiteness of our mind, where we truly have the opportunity to worship, to stand in awe at a God who is so profoundly beyond our understanding, to rest in the fact that we are not in control.

Barth I.1 §4.1

In CD I.1 §4.1, Barth begins to talk in earnest about what indeed the "Word of God" is.  He has been using this term without a definition for some time.  In the previous sections he has talked about proclamation, "preaching" and the "sacrament" as attempting to bring forth the Word of God.  Now, Barth begins to define more of what he means by this Word of God.

Not all proclamation is real proclamation.  Proclamation (church preaching and sacrament) cannot ever claim to "be" the Word of God.  It cannot contain the Word of God, hold it, grasp it, claim it as its own.  No, according to Barth, "Proclamation must ever and again become proclamation." (CD I.1 §4.1 p. 88).

How does proclamation "become" the Word of God.  Barth gives four factors, which he calls concentric spheres. 

1) In the outermost sphere, the Word of God is a "given commission." The givenness is important here.  This is not a human word.  It is given from God and cannot be created through human means, through human motivations.  God's word remains free.

2) God's Word is the theme of proclamation.  God's word cannot be reduced to objects of human perception, either external perception (the five senses) or internal perception (thought, perception of the mind).

3) Proclamation is judged not by human standards of judgment, but by the Word of God itself.  God's Word judges whether proclamation is or is not the Word of God.  Human judgments must be made about proclamation, but they are not decisive.

4) Finally, the Word of God is an event in which God acts.  As Barth writes, "proclamation becomes real as God commands, God comes on the scene, God judges." (CD I.1 §4.1 p. 93).

What I found most interesting in this section is the close intertwining of the human and the divine.  When God's Word comes, when God decides to act, it is through human means.  God does not come and subsume the human factors.  God comes through the human factors.  God comes through humanity, with all of its weakness, all of its frailty, all of its imperfections, nevertheless God comes and redeems, makes the human all that it should be. 

Let's end with the words of Barth himself:

"The miracle of real proclamation does not consist in the fact that the willing and doing of proclaiming man with all its conditioning and in all its problems is set aside, that in some way a disappearance takes place and a gap arises in the reality of nature, and that in some way there steps into this gap naked divine reality scarcely concealed by a mere remaining appearance of human reality... As Christ became true man and remains true man to all eternity, real proclamation becomes an event on the level of all other human events." (CD I.1 §4.1 p. 94).

Barth I.1 § 3.2

In Church Dogmatics  I.1 § 3.2, Barth continues his discussion of church proclamation, by which he means church preaching and the administration of the sacrament.  For Barth, proclamation is the primary task of the church, the center of its mission.  Yet, this proclamation is a human effort, the words are human and fallible, and therefore there is a need for testing.  Dogmatics is the vehicle of this testing, of making sure that church proclamation conforms to its subject.  As Barth writes,

"Concrete dogma, indeed, is simply the kerygma [preaching] tested, provisionally purified, and reduced to a correct formula by the church." (CD I.1. §3.2 p. 82).

Yet, Barth admits that this testing in dogmatics is in itself a human work, and therefore cannot claim any concrete authority.  Nevertheless, this testing is necessary.

I know that I have been in churches that disdain theology.  They like to go with the Spirit, preach what comes from the heart.  These churches are anti-intellectual, claiming that seeking to think about preaching, to subject it to tests and intellectual rigor, will actually quench the Spirit.  All churches do theology, whether they claim to or not.  The ones that claim not to engage in theology, but follow the spirit, usually proclaim bad theology.  As Barth says,

"The freedom claimed when men think they can and should theologise 'quite untheologically' is the freedom to prattle heretically or in a way that makes for heresy.  There is no room in the church for this freedom." (CD I.1. §3.2 p. 77).

In his pessimistic appraisal of human capability, he claims that there is a necessity for theological testing of church proclamation.  Yet, knowing that this testing is no more infallible than church proclamation, he calls for a continual testing.  The work of dogmatics is never complete.  It must always be undertaken anew.  Dogmatics can never stand on its own as a final word.  It must always be tested again and again.

Steve Douglass does it again

Steve Douglass at Undeception has done it again, he has a post that so captures my thoughts on a subject that it is impossible to say It better. How did I not meet this guy at SBL, And how is he not even in the Biblical Studies field?

Here is a snippet, but go check out the whole post.

"A mandated necessity to believe the right things is hard to locate in Scripture, but commands to do the right things, one of which occasionally includes believing, is positively ubiquitous in both Testaments."

Barth Reading Page

I now have a stand alone Barth reading page on my blog where I have linked to my posts on Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics.  Thanks again to Daniel Kirk for proposing this seven year reading and synchroblogging project.

Jesus Healed Werewolves

This morning's Gospel reading was from Matthew 4:18-25.  I always take my Greek New Testament and read along with the lectionary readings.  I know what you are thinking, I am a Greek snob.  Well, that may be the case, but I don't do it to show off, I just like reading the Greek.

Anyway, after Jesus calls Peter and Andrew and James and John, he goes on a healing spree.  Whenever I am reading along, I notice words that I don't know off the top of my head, and one stood out to me today.  In the list of ailments that Jesus was healing in 4:24 is the folowing: σεληνιαζομένους (seleniazomenous).  This is usually translated as "those with epilepsy."  Yet, the root of this word is "selena" which is Greek for moon.  One of the definitions in Liddell Scott is "moonstruck." 

Now, maybe I just have read and watched too much Harry Potter, but this got me thinking, what else could moonstruck mean?  Could this be the ancient word for werewolves?  What do you think?  Was Jesus curing wherewolves?