Read The Fathers

Here is a great find on the inter webs, http://readthefathers.org, a blog that has put together a reading plan of the church fathers. It is a 7-year plan through the patristics while reading 7 pages a day at most, it started with Clement of Rome and over three years has gotten to Jerome.

I signed up for the daily email on the blog and am really enjoying getting an email from them everyday with a link to the reading for that day. They also do a few things other than the daily reading, like blogs on different figures in the church.

Anyways, check it out, its a really great resource.

Jurgen Moltmann and Miroslav Volf (Theology of Joy)

Thoughts on Historical Criticism and Fundamentalism and Inconsequential theology/ethics from Resident Aliens

From Resident Aliens:

Historical Criticism and Fundamentalism- two sides of the same coin: 

"Tragically, many of us are trying to preach without scripture and to interpret scripture without the church. Fundamentalist biblical interpretation and higher criticism of the Bible are often two sides of the same coin. The fundamentalist interpreter has roots in the Scottish Common Sense school of philosophy (fundamentalism is such a modernist heresy), which asserted that propositions are accessible to any thinking, rational person. Any rational person ought to be able to see the common sense of the assertion that God created the heavens and the earth. A Christian preacher merely has to assert these propositions, which, because they are true, are understandable to anybody with common sense.
This historical-critical method denies the fundamentalist claim. Scripture, higher-criticism asserts, is the result of a long historical process. One must therefore apply sophisticated rules and tools of historical analysis to a given biblical text, because one cannot understand the text without understanding its true context. Presumably, anybody who applies the correct historical tools will be able to understand the text.
Both the fundamentalist and the higher critic assume that it is possible to understand the biblical text without training, without moral transformation, without the confession and forgiveness that come about within the church. Unconsciously, both means of interpretation try to make everyone religious (that is, able to understand and appropriate scripture) without everyone's being a member of the community for which the Bible is scripture. Perhaps the recent enthusiasm for so-called inductive preaching- preaching that attempts to communicate the gospel indirectly, inductively through stories rather than through logical, deductive reasoning- is an attempt to understand scripture without being in the church. Inductive preaching presents the gospel in a way that enables everyone to "make up his or her own mind." But we suspect that scripture wonders if we have a mind worth making up! Minds worth making up are those with critical intelligence, minds trained to judge the true from the false on the basis of something more substantial than their own, personal subjectivism." (pg.163-164)

Theology and Ethics:

"Not that we are much better off in our seminary courses in theology and ethics. There we are introduced to assorted theories of moral rationality and justification. We debate whether or not a deontological or a teleological ethic is to be preferred; or what is the correct understanding of love and justice. Christian ethics and theology are reduced to intellectual dilemmas, schemes of typology rather than an account of how the church practically discusses what it ought to be. The situation is aggravated as contemporary theologians and ethicists write for other theologians and ethicists rather than for those in ministry. Which helps explain why those in ministry read fewer and fewer books on theology and ethics. It also explains why he have the new discipline of "practical theology," which is supposed to translate academic theology into something usable. Theology, to be Christian, is by definition practical. Either it serves the formation of the church or it is trivial and inconsequential. Preachers are the acid test of theology that would be Christian. Alas, too much theology today seems to have as its goal the convincing of preachers that they are too dumb to understand real theology. Before preachers buy into that assumption, we would like preachers to ask themselves if the problem lies with theologies which have become inconsequential."  (Pg.164-165)

Athanasius views of Creation

Here is a great excerpt from Athanasius' book "on the Incarnation" that presents his views of creation. It is valuable for seeing the traditional and classic christian views of creation that were strongly and clearly communicated already 300-400 years after Christ's death. I am not well versed with the "creation debate", but I think any christian who tries to reconcile the science of evolution with the teaching of Scripture should not easily sidestep or wipe away these two pillars of christian thought: (1) There is a mind behind the universe and (2) God created "ex-nihilo" out of nothing- he was pre-existent before matter. I would be interested to see how. (For a website supporting the dialogue between orthodox christianity and modern science see http://biologos.org/) 

(2) In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all.

Others take the view expressed by Plato, that giant among the Greeks. He said that God had made all things out of pre-existent and uncreated matter, just as the carpenter makes things only out of wood that already exists. But those who hold this view do not realize that to deny that God is Himself the Cause of matter is to impute limitation to Him, just as it is undoubtedly a limitation on the part of the carpenter that he can make nothing unless he has the wood. How could God be called Maker and Artificer if His ability to make depended on some other cause, namely on matter itself? If He only worked up existing matter and did not Himself bring matter into being, He would be not the Creator but only a craftsman.

Then, again, there is the theory of the Gnostics, who have invented for themselves an Artificer of all things other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. These simply shut their eyes to the obvious meaning of Scripture. For instance, the Lord, having reminded the Jews of the statement in Genesis,

“He Who created them in the beginning made them male and female . . . ,” and having shown that for that reason a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife, goes on to say with reference to the Creator, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” 

How can they get a creation independent of the Father out of that? And, again, St. John, speaking all inclusively, says,

“All things became by Him and without Him came nothing into being.”

How then could the Artificer be someone different, other than the Father of Christ?

(3) Such are the notions which men put forward. But the impiety of their foolish talk is plainly declared by the divine teaching of the Christian faith. From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought it into being through the Word. He says as much in Genesis:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;4

and again through that most helpful book The Shepherd,

“Believe thou first and foremost that there is One God Who created and arranged all things and brought them out of non-existence into being.”5

Paul also indicates the same thing when he says,

“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which we see now did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared.”6

C.S. Lewis on reading classics (from his introduction to Athanasius' "on the incarnation")

Some great wisdom from C.S. Lewis about reading classic books and a "mere christianity" passed down throughout the ages that can challenged our fashionable modern attempts at christianity. the preface and the whole book can be found here

Introduction

by C. S. Lewis

here is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

A few blogs on Higher Education and Scholarship

Surfing the blog world today and came across a few blogs with the same subject and all of them good.


1. James K.A. Smith on Courageous Scholarship http://forsclavigera.blogspot.tw/

2. Michael Bird's Advice to Christian Scholars

3. Roger Olson on Academic Freedom, Statements of Faith and Christian Universities



I will include below the full text of James K.A. Smith's blog...it's shorter and really good...as well as the video from Michael Bird.

James K.A. Smith:

On "Courage" in the (Christian) Academy

[a few thoughts composed on my iPhone on the shore of Little Platte Lake]

Someone has said that academic squabbles are so nasty only because they are so unimportant. Nonetheless, many academics like to see themselves as "courageous"--exhibiting intellectual heroism, taking stands that are unpopular, leading to some kind of "martyrdom."  This is the kind of "courage" you claim when you've dodged the draft and type with hands never blemished by a callous. 

This self-understanding of academic "courage" takes specific forms among Christian scholars, and is perhaps ramped up by adding religious stakes to the mix. Again, the scholar likes to imagine himself or herself as "courageous" for saying unpopular things, for speaking truth to power, for questioning the status quo. 

There are "progressive" versions of this in which the courageous scholar-martyr is marginalized by evangelicalism for taking unpopular stands that are nonetheless supported by "science" or "justice" or "democracy" or "experience" or what have you. As a result s/he is critcized, bullied, rejected, ostracized, ignored, excluded, etc. But the courageous scholar is willing to endure such sacrifices for the sake of Truth, Justice, Science, Progress, Diversity, etc. 

But progressives don't have the corner on the courage market. There are conservative Christian scholars who tell themselves the same story: they are willing to risk marginalization, exclusion, derision, even appearing the fool in order to stand up for The Truth against academic trends, intellectual fads, and the temptations that roll into the university under the guise of Progress.

But when one looks at these scenarios more closely, I think one will see that, in fact, neither is risking very much. Those "courageous" progressives don't really value the opinions or affirmations of conservative evangelicalism anyway. What they really value, long for, and try to curry is the favor of "the Enlightened"--whether that's the mainstream academy or the progressive chattering class who police our cultural mores of tolerance. Sure, these "courageous" progressives will take fire from conservative evangelicals--but that's not a loss or sacrifice for them. Indeed, their own self-understanding is fueled by such criticism.  In other words, these stands don't take "courage" at all; they don't stand to lose anything with those they truly value.

Similarly, "courageous" conservatives who "stand up" to the progressive academy aren't putting much at risk because that's not where they look for validation and it's not where their professional identities are invested. They are usually "populists" (in a fairly technical sense of the word) whose professional lives are much more closely tethered to the church and popular opinion.  And in those sectors, "standing up to" the academy isn't a risk at all--it's a way to win praise. When your so-called contrarian stands win favor from those you value most...well, it's hard to see how "courage" applies. 

But here's what we don't often see: Christian scholars who have vested their professional lives in the mainstream academy willing to take stands that would be unpopular at the MLA or APA or AAR. Conversely, we don't see many conservative scholars willing to defend positions that would jeapordize their favored status with popular evangelicalism. 

Now both of those options would require courage.

Jurgen Moltmann (misc clips 1)

Two Smaller Videos by David Bentley Hart

These are two shorter clips, the first one longer than the other, by David Bentley Hart (what a name!). The first clip is him talking about God using three different words: being, consciousness and bliss. It is a short snip of one of his newest books entitled "The experience of God". A book that guardian newspaper called the "one book every atheist must read". The 2nd clip is only 12 minutes and is a short bit of him talking about allegorical readings of scripture and how it ultimately destroys fundamentalist views of God and the Bible.

Hart is a greek orthodox theologian who will possibly be a little bit startling or puzzling for some evangelicals listening to him. But he is well worth the listen even if their are points of disagreement (for the most part I have none with these two clips)...it is worth watching just to see an amazing display of intellect and knowledge, Christianity fully explored using the mind...I love it! It is jumping into the deep end, even if it seems a bit confusing...hold on (i had to rewind a few spots to listen to them again)...at the very least you'll increase your vocab a bit, at the most youll be inspired...in the middle, what better things are you gonna watch on youtube?!

NT Wright on the Resurrection

In honor of easter, two vids from N.T Wright on resurrection. The first one gives a short snippet of some of his thinking on eschatology from his book "suprised by hope", the 2nd video is more of the apologetics angle, where he talks about whether a scientist can believe the resurrection.

A history of fundamentalism and evangelicalism

I read this great blog by Justin Taylor today about 10 key events of fundamentalism and evangelicalism in the 21st century. It is enlightening to see the history of the discussions that I still going on today, to see the roots of questions like "inherency and evolution..." and the liberal vs conservative divide that has gone back over the past hundred years (and certainly it could be traced back even before that).
It is well worth the read for all young people like me who have grown up hearing the questions but maybe not fully appreciated the history of the discussion they are involved in.

A working definition of Theology- faith seeking understanding

Tomorrow in our Bible school we will be discussing "what is theology and why is it important'? I enjoyed reading through the introduction of Alister Mcgrath's basic theology as I have thought threw this question.

Mcgrath begins in his preface by saying that (1) Theology= Talking about God and (2) Christian Theology = talking about God in a Christian way. He goes on to say that: “The study theology is to thus think systematically about the fundamental ideas of Christianity. It is intellectual reflection on the act, content, and implications of the Christian faith.”.....“Theology can be thought of as the Christian discipleship of the mind”

This reminded me of a simpler version of Karl Barth's opening thesis in his Church Dogmatics:

"As a theological discipline dogmatics is the scientific self-examination of the Christian Church with respect to the content of its distinctive talk about God" (Vol.1:1 pg.3)


The quote that has stuck with me the most from Mcgrath's book is one he quotes from Anselm of Canterbury:

Theology is “faith seeking understanding” '(Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Weekly Talk- Willard on knowledge and spiritual formation

An Evening of Eschatology

We have been going through revelation this week in our bible school, and I have enjoyed refreshing myself in this extremely confusing as well as encouraging book! As we went through the final chapters of the book today and talked about the millennium and the major views on the millennium I was reminded of a clip I watched a while back on John Piper's website entitled "An Evening of Eschatalogy". John Piper acts as the moderator and talks with prominent pastors who all hold differing views of the end times. It is a great example of respectful dialogue among different opinions, and it is a great resource to help one think through this whole topic. (warning: it is two hours long, but even Piper's writeup on the different views is worth the read)

J.K Smith on "Naturalizing Shalom"

Read this article by J.K smith, recommended by my friend Jay Werner and written by a scholar I have appreciated for a long time. I like this so much, because i feel like his theological story and background parallels my own that I am going through right now. And a story shared by many others of this generation. He warns of how growing up in a "dualistic" fundamentalist conservative church background that is heavy on "getting saved and going to heaven" and light on "praying for the kingdom to come now" can lead people to go to the other extreme of working for heaven on earth so much that they forget about heaven and the spiritual. I really appreciate his wisdom and thoughts in this area as well as this final quote:

"The holistic affirmation of the goodness of creation and the importance of "this worldly" justice is not a substitute for heaven, as if the holistic gospel was a sanctified way to learn to be a naturalist. To the contrary, it is the very transcendence of God—in the ascension of the Son who now reigns from heaven, and in the futurity of the coming kingdom for which we pray—that disciplines and disrupts and haunts our tendency to settle for "this world." It is the call of the Son from heaven, and the vision of the New Jerusalem descending from heaven, that pushes back on our illusions that we could figure this all out, that we could bring this about. Shalom is not biblical language for progressivist social amelioration. Shalom is a Christ-haunted call to long for kingdom come."

J.K Smith

Thoughts on 1 John 1:1-4 and a lengthy quote from T.F. Torrance on the Incarnation

Grounded in Christ

In lecture today we were reading 1 John and I read the intro (1:1-4) in a way I never had before. I realized that it is one continual long flowing sentence that carries on four different declarations of “who or what” Christ is. The grammatical things that point out the continual and “declaratory” nature of this intro are: the continues use of “which”-it’s used 6 times and in the gk. it is the very first word that shows up on the text of 1 John; the verb of “proclaim” in vs.3 and 4 and the fact that a period does not show up until the end of verse 3! What these boring grammatical details show us is that John begins his epistle with a long continuos proclamation of “who or what Jesus is”. These points are underlined or highlighted in the verses below:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.” 

In summary, John Begins his epistle with proclaiming that Jesus is:

1. From the beginning
2. What John Heard
3. What John Saw
4. What John looked upon and touched, the word of life; 
5. The manifest life which was made manifest to us
6. What John has seen and heard.

This is what John was proclaiming-that the eternal word of life existing from the beginning was manifested in a way people could see, touch and hear. The eternal infinite entered time and space, the metaphysical entered the physical, God came to man. This whole topic has been summed up in the important theological term: INCARNATION. And all study of incarnational theology should find 1 John 1:1-4 an extremely relevant text. 

An important theologian of the 19th century who is known for his “incarnational” thinking is T.F. Torrance he expounds in a beautiful way about this teaching of incarnation in his book "Space Time and Incarnation", a lengthy and thought-provoking passage of that book is quoted in full below:

“If God is merely impassible He has not made room for Himself in our agonied existence, and if He is merely immutable He has neither place nor time for frail evanescent creatures in His unchanging existence.  But the God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ as sharing our lot is the God who is really free to make Himself poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich, the God invariant in love but not impassible, constant in faithfulness but not immutable. 

This relation established between God and man in Jesus Christ constitutes Him as the place in all space and time where God meets with man in the actualities of his human existence, and man meets with God and knows Him in His own divine Being. That is the place where the vertical and horizontal dimensionalities intersect, the place where human being is opened out to a transcendent ground in God and where the infinite Being of God penetrates into our existence and creates room for Himself within the horizontal dimensions of finite being in space and time. It is penetration of the horizontal [creation] by the vertical [Incarnation] that gives man his true place, for it relates his place in space and time to its ultimate ontological ground so that it is not submerged in the endless relativities of what is merely horizontal.

Without this vertical relation to God man has no authentic place on earth, no meaning and no purpose, but with this vertical relation to God his place is given meaning and purpose. For that reason it is defined and established as place on earth without being shut in on itself solely within its horizontal dimensionality.  Unless the eternal breaks into the temporal and the boundless being of God breaks into the spatial existence of man and takes up dwelling within it, the vertical dimension vanishes out of man's life and becomes quite strange to him -- and man loses his place under the sun.”

T.F. Torrance

Space, Time, and Incarnation, p. 75-6

What is Evangelical Theology?

I recently started reading "Introduction to Evangelical Theology" by Karl Barth and in his introductory comments, he lays out a basic definition of what he means by "evangelical theology" which is invigorating and has stayed in my my mind for a few days now. I wanted to briefly summarize what he stated and then share a few quotes with you from this first chapter. As I read his chapter, and almost every time when I read Barth, I wanted to highlight every single word; but that would not be very conducive for future reflection so I have just selected a few of my favorites points of his. First the summary and then the quotes:

Summary:
Barths' basic definition is that evangelical theology is the study of the God of the gospel. In poetic and scholastic writing he brings out the two main elements of this definition: GOOD AND GOD; the euangelion and theo. Barth first strongly lays out that theology is "theo-centered", its subject is God- a personal and ultimate being. It is a study of God. And then he goes on to show how evangelical theology is studying God as revealed in the bible which finds its centerpiece the gospel. It is studying the revelation that the ultimate being is a good and loving one! The God of the bible is a God bringing and announcing good news.

Quotes:
"The theology to be introduced here is evangelical theology. The qualifying attribute 'evangelical' recalls both the New Testament and at the same time the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Therefore, it may be taken as a dual affirmation: the theology to be considered here is the one which, nourished by the hidden sources of the documents of Israel's history, first achieved unambiguous expression the writings of the New Testament evangelists, apostles and prophets; it is also, moreover, the theology newly discovered and accepted by the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The expression 'evangelical', however cannot and should not be intended and understood in a confessional, that is, in a denominational and exclusive, sense. This is forbidden first of all by the elementary fact that 'evangelical' refers primarily and decisively to the Bible, which is in some way respected by all confessions. Not all so called Protestant theology is evangelical theology; moreover there is also evangelical theology in the roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox worlds, as well as in the many later variations, including deteriorations, of the Reformation departure. What the word 'evangelical' will objectively designate is that theology which treats of the God of the Gospel."

"The object of evangelical theology is God in the history of his deeds...Let it be noted that evangelical theology should neither repeat, re-enact, nor anticipate the history in-which God is what he is. Theology cannot make out of this history a work of its own to be set in motion by itself. Theology must, of course, give an account of this history by presenting and discussing human perceptions, concepts and formulations of human languange. But it does this appropriately only when it follows the living God in those unfolding historical events in which he is God. Therefore, in its perception, meditation, and discussion, theology must have the character of a living procession. Evangelical theology would forfeit its object, it would belie and negate itself, if it wished to view, to understand, and to describe any one moment of the divine procession in 'splendid isolation' from others. Instead theology must describe the dynamic interrelationships which make this procession comparable to a bird in flight, in contrast to a caged bird...the god of the Gospel rejects any connection with a theology that has become paralyzed and static. Evangelical theology can only exist and remain in vigorous motion when its eyes are fixed on the God of the Gospel." 

"Evangelical theology is concerned with Immanuel, God with us! Having this God for its object, it can be nothing else but the most thankful and happy science"