I know there's much good to be found in Thomas A Kempis' classic The Imitation of Christ with the overarching themes of discipleship and humility. But I think it is incomplete in some vital ways, having only a partial view of Christ's work.
To imitate Christ more fully, a few more things need to be recalled in the picture of Christ's life: celebrating at weddings, welcoming sinners, eating with tax collectors and prostitutes, taking little children in his arms. Our idea of the imitation of Christ must grow beyond the medieval ascetic framework in which the author wrote. Our idea of imitating Christ must remember not only how much time he spent in solitude and prayer, but also how much time he spent with friends, how often he was seen at someone else's house for dinner, that he had even been known to invite himself over to an outcast's house. Christ's life did not consist solely of the quiet solitude of meditation, but also included the joyful and the friendly and the active.
We are not merely freed from worldly pursuits for our own sake to enable a withdrawal from the world. We are freed for a greater thing, to take up Christ's task of seeking and saving the lost, serving Christ in the redemption of the world. Christ went out in the world seeking and saving that which was lost. He saved that which was lost first of all by loving that which was lost. A fuller imitation of Christ includes time among the unloved and unlovable -- and particularly those in our own lives we have difficulty loving. The imitation of Christ brings us to learn love and joyfulness, hospitality and friendship from Christ, and to frame them as part of the redeeming work he has sent us to do.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Is dieting an eating disorder?
I know that dieting is not typically listed among the eating disorders along with anorexia and bulimia. But after years of watching some friends, and after talking with another friend, I'm starting to suspect that dieting is a low-grade eating disorder.
What counts as an eating disorder? I think it's anything that does not fit into a sustainable and healthy eating plan. And sometimes elements of self-abuse creep into diets, as people punish themselves for being overweight or withhold their favorite foods from themselves.
The only person I know who successfully lost weight long-term (without resorting to surgery) decided to skip dieting and to think only in terms of the "sustainable and healthy eating plan". He made several small but permanent adjustments to his normal eating plan (diet in the old sense of the word) and his weight slowly adjusted itself for what he was eating.
So there it is, my thoughts on why dieting is a low-grade chronic eating disorder, the socially acceptable eating disorder.
(Why post this on my blog? In case it might help someone ...)
What counts as an eating disorder? I think it's anything that does not fit into a sustainable and healthy eating plan. And sometimes elements of self-abuse creep into diets, as people punish themselves for being overweight or withhold their favorite foods from themselves.
The only person I know who successfully lost weight long-term (without resorting to surgery) decided to skip dieting and to think only in terms of the "sustainable and healthy eating plan". He made several small but permanent adjustments to his normal eating plan (diet in the old sense of the word) and his weight slowly adjusted itself for what he was eating.
So there it is, my thoughts on why dieting is a low-grade chronic eating disorder, the socially acceptable eating disorder.
(Why post this on my blog? In case it might help someone ...)
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Crucified God: Patristic Examples
No topic reveals peoples' images of God quite so quickly as the mention of God crucified, God suffering, God dying. Interestingly, some scholars have considered this to be a late invention. This post is no comprehensive survey but only a sampler of the theology of the crucified God in the early church.
From the late 100's A.D.:
From one of the Desert Fathers:
As I have mentioned before, I believe that the apostolic church was divided at Chalcedon (451 A.D.), and that synods since then have not necessarily spoken for the whole apostolic church but only for parts of the church. With that in mind, it is interesting to see the official stand taken by the Chalcedonian churches (among these all the Western churches, plus the Eastern Orthodox). In the Second Council of Constantinople (often reckoned the 5th ecumenical council, 553 A.D.), the Chalcedonian churches sought to clarify the earlier findings of Chalcedon, whether the two natures of Christ were divisible (a semi-Nestorian construction possible under Chalcedon). The council's findings were:
To some it seems strange -- genuinely beyond understanding -- to proclaim God's suffering and death. To clear up this point so far as is possible, I will end where I began with Melito of Sardis from the late 100's A.D.:
That is why we proclaim Christ crucified.
From the late 100's A.D.:
The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel. - Melito of Sardis (died circa 180 A.D.), Paschal Homily
From one of the Desert Fathers:
He (Paul) then employed no subtlety or circumlocution, nor did he when he preached the gospel of the Lord blush at the mention of the cross of Christ. And though it was a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles to hear of God as born, God in bodily form, God suffering, God crucified, yet he did not weaken the force of his pious utterance because of the wickedness of the offence of the Jews: nor did he lessen the vigor of his faith because of the unbelief and the foolishness of others: but openly, persistently, and boldly proclaimed that He, whom a mother had borne, whom men had slain, the spear had pierced, the cross had stretched—was “the power and wisdom of God, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness.” - John Cassian (circa 360-433 A.D.), On the Incarnation of the Lord (Against Nestorius) 3.8
As I have mentioned before, I believe that the apostolic church was divided at Chalcedon (451 A.D.), and that synods since then have not necessarily spoken for the whole apostolic church but only for parts of the church. With that in mind, it is interesting to see the official stand taken by the Chalcedonian churches (among these all the Western churches, plus the Eastern Orthodox). In the Second Council of Constantinople (often reckoned the 5th ecumenical council, 553 A.D.), the Chalcedonian churches sought to clarify the earlier findings of Chalcedon, whether the two natures of Christ were divisible (a semi-Nestorian construction possible under Chalcedon). The council's findings were:
If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema. (Canon X, Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D.).In this age, the church is re-examining the early church and early doctrines to ensure everything is on solid ground. That is always the call of the God's people: to examine what we knows of Christ and to proclaim Christ to the world. The point of this post is simply that the proclamation of the Crucified God traces back to the early church and has been quite mainstream in the history of our proclamation of Christ.
If anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one [Person] and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person in another, but that he was not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and made man, and that his miracles and the sufferings which of his own will he endured in the flesh were not of the same [Person]: let him be anathema. (Canon III, Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D.).
To some it seems strange -- genuinely beyond understanding -- to proclaim God's suffering and death. To clear up this point so far as is possible, I will end where I began with Melito of Sardis from the late 100's A.D.:
When the Lord had clothed himself with humanity, and had suffered for the sake of the sufferer, and had been bound for the sake of the imprisoned, and had been judged for the sake of the condemned, and buried for the sake of the one who was buried, he rose up from the dead, and cried aloud with this voice: Who is he who contends with me? Let him stand in opposition to me. I set the condemned man free; I gave the dead man life; I raised up the one who had been entombed. Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ.
Therefore, come, all families of men, you who have been befouled with sins, and receive forgiveness for your sins. I am your forgiveness, I am the passover of your salvation, I am the lamb which was sacrificed for you, I am your ransom, I am your light, I am your saviour, I am your resurrection, I am your king, I am leading you up to the heights of heaven, I will show you the eternal Father, I will raise you up by my right hand. - Melito of Sardis (died circa 180 A.D.), Paschal Homily
That is why we proclaim Christ crucified.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Any Moltmann fans out there?
Theology is about God and our salvation, our cause for hope in the world, and therefore there is no such thing as merely academic theology. Jurgen Moltmann was a thought-provoking theologian who understood that well. As with anyone publishing a number of books, he left himself open to criticism in some places and likely even deserved it on occasion. With that in mind, I'd like to respond to certain criticisms against Moltmann which have been reviewed recently on Peter Leithart's blog -- but only those criticisms that seem somewhat unjust. Given the practical and hope-giving nature of Moltmann's work, I hope that the discussion may also be in that same vein. With thanks to Peter Leithart for the discussion of the pro's and con's of Moltmann, here is a brief review of some of the criticisms against Moltmann.
How do we know the Trinity?
An objection was made to Moltmann's studied emphasis on the "economic Trinity" (Trinity as known through action in the world, the Trinity of salvation history) as opposed to the "immanent Trinity", or the Trinity as it is in itself. How we should know the Trinity as it is in itself is a bit of a mystery. This was part of Moltmann's theological background and why many Lutherans stick with the economic Trinity as the only Trinity we actually know.
Leithart, quoting Pannenberg:
Did God die on the cross?
From Leithart's blog again:
How does God overcome evil and suffering?
On that basis it seems that Moltmann has tried to give proper notice to Christ's radical challenge to our concepts of glory and lordship, our typically misguided quests for "domination". As Christ has demonstrated his lordship through weakness, so Moltmann has taken up the themes proper to Christ's incarnation, the themes which Christ himself put forward as essential to understanding his work. He met the disciples' human ideas of lordship and domination only with rebukes. Yet this did not make Christ one who "cannot really deliver", but instead one whose weakness was stronger than our strength.
Is it patripassian to say the Father suffered at the death of his Son?
The patripassian heresy from early Christianity is one that maintains that the Father suffered the crucifixion. Again from Leithart's blog:
Moltmann's theology has its faults. Still, his works raise the most important questions: Is God really impassible in the face of suffering? What is the nature of Lordship? How do we know God? Is God the God of domination who cannot suffer, cannot die? Is it possible to know God through speculation about his eternal nature apart from what is revealed in salvation history, especially in the cross of Christ? Is God as revealed in Christ radically different from God as he is in himself from all eternity? Or is the way to know God through Christ: the crucified God who has a radically different idea of lordship than we do, the God who takes up the cause of the godless at his own expense, who calls us not to have dominion but to take up the cross and follow him? That is why I enjoy Moltmann. The man does have a way of getting at the questions.
How do we know the Trinity?
An objection was made to Moltmann's studied emphasis on the "economic Trinity" (Trinity as known through action in the world, the Trinity of salvation history) as opposed to the "immanent Trinity", or the Trinity as it is in itself. How we should know the Trinity as it is in itself is a bit of a mystery. This was part of Moltmann's theological background and why many Lutherans stick with the economic Trinity as the only Trinity we actually know.
Leithart, quoting Pannenberg:
This steals from the Trinity of salvation history all sense and significance. For this Trinity has sense and significance only if God is the same in salvation history as he is from eternity.On the other hand, if God really is the same in salvation history as he is from eternity, this objection is answered. In that case, it is the objection which is based on faulty premises, namely the premise that God is not the same from eternity.
Did God die on the cross?
From Leithart's blog again:
Moltmann has also been unclear about what he means by talking about the death of God. Karkkainen again prefers Pannenberg: "the Son of God, though he suffered and died himself, did so according to his human nature."I do not see that "the death of God" is actually unclear; it seems more the case that we balk at it not because it is unclear but because it radically challenges our assumptions about God. This challenge to our ideas about God is inherent in the incarnation itself, in which the finite bears the infinite, the omnipotent takes up weakness, and the Immortal takes up a mortal body. Here Pannenberg, against Moltmann, refers Christ's death to Jesus but not to God, splitting Christ at the moment of death so that the divine and human natures are no longer united. I think Pannenberg's rejoinder shows that it was clear enough what Moltmann meant by the death of God, just that Pannenberg might rather cut some corners of his Christology and separate the divine and human natures of Christ rather than consent to what Moltmann meant by the death of God.
How does God overcome evil and suffering?
Others have criticized Moltmann for robbing God of any real ability to overcome the evil and suffering that He enters into out of love for us. Moltmann is so fearful of domination and any theology of lordship that he presents a God who can only endure with us, but cannot really deliver.Is it really appropriate to characterize Moltmann as being "fearful of domination and any theology of lordship"? Or is more appropriate to notice that in Christ, God himself radically challenged our fondness for "domination" and "lordship" precisely in his incarnation and crucifixion? If this is the case, then Moltmann drew proper notice to the fact that, in Christ, in King Messiah, God himself chose weakness, even if that should seem foolish rather than wise in our human judgment. In his lordship and triumphal entry, Christ rode into town on a donkey. Then he took up a servant's garb and washed feet as a slave would do, and gave that as an example of lordship.
On that basis it seems that Moltmann has tried to give proper notice to Christ's radical challenge to our concepts of glory and lordship, our typically misguided quests for "domination". As Christ has demonstrated his lordship through weakness, so Moltmann has taken up the themes proper to Christ's incarnation, the themes which Christ himself put forward as essential to understanding his work. He met the disciples' human ideas of lordship and domination only with rebukes. Yet this did not make Christ one who "cannot really deliver", but instead one whose weakness was stronger than our strength.
Is it patripassian to say the Father suffered at the death of his Son?
The patripassian heresy from early Christianity is one that maintains that the Father suffered the crucifixion. Again from Leithart's blog:
I wonder with some others whether the charge of modalism lurks behind his program in the form of patripassianism. When the Son suffered and died on the cross, the Father did so with him. Moldmann is aware of patripassionist leadings, and, against Christian tradition, does not necessarily consider it heretical.On the basis of the quotes provided, that criticism seems to be a little bit misleading. "Patripassian leadings", as best I can gather from what was quoted of Moltmann, is simply Moltmann's insistence that the Son's death grieved the Father deeply and the Father suffered, not from being personally crucified, but from grief over Christ's crucifixion, from love of him who died. This is not at all "patripassian" in the original heretical sense of the Father being crucified. As such the criticism does not hit the mark of Moltmann's teachings as quoted. It does serve as a way to bring the words "against Christian tradition" and "heretical" on stage in loose connection with Moltmann, despite the fact that Moltmann is not quoted as teaching the Father's death on the cross, merely the Father's suffering from his great love for Christ at Christ rejection and death.
Moltmann's theology has its faults. Still, his works raise the most important questions: Is God really impassible in the face of suffering? What is the nature of Lordship? How do we know God? Is God the God of domination who cannot suffer, cannot die? Is it possible to know God through speculation about his eternal nature apart from what is revealed in salvation history, especially in the cross of Christ? Is God as revealed in Christ radically different from God as he is in himself from all eternity? Or is the way to know God through Christ: the crucified God who has a radically different idea of lordship than we do, the God who takes up the cause of the godless at his own expense, who calls us not to have dominion but to take up the cross and follow him? That is why I enjoy Moltmann. The man does have a way of getting at the questions.
Announcement: Blog Summit on the Trinity
Nick Norelli is soliciting posts for a Blog Summit on the Trinity. All theology / biblical studies scholars please stop by and let him know if you're interested in submitting a piece on the Trinity.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Christian Reconciliation Carnival #9
Updated 10/25/2007 7:50am Central.
Welcome to the 9th edition of the Christian Reconciliation Carnival.
Topic of the Month
Several people wrote on the suggested topic for the month:
Dr. Pursiful presents Religious Freedom? This Baptist says, "You're Welcome!" Here Dr. Pursiful highlights the strong Baptist influence on religious freedom in the U.S.A.
Mark Olson of Pseudo-Polymath praises the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, and with good reason. As anyone who has participated in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy knows, it is a service of exceptional beauty and depth.
Yours truly, from the Lutheran tradition, submits The Cross Is Our Theology. The Lutheran tradition's most sustained and deliberate contribution to Christianity is to keep the focus on Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as the center and wellspring of Christian life.
Update: Proclaiming Softly also has an entry from the Lutheran tradition: Living in the Questions, where she notes the "tensions" in the Bible which lend richness to all Christian theology, but in which Lutherans have made a deliberate theological decision to leave the tensions open. She also notes that the largest provider of social services in the U.S.A. is Lutheran Social Services.
General Discussion
John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry considers the wedding of God and humanity, along with the wedding of a human bridgroom and bride, with insight from different Christian traditions and in Hebrew thought. It's his first submission to the Reconciliation Carnival. Welcome!
David Schutz of Sentire Cum Ecclesia requests help on a timeline of what I consider to be the second great schism in the church, Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox schism. He also expresses his distress as a Roman Catholic in watching the Eastern Orthodox courting Lutherans in ways that highlight the common differences with Rome that are shared by the Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox.
iMonk continues his ecumenical series, asking Lutheran guest-blogger Josh Strodbeck (Fearsome Pirate) about God's sovereignty in the face of disaster such as the I-35 bridge collapse. (Watch for Josh's application of that old Luther saying, "a theologian of glory calls evil 'good'" ... Bullseye.) iMonk also asks 5 questions of Roman Catholics; answers are in the responses.
Announcements
We're looking for one more person to host the Carnival this year, either right around Thanksgiving or early December. If you're interested, please drop an email to the carnival mailbox.
Welcome to the 9th edition of the Christian Reconciliation Carnival.
Topic of the Month
Several people wrote on the suggested topic for the month:
If you had to choose one thing that you believe your church or tradition does the best, or one contribution you believe your church body makes to Christendom as a whole, what would that be?
Dr. Pursiful presents Religious Freedom? This Baptist says, "You're Welcome!" Here Dr. Pursiful highlights the strong Baptist influence on religious freedom in the U.S.A.
I would argue that Baptists’ greatest contribution to the church is our pioneering work in the cause of religious liberty for all.
Mark Olson of Pseudo-Polymath praises the Eastern Orthodox liturgy, and with good reason. As anyone who has participated in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy knows, it is a service of exceptional beauty and depth.
Orthodoxy makes the claim that the essential and ‘best’ thing about their tradition is the liturgy.
Yours truly, from the Lutheran tradition, submits The Cross Is Our Theology. The Lutheran tradition's most sustained and deliberate contribution to Christianity is to keep the focus on Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as the center and wellspring of Christian life.
Update: Proclaiming Softly also has an entry from the Lutheran tradition: Living in the Questions, where she notes the "tensions" in the Bible which lend richness to all Christian theology, but in which Lutherans have made a deliberate theological decision to leave the tensions open. She also notes that the largest provider of social services in the U.S.A. is Lutheran Social Services.
General Discussion
John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry considers the wedding of God and humanity, along with the wedding of a human bridgroom and bride, with insight from different Christian traditions and in Hebrew thought. It's his first submission to the Reconciliation Carnival. Welcome!
David Schutz of Sentire Cum Ecclesia requests help on a timeline of what I consider to be the second great schism in the church, Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox schism. He also expresses his distress as a Roman Catholic in watching the Eastern Orthodox courting Lutherans in ways that highlight the common differences with Rome that are shared by the Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox.
iMonk continues his ecumenical series, asking Lutheran guest-blogger Josh Strodbeck (Fearsome Pirate) about God's sovereignty in the face of disaster such as the I-35 bridge collapse. (Watch for Josh's application of that old Luther saying, "a theologian of glory calls evil 'good'" ... Bullseye.) iMonk also asks 5 questions of Roman Catholics; answers are in the responses.
Announcements
We're looking for one more person to host the Carnival this year, either right around Thanksgiving or early December. If you're interested, please drop an email to the carnival mailbox.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The cross is our theology
The cross alone is our theology. -- Martin Luther
By claiming that God himself was on the side of the godless, he (Christ) incited the devout against him. -- Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified GodEvery Christian theologian has a place for the cross. One theologian has a place for the cross while focusing on human merit, another has a place for the cross while focusing on attaining holiness, another has a place for the cross while focusing on God's sovereignty, another has a place for the cross while focusing on the church or the unmoved mover or some other driving force.
Lutheran theologians, on the other hand, have no place to speak of the cross in a theology about merit or about attaining holiness or about sovereignty or about the church. Instead, we have a place for speaking of holiness in a theology about the cross. We have a place for speaking about the church in a theology about the cross. Whatsoever thoughts come into our theology are arranged around the cross, rather than the other way around. To be sure, we use "the cross" as shorthand for all that went with it: the incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the restoration of fellowship between God and man. These are the driving force of Lutheran theology.
The vital questions of theology are all answered at the cross. Does God exist? You can point to him on the cross. Does God care? There he is on the cross. Am I forgiven? Look at the cross. Could God love a sinner? How can God be known? Does God abandon us in our suffering? Is suffering a sign of God's hatred towards us? How far would God go to save us? How much could God forgive? If the answer is not found in the cross, then it never was a life-and-death question to start with.
The cross breaks us out of our self-centeredness. Many Christians spend lives looking inward and agonizing about whether we are good enough. We can never look at ourselves and know that we are good enough. But we can look at God and know that God is good enough.
Every Christian tradition has a place for the cross. If we Lutherans have contributed anything, it is that we have carefully guarded the central place of the cross, the driving force of the cross, the ability to say "I resolved to know nothing except Christ and him crucified." Some of the best Lutheran theology books of modern times are On Being a Theologian of the Cross and The Crucified God. The Crucified God is the one who has the ears of the suffering world.
Jurgen Moltmann, author of The Crucified God, read Eli Wiesel's Night, the harrowing account of his times in concentration camps. Here is an excerpt from The Crucified God, beginning with his quote of Wiesel.
The cross is seen as more than mere fodder for atonement theories, more than any payment and satisfaction scheme could ever imagine. In Lutheran theology, the cross did not merely fill in the blank in some theory about atonement whereby man could be reunited to God if only he believed the right thing. The cross did more than pay the price which would make a satisfaction theory work and thereby entitle man to be reconciled to God. Instead, the cross actually accomplished that reconciliation, actually accomplished the reunion of God and man, broke the boundaries separating us, and put God on the side of the godless.The SS hanged two Jewish men and a youth in front of the whole camp. The men died quickly, but the death throes of the youth lasted for half an hour. 'Where is God? Where is he?' someone asked behind me. As the youth still hung in torment in the noose after a long time, I heard the man call again, 'Where is God now?' And I heard a voice in myself answer: 'Where is he? He is here. He is hanging there on the gallows ...' (Wiesel as quoted by Moltmann)Any other answer would be blasphemy. There cannot be any other Christian answer to the question of this torment. To speak here of a God who could not suffer would make God a demon. To speak here of an absolute God would make God an annihilating nothingness. To speak here of an indifferent God would condemn men to indifference. -- Moltmann
In a sense, this gives Lutherans few "distinctives": what is our most cherished possession is the most treasured possession of all Christians together: God's grace, his gift of himself to the world through Christ. But it does give us cause to be glad of Martin Luther's legacy which has lived on with such a rich stream of theology.
The cross alone is our theology. -- Martin Luther
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
