Showing papers in "Theology in 2000"

Book Review: Systematic Theology Volume 2: The Works of God

Abstract: will not be unfamiliar to students of 'the quest for the historical Jesus', and Ehrman acknowledges his debt to Albert Schweitzer. Yet as important for readers will be Ehrman's method of procedure: the book begins with a survey of those who have interpreted the Christian gospel in a millennialist fashion, who, it is argued, rightly judge Jesus' 'mindset' even if they often misjudge his life's ethos; he then outlines the problems and techniques of using the Gospels as sources for the life of Jesus, the dearth of external evidence, and the nature of first-century Judaism, before applying these ground rules to demonstrate how the apocalyptic framework makes best sense of those sayings and deeds of Jesus which have most claim to 'authenticity', including his death; finally he sketches the development of the 'church's view' of Jesus. The argument is clearly presented, even if it fails to explain why others have come to widely differing conclusions; the style is relaxed, often colloquial, with attempts at wit and anecdotal illustration designed to make the strange familiar, but likely to have the reverse effect for some British readers.

The New Romantics A Critique of Radical Orthodoxy

Abstract: Self-styled 'radical orthodox' writing is becoming a major presence on the theological scene.' Its practitioners have a high view of their own role in renewing theological discourse. They see themselves as taking on the autonomous secularism which they argue lurks at the heart of much non-Christian philosophy, sociology, ethics, aesthetics and politics.' The movement claims not to be a mere restatement of 'orthodox' belief in the name of scriptural and ecclesiastical authority.' Instead, it seeks to radicalize secular philosophy's critique of theology by turning it upon itself. The great 'masters of suspicion', who relativized religious belief by explaining it away in terms of some other 'natural' reality, are themselves exposed as being insufficiently self-critical, and enmeshed in the web of a hidden set of quasi-theological assumptions which no rationality can justify: 'It is not enough to see what is called "secularization" as the progressive stripping away of the sacred from some profane remainder. What we have instead is the substitution of one mythos of salvation for another." Radical orthodoxy's target is any attempt to construct a way of thinking or a reality which is essentially independent of its transcendent, creative source and goal. Its most obvious adversaries are self-consciously secular philosophies which attempt to ground thought and reality on a purely immanent foundation (modernism), or else reject all notion of grounding and take refuge in the play of appearances (postmodernism). Radical orthodoxy sees both of these modes of thinking as species of one and the same nihilism. Neither can avoid asserting some ultimate state of affairs to be the case, and since both aggressively limit themselves to what is immanent and worldly, neither can provide any ultimate justification for their world-view. Both modern and postmodern secularisms suspend reality over a void, emptying it of substance and violently cutting it off from any reference to a reconciling transcendent source and goal a God who gifts reality to us. Only such an infinite, creative giving can make reality real, giving it a context in which time, place and matter can make sense. Thus, "There is no such thing as a secular realm, a part of the world that can be elevated above God and explained and investigated apart from him." But the same arguments used against secular philosophies also

Theology in the Twenty-First Century*:

Abstract: Academic life is not a good training ground for the gift of prophecy. Anything that I may be able to say about how theology may be or should be in the future can come only by way of cautious extrapolation from the past. So that is where I shall begin. And there is plenty of past to survey. But since my title encourages me to think in terms of centuries, I shall follow its lead and restrict my reflections to the twentieth century. That is still an overlarge canvas for a single lecture, but the survey I intend is a highly selective one. I have another, more personal reason for making that particular choice. For the last fifteen years, until just a few months ago, I have been editor of the Journal of Theological Studies. The journal first appeared in October 1899 on the eve of the start of the century just finished. So last October was its centenary, and in preparation for that occasion I undertook a study of how it began and the aims and aspirations of those who founded it. The initial committee of direction was made up of the ten divinity professors of Oxford and Cambridge, all ordained Anglicans, the leading figures being H. B. Swete and William Sanday, both scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity. Their motives in starting the journal are clear. The development of critical historical study and of scientific knowledge through the nineteenth century had had a devastating effect on people's attitude to the Bible and to Christian faith more generally. Moreover, by the end of the century it had become clear that the challenge inherent in those new forms of knowledge could not be met by simply ignoring them or denying that such methods had any validity at all. Yet, while there were journals for clergy and journals for preachers, there was no British journal that approached theology in a rigorously scholarly and scientific way. For that, one had to go to Germany. And they were determined to initiate one in Britain. What is particularly striking is the optimistic manner in which they embarked on their task. The fruits of German critical scholarship in theology in the later years of the nineteenth century had not proved very reassuring for orthodox belief; but Swete and Sanday and their close collaborators were confident that those same critical methods, pursued with that more cautious and conservative temper that they regarded as characteristic of the British temperament generally, and characteristic of the Church of England in particular,

Vernacular HermeneuticsVernacular Hermeneutics, ed. SugirtharajahR. S. (Sheffield Academic Press1999), 148 pp, £12.95 pbk

Abstract: Biblical interpretation can be a matter of life and death. In South Africa, the Bible is a significant but ambiguous text which has strengthened the arm of oppressor and liberator alike. This book examines co-operation between biblical scholars and'ordinary' Bible readers (who may in fact be illiterate) from poor and marginalized communities. Its author is Director of the Institute for the Study of the Bible, a joint project between the School of Theology of the University of Natal (where he is Associate Professor) and poor communities. He writes animatedly if rather repetitiously from personal engagement. It has led him, a 'white, middle-class male', to a 'conversion' experience: 'Our discourse has excluded others, particularly those who might disrupt and challenge the established hierarchies of our academies and societies. But \"they\" are not silent, and will not be silenced [...] our voices are not the only ones.' All this, the author suggests, may seem 'strange and controversial'. But liberation theology, the hermeneutical emphasis on the reader, postmodernism, have pointed this way for some time now, as he shows. So I was not challenged by his overall conclusion, but by the more basic point: 'biblical interpretations do matter; they do shape our world [...] They have effects.' A question persists. For the oppressed, the Bible is both problem and solution. The way the poor and marginalized find support for their cause in the text can, as West says, seem more like re-writing the Bible than reading it. Liberation theology claims the epistemological privilege of the poor to discern what is beyond, behind or between the biblical lines, despite what is on them. But is this itself oppressive, and abuse of power? Maybe (not just in South Africa), we should be even bolder, and recognize 'ordinary' believers' ability and authority as creative theologians, without requiring them to prove that their insights are somehow 'biblical'?

Jesus, apocalyptic prophet of the new millenium

Abstract: From Chapter Seven onwards, the nature of the study changes. The first six chapters are a survey of interpretations. Chapters Seven and Eight, however ('Exit the apocalyptic Son of Man?' and 'The idiomatic/nontitular son of man'), set the scene for the conclusion in Chapter 10 ('Conclusions') that the choice is between these two. Chapter Nine is a survey of the interpretation of the apocalyptic and rabbinic literature that may cast light on the title, but goes beyond being a survey, in that it offers also an assessment of the literature. The key question for Burkett here is whether or not there is a unified pre-Christian Son of Man title. In his view there is not, and thus he is able to conclude that the titular use (which he favours over the nontitular) is multivalent: 'The title thus appears to function as a general title for Jesus as the Christian Messiah. If this is the case, the distinctive associations of the different categories of sayings must come from the context, not from the title itself' (p. 122). The book thus moves beyond survey and evaluation to solution. One has then to read the book recognizing that it has a story to tell, that it is more than its title suggests. The book is well presented and clean. Smaller things that do distract are several places where uncertain references from one or two writers cited from other writers have not been checked (I noted Zwingli and Bucer, p. 14nne 1, 4), and inconsistency in citing Latin place names in the bibliography (some are put into English, others are left in Latin).

The Covenanted Self: Explorations in Law and Covenant

Abstract: books of the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) reached their canonical form. His own conclusions are presented clearly and accessibly in the concluding Summary. The case for these conclusions is built up solidly in the rest of the book. After dispensing quickly with the case for the 'Traditional View', Rofe guides the reader through the arguments for the Documentary Hypothesis whereby the Pentateuch is viewed as a combination of four source documents known by the letters J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist) and P (Priestly). His illustration of the characteristics of P by close attention to a number of texts is masterly and provides an excellent example of source criticism at its best. However, the dating of P relative to D is much harder going, and lacks the bite of the previous chapter. This part of his case displays a mixture of detailed argument (e.g., in relation to the Levitical Priests) and unsupported assertions (e.g., his description of the Deuteronomistic school's move from Shechem to Jerusalem where this 'refugee intellegentsia' was 'afforded protection by the king'). Much less attention is given to J and E, which is in keeping with current trends in pentateuchal studies. Having developed a strong case for the Documentary Hypothesis Rofe proceeds to show some of its weakness, arguing his own case that 'the Pentateuch's stories are not composed of just four parallel documents, but a far greater number,' and concluding that 'Pentateuchalliterature is much richer than the documentary hypothesis suggested' (p. 94). Again this is well supported by textual examples that considerably enhance his argument. The Introduction claims that the book 'is written not for scholars with years of experience with biblical criticism, but for the general public'. For the most part Rofe's arguments are easy to follow and provide an excellent introduction to the important issues. However, this is marred by the use in a number of places of untransliterated (and some untranslated) Hebrew and assumptions in a couple of places regarding the reader's knowledge of Hebrew grammar and Palestinian geography.

The Use of Scripture in Contemporary Debate about Homosexuality

Abstract: Simplistic and selective use of Scripture is one of the problems that bedevils much recent debate about Scripture and homosexuality. This paper tries to set out some of the issues involved in responsible use of Scripture. It is hoped that it may be useful for group discussion; with this in view the paragraphs are numbered to facilitate their use. Although the purpose of the paper is not to argue a particular case, the writer's own overall stance will no doubt become evident. However, the fact that there are unresolved tensions within the paper is deliberate. For unless the problems and tensions inherent in appeal to Scripture on this issue are taken with full seriousness, there is little prospect of doing justice to the genuine complexity of the debate or of making real progress within it. Recent literature on the subject is immense. In a short paper it is impossible to enter into genuine interaction with such literature. So I have simply set out an account of the issues without footnotes, but in a way that seeks to be sensitive to the wider debate. A short bibliography at the end gives a selection of recent works from various perspectives, which also all give details of further literature.

The Legacy of Liberal Anglican Theology

Abstract: In 1995the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England produced an impressive report entitled The Mystery of Salvation: The Story of God's Gift.! In the Foreword Bishop Alec Graham, the Commission's then Chairman, set out the principles underlying its compilation: 'Our aim has been to express the Church's faith as received by us from Scripture and from the Church's subsequent understanding of its inheritance, in such a way that we are true to the tradition received and give fresh expression to it.\" Rather surprisingly, given its contents, the report was largely dismissed in the popular press as an example of theological reductionism. Attention fastened on the brief discussion of hell, and the implied rejection of the idea of eternal punishment; few seemed to notice the accompanying argument about human freedom and divine omnipotence. While one might lament it, many in the Church took their lead from the press, dismissing the report as another example of doctrinal confusion in the Church of England. It seems that many of the faithful no longer trust the Church's theologians to reflect the faith that they celebrate in worship. Part of the reason for this state of affairs lies, I believe, in the legacy bequeathed to us by the radical scepticism of 1960s and 1970s Anglican theology, and it is the impact of this broad movement of thought that I want to examine in this paper. Twenty years ago the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England produced a report entitled Christian Believing which, in the words of the subtitle, explored 'The Nature of the Christian Faith and its Expression in Holy Scripture and Creeds'.\" The report caused enormous embarrassment, signalling as it did the failure of a group of leading Anglican theologians to reach agreement about the nature of belief. Of the report's 114 pages the agreed statement runs to only 42 pages, and many of these are descriptions of divergent positions. The main bulk of the report consists of appendices and position papers by Commission members. The impression created is of a divided and confused Church whose theologians cannot even agree about the Christian attitude towards faith and belief, let alone the content of doctrine itself. The Commission's Chairman, Professor Maurice Wiles, admitted that the report had not been easy to write.' In the concluding section of the agreed statement the compilers analyse various approaches to the place of creeds in Christian life and comment:

On Completing the Apologetic Spectrum

Abstract: I Apologetics deals with the relationship of the Christian faith to the wider sphere of [our] "secular" knowledge philosophy, science, history, sociology, and so on with a view to showing that faith is not at variance with the truth that these enquiries have uncovered' (Alan Richardson).' It is with the first in this list of spheres of secular knowledge that I shall be concerned in this article for philosophy is a barometer of our culture, and if our theology is to connect with our culture then it must connect with contemporary philosophy. But what is that philosophy? If the Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery, with its conglomeration of previous styles with no uniting theme, is a useful definition of postmodernism in the architectural sphere, then in the philosophical sphere there is no single I grand narrative'; there is unremitting diversity, with different philosophical frameworks jostling for position: everything from Jacques Derrida's differance to Iris Murdoch's Platonic 'good'.3 In former times it might have been difficult to do Christian apologetics (and particularly during the reign of logical positivism, during the 1940s, following the publication of A. J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic,4 which attempted to eliminate metaphysics by insisting that all philosophy is analysis), but at least the agenda was fairly clear. Today the philosophical agenda is far from clear, we find value in a variety of philosophical frameworks, and Christian apologetics has to fight on so many fronts that it often retreats into a previous world-view (and often a fourth-century one) and leaves the field to systematic theology, to individual or social ethics, to biblical studies, to ecclesiology or to liturgy all vibrant areas of research. The suggestion of this article is a simple one: that Christian apologetics is the most important task facing Christian theology today, and that in order to do it we need to create or rediscover a variety of theologies in tune with our contemporary philosophical diversity (and that these stories need to be fairly systematic, for otherwise our mindsets and our stories will be too much controlled by systematic theologies from the past and the diversity which emerges will not be the radically diverse theology which we now require; and, more importantly, our theologies need to be systematic so that we can relate them to philosophical traditions today and to theologies and philosophies from the past so that they behave as apologetics and not simply as a closed group's spiritual language).

Book Review: Art and the Beauty of God: A Christian Understanding

Abstract: It can be no surprise that the dreaming spires of Oxford have inspired their bishop to produce this timely, platonic apologia for the significance of beauty in Christian thought and experience. In his characteristically urbane and highly literate way, Bishop Harries describes the neglect, the theological place, and the apologetic importance of one of Plato's 'transcendentals' which, Harries rightly observes, has been an important dimension of the religious experience witnessed to both in the Bible itself and in subsequent Christian history. The bishop once criticized C. S. Lewis the apologist for a failure to stand beside those whom he wished to convert; for failing to give sufficient credit to their objections to the Christian faith. Harries, well known for other apologetic essays, seeks to avoid that pitfall by noting the current 'secular' interest in the beautiful and by acknowledging with the church's critics that her life, worship and presentation of reality is often 'platitudinous' when compared with the 'troubling, haunting depths' of so much contemporary art of stage, screen, book and canvass (p. 6). His ten chapters take us, therefore, on a fast-paced tour from the church's contemporary 'neglect of beauty', through the philosophical and theological tradition, the scriptures, and contemporary art, to the significance of the resurrection of Christ and 'transfiguring beauty'. The presentation is sometimes apologetic in tone as though addressed to non-Christians at other times it reads almost like a sermon or a meditation. This may reflect the contexts which gave rise to the chapters of the book. It makes, however, for a somewhat uneven read. A plodding reader like myself cannot but be impressed, and sometimes over-faced, by the breadth and number of quotations from theologians, critics, writers, poets, artists and scholars, from Plotinus and Plato, to Scotus and Aquinas, to Rilke, Holderlin, Browning and Hopkins, to Lewis, Muir, Eliot, Thomas and even Shusako Endo. The author takes for granted that we will know and acknowledge these 'authorities'. But do we? Or rather, how many readers are likely to? To whom, in the end, is this useful book directed? Certainly Christian and nonChristian literati will appreciate it and find much of value. But do they need convincing? I fear that the neglect of beauty reigns among a multitude who will find the bishop's text impenetrable. Bishop Harries' study, therefore, begs a question: how can society at large repossess a quality of experience and discourse which will allow 'the many' even to engage the questions he rightly raises? This is a huge challenge for theologians, preachers, liturgists, artists and teachers. The chapter on this is as yet unwritten.

Hidden Ecumenism: New Priorities for Ecumenical Work

Abstract: The following fictional account is illustrative of the experience of many in the ecumenical movement. A new ecumenical officer goes for a first meeting with a senior church leader and after the initial pleasantries they get down to business. The church leader tells the ecumenical officer that she has her work cut out. There is not much interest in ecumenical matters in the churches; people are more concerned about money, membership and issues of human sexuality. Ecumenism is understood as another layer of meetings for people, especially the clergy, who are already far too busy. Local Ecumenical Partnerships (LEPs) are a problem, they are increasingly difficult to staff and they are perceived as something of an anomalous legacy from the failed Covenant talks of the 1970s and early 1980s.Perhaps, the church leader suggests, she could try and do something about local churches together groups which seem to have got stuck in a rut with the same few people doing the same things year in year out. Maybe, he adds, it would be possible to start at the local level to set the pulses racing on matters ecumenical as in the heady days of the 1960s which he remembers so well. Such an account is of course apocryphal. Further, it fails to do justice to the supportive work of many church leaders who continue to encourage and promote the ecumenical movement in a difficult climate. This said it is illustrative of two perceptions which we, as ecumenical officers, regularly encounter. The first is that ecumenical activity is low on the churches' agenda and is a matter of secondary not primary concern. The second is that the role of the ecumenical officer is to argue that ecumenism should be the primary concern of the churches. It is these perceptions which we want to explore and to a certain extent challenge in this article. Our hypothesis is that ecumenical activity is widespread and common throughout church life but to a large extent hidden. The role of the ecumenical officer could, therefore, be to discern and support already existing ecumenical activity rather than promote new activity. In this article we shall list some of the areas where we have discerned ecumenical activity, with the hope of stimulating others to add to the list. The notion that ecumenical activity is prevalent in the churches raises the question about the sort of ecumenism we are discussing. For us the concept of koinonia, common in the ecumenical movement, is the key to exploring what is meant by a hidden ecumenism. In particular we shall examine the relationship between the fellowship

To Know, Or Not To Know? Re-assessing Historical Scepticism

Abstract: Maurice Wiles' article in Theology (May/june 1998), 'Belief, openness and religious commitment', put the case persuasively for a high dose of agnosticism in Christian belief. We do need to learn to feel comfortable with the lack of that absolute certainty for which we easily crave. Questions of truth can never be unchallengeably resolved; even the minimalist positive statement of Wiles at the end of his article is controversial. Openness to fresh evidence and experience is essential. Attempts to ascribe inerrant authority to Bible, Church, or personal claim to be guided by the Spirit, loop back into the original problem at one remove. On the other hand, the case for certainty of a high-probability kind appears impressive, for at least the following reasons:

The Johannine Literature A Sample of Recent Studies in English

Abstract: It was Professor Charlie Moule, friend and mentor, who first kindled my interest in the task of exploring the relationship between the documents in the New Testament (and even beyond) which bear the name of John. I have pursued that enterprise now since 1986, when I delivered the Manson Memorial Lecture at Manchester University.' This formed an investigation into the common ground between the Gospel and the Revelation of John; and it concluded that there are real but sometimes subtle affinities between those two writings in terms of their ethos, theology, tradition, language and structure. Subsequent research into the linkages within the Johannine corpus, including the Gospel and Letters, has brought into focus the existence and nature of a community behind this collection of literature: a church with a life and problems of its own, struggling not only with the threat of persecution from outside, but also with growing doctrinal (especially christological) tensions from within the circle. I have begun this article in personal mode in order to underline the importance, as I see it, of treating John's writings as a documentary unit. Even if this understanding has not commanded universal scholarly approval, it seems to me imperative that John's Revelation should be brought into one purview with his Gospel and Letters, and that we should seek to interpret the volatile history of John's community by studying those documents together. When we do so, and consider the content of the Johannine literature as a whole, a clear picture begins to emerge. In the Apocalypse, written by the apostle John in 70 cs, we can discern a situation of incipient conflict: between believers from a Jewish background who take too 'low' a view of the person of Christ, and those with a Greek allegiance whose Christology is too 'high'. At the time of the Gospel's composition (by John's followers, c. 80 CE) the problems have deepened, and secession is threatened. This results in John's balanced view of Christ's nature (John 16.28), and his impassioned plea for love and unity within the congregation (John 15.12; 17.20-1). When the Johannine Letters are being written (by senior members of John's community, c. 90 CE), disintegration is already evident. Those who cannot live comfortably in the divided circle are leaving it (2 John 7); and Diotrephes is delivering the final coup de grace by regarding