« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »

To speak of retrieving a medieval intellectual tradition provokes strong reaction within the contemporary world. One immediate has to deal with claims of wanting to return to the Crusades and the Inquisition -- even if one thinks that the Scriptures demands that Christians must commit to non-violence as I do. To speak sympathetically of the medieval European world does not evoke much sympathy. To speak to retrieve a sophistication of thought and life from that times strikes us (post)modernists as positively barbaric. Of course the irony here is that none of the barbarism matches the barbarism of Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, nor Bush's Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

Guardini begins The End of the Modern World to understand the deep continuities and differences between the classical and medieval world to sympathetically understand the medieval. This is not merely an antiquarian interest, but a means of retrieval of a medieval Christian humanism in contrast to the modern anti-humanistic humanism that Guardini saw around him.

Guardini argues that "unless we free ourselves of the evaluations made by the minds of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment we cannot really understand the Middle Ages. The judgment then leveled were made under the pressure of a polemic which has succeeded in distorting the truth even to our own day. Equally distorted was the glorified Middle Ages of the Romantics who gave the period a frankly 'canonical' character it never possessed. The excessive enthusiasm of the Romantics has prevented many a man from arriving at a balanced view of medieval Christendom" (p. 22).

Guardini asks "to what extent did it [the Middle Ages] allow for the development of human dignity?" His answer: "The medieval achievement was so magnificient that it stands with the loftiest moment of human history" (p. 23). Obviously this was not because of the empirical observations or its theoretic advances to master the world found in the medieval world. Guardini writes that medieval humans 'chose to plunge into truth by way of meditation; then he drew from his meditations the spiritual laws governing all reality. The roots of all truths were given him by authority: the roots of divine truth by Scripture and the Church; of natural truth by the thought of antiquity" (pp. 23-24).

Theologically, Guardini turns to analyze the dynamics of the "philosophical-theological Summae" (p. 25). In terms similar to Peter Candler (who draws upon Michel de Certeau), Guardini argues that the Summae were not encyclopaedias "to determine what being must 'be'; they were an attempt to determine what being must 'mean.' The meaning expressed in the Summae arose not alone from its content; it arose equally from the very mode of statement and amplification. . . . the very construction of a quaestio as it was used to pose a problem guaranteed clarity of investigation, an adequate weighing of pro and con and of the relations between the problem and previous thought. To the quaestio was given a formal aesthetic value comparable with that of a sonnet or a fugue. A quaestio was not simply a medium by which truth could be read by the mind understanding it; it was a truth formed and shaped by mind to speak to mind. Artistic form then embodied another yet certain truth about the world. It was simply the truth that reality itself was ordered harmoniously in being, that it could be formed and fashioned by the artistic genius of man. A complete Summa in its articles, its questions and its parts was a structured unity within which the human spirit could linger and take its repose. A Summa was not only a book of science; it was a 'space,' vast in its ontology--deep and ordered--wherein the human spirit found its proper place and exercised that self-discipline necessary to experience security" (pp. 25-6). One learned how to have the masters form one's intellect to move in and out of various statements so that all life might ultimately find the end of its form in God's revelation to us in Jesus Christ, experienced in the gathering of the church in prayer and worship.

One did not have to "make one's meaning" or even "find one's meaning" in life. Life was known as inherently meaningful; one partook of this meaning -- or resisted it -- by the very fact of living. Authority, not the consumerist will, framed human life: "As long as medieval man was gripped by his own vision of existence, as long as he heard its music sounding in the depths of his heart, he never experienced authority as shackling. It was a bridge leading to the absolute; it was the flag of the world. Authority provided medieval man with the opportunity to construct an order whose magnificence of form, intensity of manner and richness of life were such that he would have judged our world as paltry" (pp. 25-26).

Guardini ends the chapter with interesting reflection: "authority is needed not only by the childish but also in the life of every man, even the most mature. Integral to the full grandeur of human dignity, authority is not merely the refuge of the weak; its destruction always breeds its burlesque -- force" (p. 26). Perhaps this explains the irrationality of the modern rejection of the medieval. The modern replaced authority with force, and then imported a notion of force back upon what the medieval saw as authority, and then gave this force to an absolutist state. In trying to learn to protect ourself from coercive force, we have learned to extract ourselves from legitimate authority, an authority that finds its end in what is good -- except as it allows us to exercise sufficient force to manipulate and master reality to a particular end, good or not.

Posted by johnwright at 2:20 PM | Comments (5)

With 1 Chronicles notes finally in and summer quickly moving, I'm been spending time reading "big views" of Western intellectual/cultural history. I spent much of the spring working with late 18th, and early 19th century figures and institutions. It seems to me that we are working with diminished sense of the human person that ironically, arose by the particularities of the modern rejection of the medieval. The modern grew out of the nominalist rejection of high medieval understanding of God and creation, but sustained, or inverted, the political attempt of the church to use its authority coercively over temporal authorities. In Yoder's terms, the modern sustained the Constantinianism of the medieval but did so by undercutting classical Christian understanding of God and the world. Our current struggles with "the secular" in Western culture, it seems to me, comes from the particularity of the contingencies of this development.

What would it be like to rethink the modern, its obvious technological improvements, by re-inverting this history? In some way, I think that we can find this going on in our world as the modern (morphed into a new phase in the post-modern) seems to be reaching exhaustion. There is an opportunity for understanding and the life of the church in this age.

I'm going to spend some time, hopefully each day or so, interacting with three works: Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World and Charles Taylor, A Secular Age and Michael Allen Gillespies, The Theological Origins of Modernity. There is an amazing overlap in the works although the occur over 60 years from each other.

Guardini was a German Roman Catholic priest who lived from 1885-1968. Part of the "progressives" before Vatican II, Guardini is considered a "conservative" now. Though significant through his writings, he played no official role in Vatican II because of suspicions against him. According to Fergus Kerr in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians , "in March 1939, the Nazi regime abolished the post [Guardini's professoriate at the University of Breslau], forbade his ministry with youth, and in 1941 banned him from speaking in public" [p. 8].

The End of the Modern World combines two series of lectures in post-WWII Germany, one given in 1947-49 and the other in 1949, into one book. The first lectures, The End of the Modern World, provided background to lectures on Pascal; the other, "Power and Responsibility" provides reflections on the world in its post-WW II tensions between liberalism and Communism, amid the rubble of the destruction caused by Fascism. For Guardini, there is no nostalgic going back to the medieval; the only hope is that which lies in the future, and therefore, in God.

In Chapter One, Guardini engages "the Sense of Being and the World Picture of the Middle Ages" (pp. 1-27). He contrasts the difference Christianity made as it radically took up and transformed the heritage given to it from the classical Western world. The transformation occurred because of a new sense of, in a word, revelation. Guardini wrote, "Classical man knew nothing of a being existing beyond the world; as a result he was neither able to view nor to shapen his world from a vantage point which transcended it. With his feelings and his imagination, in his actions and all his endeavors, he lived witin his cosmos. Every project taht he undertook, even when he dared to go to the farthest bounds, ran its course within the arc of his world" (p. 3). In contrast, in the medieval world, "Above and beyond everything given man in this world Revelation was the absolute fulcrum. Set forth within the dogma of the Church, Revelation was accepted upon faith by the individual. From one point of view the Church bound and limited man by its authority; from another point of view the Church made it possible for man to surmount his world. She gave a vision which of itself was vast and liberating in scope. Revealed truth was conceptualized by means of a delicate logic which distinguished and then united all of reality" (p. 13).

Revelation explodes the immanence of being in a single process of re-cycling, even when it moves from the physical to the spiritual as in antiquity. Without Revelation humanity is caught in a hamster wheel, the endless sameness of the new as being moves into different stages of existence. Here is where the paradox of an authority like that of the church, an authority based upon its witness to and participation with Revelation, shatters the wheel and opens up to the genuinely different and new that is at the same time the Origin and End, the Alpha and Omega, the eternal breaking into the temporal. One senses in the medieval world the emergence of an authentic sense of freedom -- not the ability to do what one wants -- but liberation to allow one's wants to be formed to what is Eternal through the revelation of the eternal in the midst of the temporal in Jesus Christ.

With the loss of Revelation, the world/cosmos/universe collapses back in upon itself. This is the story of that which is to come in Guardini's work.

Posted by johnwright at 6:32 PM | Comments (7)

We live in a culture that lives on a distinction between the "inside" and the "outside" of human life. Real life, real emphasis is placed on the "inner life" that is seen as independent of the "outer" realm where we live. Watch Oprah or Jerry Springer or any "reality" TV show. The "outside" is the stage on which the "inside" -- the place of our true life -- takes place.

There is a real sense that the Christian tradition has historically made this distinction between the internal and the external -- and emphasizes the internal. It is necessary, lest we fall into a legalism or a moralism. One can feed the hungry through resentment, not love; one can remain faithful to marriage vows out of spite rather than mutual submission. Yet the tradition, particularly in our Wesleyan branch, does not allow this wedge to be drawn between the two. The Gospels tell the story of the two sons, one who said to the Father, I'll do it, but didn't; the other that said, no, but did it -- which one did the will of the Father? Thus while we have to make a distinction, we have to recognize the movement of the external into the internal, even as what is internal to us moves externally. We must avoid legalism and moralism, whether of the right or of the left; yet we commit outselves to certain external goods and practices so that the Spirit might sanctify us to bring for faith, hope, and love within.

I'd like to order our Scripture readings from this week to show this movement from the "outside" to the "inside" -- how we are made righteous, justified, by internalizing what God has objectively, externally brought forth in Jesus. To do this, it might be helpful to begin with the Epistle reading, turn to the Gospel, and then finish with the reading from Deuteronomy.

Romans 3:21-25a,28

Translation issues make a big difference in this passage. So I'd like to correct it from its modern translations -- the King James translation is more like the one I am offering, I believe. It has been an important shift in understanding Paul the past 25 years. So here is a revised translation:

Now outside the law, the righteousness of God has appeared being witnessed to by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God [has appeared] through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; we are now made righteous/just as a gift of his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood through [his] faithfulness. . . . For we hold that a person is made righteous by faith outside works of the law.

This is tough stuff to read, very confusing and technical. But let's try the "external" and "internal" distinction. With whose "righteousness/justice" is the passage mainly concerned? To what do the Law and the Prophets refer? Where does one see the "righteousness of God" or the fact that God is just? Is this internal or external to us, something that first happens in us or for us?

Now obviously, I think that Paul teaches that it happens for us -- in Christ Jesus whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood through [his] faithfulness. Now how does Paul see us becoming righteous/just? Does our righteousness begin inside us or outside us? How do we then become "internally" righteous? By works of the law? How does believing/trusting/being loyal to Jesus allow us to become righteous? Whose righteousness is it then? What is it to be made righteous/just by faith outside the law?

How do we participate in a righteousness not our own so that it becomes our own? Maybe the gospel reading can help us.

Matthew 7:21-27

This passage ends the Sermon on the Mount. Given the content of the sermon on the Mount, why is it only the one who externally does "the will of my Father in heaven" and not the one who claim to have done acts of power, prophesy, or exorcisms in Jesus' name, that Jesus welcomes into the coming kingdom of heaven? Where does one see or know the will of the Father? Is this will found through internal self-examination or something external to us? What is the point of the parable at the end of the passage as the summary of the whole Sermon on the Mount?

Deuteronomy 11:18-21,26-28

The Deuteronomy passage emphasizes the response to the Law as given so that Israel might prosper in the land that God has promised to give them. Given that the Law witnesses to the righteousness of God in the faithfulness of Jesus, why would the Deuteronomy passage emphasize the immersion in the God's word. How does the passage tell Israel to put the words "internally" "in your heart and soul"? Are these words internal or external to Israel? How do these words help us avoid idolatry?

The modern era has witnessed the split between "authority" and "meaning" -- the "external" and the "internal". Churches, which use to emphasize the external, now focus strictly on the internal -- we have "worship celebrations" to pump us up from inside to face the outside. The temptation is to conform the life of the church to what we have already experienced or desire internally rather than to let the external shape our internal to let us desire what is good rather than what is comfortable from our culture as we have internalized what is external to us so that we think that this is natural.

Yet we know, in all our experience, that life is external to us, something into which we are born that we then participate in. Yet participation is of different types -- there is mindless conformity whereby moralistic actions become an end in themselves and there is an internalization that comes from participation that allows a skill and wisdom to arise to live life well and constantly amid all the different circumstances in which we find ourselves. Salvation is granted us in Christ that we then participate in through faith; it is not something that is first internal to us that then finds external manifestation. The internal is the external with becomes the internal externally seen in the world in witness!

Early Christians had a term for this internalization of an external good -- a habitus (it always sounds fancier in Latin). It is like the process of becoming an artist -- I think all the bible studies has people who have art in your background. How does one become a good artist?
Early Christians held that the church is the hospital of the soul in which our internal life is healed from its sin by participation by faith in the external practices of the church, instituted by Jesus, as described in the Scriptures. We try at Mid-City to recover this -- to call to certain practices in faith so that the "Word" might be in our soul and our hearts by immersion in the practices commanded as central to Jesus -- and thus that we might received the sanctifying presence of the Spirit -- indeed, we must or we will not last. Maybe you might end the evening with a good Nazarene "testimony" time of sharing how God has pulled you deeper into the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ through the internalization of what you have participated in externally.

Finally, I hope now to start blogging regularly. I'm going to work through some books that I've read as means of understanding more deeply the world around us and how we might faithfully respond to God's call in our lives as part of this congregation. I hope you all will check and join the discussions!

Have a wonderful bible study!

Posted by johnwright at 2:27 PM | Comments (6)

The old "Pink Floyd" song from "The Dark Side of the Moon" would provide a good introduction to the readings of these passages as we head into "normal time" of the church year, living life in the times between the times.

Wealth obviously brings up all sorts of issues in our culture because of the different economic systems of capitalism and socialism that arose out of the 19th century and still dominate options. Yet Christian teachings on wealth come historically before these "systems" and do not fit comfortably within either. The Scriptures instead focus on personal responsibility for wealth and its redistribution as members of the body of Christ. Part of the challenge of the biblical teaching is reading it in light of Jesus.

To move from the OT reading to the Epistle to the Gospel may be useful in hearing the Scripture here.

Isaiah 49:8-18

The Isaiah passage calls to the people of God who have lived in exile. God has called to change their material situation to help them accomplish the mission to witness to God's faithfulness in giving them the land (a very important type of wealth). What is it to be "remembered" by God?

What is the purpose for God's "answer" and "salvation"? What situation of the people does the passage presuppose? What must take place for them to fulfill their mission? How will this take place?

1 Corinthians 4:1-13

Paul here speaks as a "servant" (an officially designated "representative" of Christ and a "steward of God's 'mysteries": something that is true but not immediately visible for everyone to see -- a "secret." Given this, why doesn't matter to Paul how "human courts" judge him? Why doesn't he even judge himself? Can we know the real intentions of persons? Why or why not?

According to Paul, do we "own" things, rather knowledge or possessions? Why? Because you work, do people have to pay you? How do we get possessions?

Here is one of those biblical passages where Paul is downright sarcastic. Why does Paul resort to sarcasm? What is Paul's situation compared to theirs socially and economically? What has been the social and economic results for Paul personally for becoming a believer in Jesus Christ and an apostle? Why does he think that this is a good thing?

Matthew 6:24-34

Why cannot one serve God and wealth simultaneously? Given that, are material elements evil per se? Why shouldn't we worry? Rather than serving wealth, what is our call? What is the difference between Jesus' teachings here and an attitude of "don't worry, be happy"?

Given these readings, what is our responsibility for wealth? What is the purpose for material goods? Can we live life outside of them? Are these goods "ours"? Are they the "end" of our life?

What financial and social implications have you experienced as a result of following Jesus? What happens as a result of being personally involved in the lives of those who come from different social and economic backgrounds as you? Why do we tend to back away from personal responsibility in dealing with our wealth?

Last night at Bread of Life, we talked from the 1 Corinthians passage. Our congregation there was tremendously receptive to this passage? Why do you think they heard as an affirmation while we can hear it as a challenge?

Have a wonderful evening!

Posted by johnwright at 12:50 PM | Comments (18)

The Sunday after Pentecost has traditionally become Trinity Sunday. I have no real knowledge of its precise history, but I do know that, by it, the church witnesses to the faith given to the saints in an essential way, to point the faithful to the true God, the Triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In the modern world the Christian confession of God as Triune has taken a beating. First, the confession was seen as "contrary to reason" and thus easily discarded. Second, as "religion" came to be evaluated by its "practical value" (ie, morality), the confession was seen as behaviorally irrelevant and thus, confessionally irrelevant. Third, apologists responded by trying to show how the doctrine actually is behaviorally relevant -- the Triune God is "a Community" so that we should be "a community"; God is "relational" so we should be "relational."

Now there is a truth in all these, but they all miss the real point of the confession of the Triune nature of God: The church makes such a confession on the basis of the Scriptures that witness to God's revelation to us in Jesus Christ, and therefore, it is a necessary confession for the truthfulness of our salvation and the salvation of the world. The only God that is not an idol is the One God who is Triune. Our confession of faith in the Trinune God opens us to the truth of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. God does not justify God's Triune nature to us; we might, however, in light of God's Revelation, give thanks at the mysterious marvel and wonderful, undescribable strangeness and wildness that is God!

Genesis 1:1-2:3

I spent much of my January writing a paper on this passage, the first three verses. This translation given in the NRSV is problematic, but a possibility. Many important things arise out of this passage but maybe because of Trinity Sunday we should talk about the character of the God revealed in the passage (it is stranger than one might think!) and what this means. Maybe focusing on the first 4-5 verses might be sufficient.

First, know that "beginning" here does not necessarily mean a point in time, but a fundamental principle. Where, not when, is the proper question. Where is the "beginning"? Where is God's Word and to whom is it spoken? Where is the Spirit? What is a "formless void"? What is "darkness"? In this passage, what belongs on the side of creation and what belongs on the side of God?

If God is creator is God an actor in creation like we are? What does this mean about God in the confession that God is Creator? Can this passage be a scientific description of how God creates?

2 Corinthians 13:5-14

The Corinthian passage moves to a benediction at the end of the passage. Note the terms that are associated with the Divine Persons. It might be better to translate "grace" as "gift" which can help us see the meaning of the "of" here -- the "gift of the Lord Jesus." What do these nouns that receive the "of" tell you about the nature and relationship of the Divine Persons invoked? How many God's is Paul invoking here? Why would Paul use this benediction, the only time he does, at the end of this passage?

Matthew 28:16-20

To what does Jesus' teachings on making disciples respond? Into how many names are we to baptize? (Warning: trick question) What is the purpose of this baptism here? What would happen if one of those names was omitted?

What is the relationship between the Three and the One in these passages? Why is this not a blatant irrelevant contradiction? Why is it not merely a "community" like us?

Here is a quote again from Robert Barron, The Priority of Christ: "I see in the strange symbol of the three persons in one essence the summation and intensification . . . about the simple, self-sufficient, and impossibly generous ground of all that is [i.e., God]. The coinherence that God is abole to achieve with created natures is rooted in the even more radical coinherence that obtains among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The being-for-the-other apparent in God's rapport with creation falls into shadow when compard to the being-for-the-other that marks the very to-be of the triune God himself" (p. 240). Given the passages above, does Barron's quote make any sense?

Posted by johnwright at 12:31 PM | Comments (2)

This Sunday is Pentecost! The gift of the Holy Spirit to the believers is the gift of the life of the church, the enfolding of our lives into God the Father through the Son by the working of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit gives life because the Spirit is Life!

These days the Holy Spirit has been often reduced to a "force" or "power" that "slays" human beings, an "experience" that we have. To reduce the Spirit to an "experience" seems highly problematic reading the Scriptures as witnessed to in the Tradition. The Spirit does work in our lives; we have "experiences" of particular significance for us, encounters with the living God who comes to us in the Spirit. Yet the depth of the Spirit's work often is unseen, unfelt, unexperienced until one looks backwards and sees how God has brought forth the fruits of the Spirit in our lives as we live in the concrete congregations that we experience as the church.

Ezekiel 11:17-20

What is the activity of the Spirit in the Ezekiel passage? How is the gathering of the people and the inner work of the Spirit related?

1 Corinthians 12:4-13

How does this passage speak of the same physical gathering and inner work of the Spirit? For whose "common good" is the Spirit manifest? Why is the commonness of the Spirit emphasized in this passage? What can happen with claims of the Spirit for the unity of a congreagation? How is the Spirit related to the Body of Christ and individuals as members of it?

John 14:8-17

What is the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Spirit in this passage? Are they the same or different [warning: trick question]. Does the Spirit compete with the individual and the group in this passage? With the Son and the Father?

Robert Barron in The Priority of Christ (Brazos Press, 2007) writes, "Just a moment before, Jesus had identified himself as the Truth and as, essentially, one with the Father. Thus we find in this first reference to 'the Advoctate,' the parakletos, a fairly clear prototrinitarian formula [an early means of naming the One God as Father, Son, and Spirit]. As Jesus reflects the Father's being, so this third seems to reflect the mutuality of Jesus and the Father, since both are involved in his sending. The parakletos's role is to animate the church, which Jesus, at least in the ordinary sense, is about to leave. More precisely, the parakletos will lead the followers of Jesus into the fullness of truth, maintaining a vibrant continuity with the Lord, and hence with the Father: 'The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you' [14:26]. Once more we notice the densely packed coinherence tht obtains among the three, a one-in-the-otherness into which the church itself is being invited" (pp. 242-3).

Given this passage with its insight into the mysterious Otherness that is the Triune God, how is the Spirit the form of the Son who does the will of the Father?
Philip said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you." If this is so, what does it mean for the Spirit to animate a concrete congregation and the individual members of it? Can one fully participate in the Holy Spirit outside of baptism and participation in concrete congregations?

Barron goes on to say, "In receiving the Spirit, the church, throughout the course of its history, will take on the identity of the Son, an identity rooted, in turn, in the Father. Every saint across the centuries represents a unique living out of this fundamental to-be of the Son, reflective of the Father and made possible by the indwelling of the parakletos. The work of the Spirit is the making present and visible, in an infinitely variegated way across space and time, the coinherent manner of being that characterizes the Father and the Son" (pp. 244-5).

How in your life have you found the form of the Son taking place through participation in the local body of Christ in this "infinitely variegated way across space and time"?

Have a wonderful evening!

Posted by johnwright at 10:37 AM | Comments (15)