The pacifism debate continues

While I have been quiet here for some time until today, I have been continuing to discuss pacifism with John Hobbins on his blog, primarily in the comment thread of this post and also in some comments on this one.
Here is a taster. John wrote to me:

You are staking out a position … which seems to have little foundation in the biblical witness, Christian tradition, or current sensibilities. …

I don’t wish to caricature your position, but I do wish to point out its weaknesses.

I replied:

This position has “little foundation in the biblical witness” only for those who do not include the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of the teaching of Jesus in their canon. Perhaps those red letters in so many American Bibles are taken to mean that these words should be ignored.

Yes, my position has its weaknesses. So did Jesus’ position, so much so that he was crucified. But God vindicated him. I believe that God will ultimately vindicate my position, not necessarily by making it prevail, but certainly by bringing about in his eternal kingdom the pacifist vision of Isaiah 2:4 and 11:6-9.

An Eastern Orthodox perspective on salvation

Molly has written an interesting post on Eastern Orthodox Theological Distinctives. Now I generally find eastern Orthodox theology rather attractive. But, having lived in countries where the majority of Christians are Orthodox, I tend to have a much more negative view of their church practice, and of their at least implicit attitude that if you don’t do things exactly as they do it you are not really a Christian at all.

Like Molly, I love this:

This emphasis on personal experience of truth flows into Orthodox theology, which has a rich heritage. Especially in the first millenium of Christian history, the Eastern Church produced significant theological and philosophical thought.

In the Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, sin, grace, and salvation are seen primarily in legal terms. God gave humans freedom, they misused it and broke God’s commandments, and now deserve punishment. God’s grace results in forgiveness of the transgression and freedom from bondage and punishment.

The Eastern churches see the matter in a different way. For Orthodox theologians, humans were created in the image of God and made to participate fully in the divine life. The full communion with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed meant complete freedom and true humanity, for humans are most human when they are completely united with God.

The result of sin, then, was a blurring of the image of God and a barrier between God and man. The situation in which mankind has been ever since is an unnatural, less human state, which ends in the most unnatural aspect: death. Salvation, then, is a process not of justification or legal pardon, but of reestablishing man’s communion with God. This process of repairing the unity of human and divine is sometimes called “deification.” This term does not mean that humans become gods but that humans join fully with God’s divine life.

And some more from the same article not quoted by Molly:

Christ’s humanity is also central to the Orthodox faith, in the doctrine that the divine became human so that humanity might be raised up to the divine life.

Indeed, while the law court and penal substitutionary atonement offers a valid and biblical set of metaphors for Christian salvation, the reality of it is surely “reestablishing man’s [and woman’s] communion with God” such that “humans join fully with God’s divine life”. And what accomplished this was not just the crucifixion, but the whole process of the incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. We should not focus on just one little part of this process but see the spiritual dynamics of the whole.

Another quiz: which theologian am I?

I have been posting a lot of these quizzes recently, not so much because I am addicted to them (but perhaps I am), more because they are a quick and easy way to find something to post when, as today, I don’t have time to write anything more profound. For the link to this one I thank Paul Trathen.

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Charles FinneyYou’re passionate about God and love to preach the Gospel. Your theology borders on pelagianism and it is said that if God were taken out of your theology, it would look exactly the same. 

Charles Finney
80%
Anselm
73%
Jürgen Moltmann
67%
John Calvin
67%
Karl Barth
60%
Friedrich Schleiermacher
53%
Martin Luther
47%
Augustine
40%
Paul Tillich
33%
Jonathan Edwards
27%

I’m not sure the comment about Finney is fair. But note that there is quite a lot of Calvin in my theology, although rather little Jonathan Edwards. I guess the person who wrote the comment was something of a Calvinist.

But as Tim Chesterton perceptively points out,

What a bunch! Not a decent Anabaptist among them!

Pacifism and the Good Samaritan

Jeremy Pierce and I have been having a long discussion in the comment thread on my post Doug ridicules Christian pacifism. Here I want to bring out one issue which came up in his most recent comment. In an earlier comment he had written:

It’s simply a moral principle that we should protect others

and I had replied:

This is where I fundamentally differ from you, especially if in doing so we kill or wound a third party. I’m not saying it is always wrong to do so either, but there is no sense in which this is a moral imperative for all, where the others have not been specifically entrusted to our care. To go beyond this is to be a “meddler” [referring to an earlier discussion of 1 Peter 4:15], as so well defined by you as “an enforcer of morality in places where you have no authority to do so”. So, yes, protect your own children, and play the hero when you see a mugging if you like (but don’t deliberately shoot the mugger dead), but it is not your responsibility to protect the children of Iraq.

To this Jeremy responded:

I have very strong resistance to the claim that I have no responsibility to treat the people of Iraq as my neighbors. Just because they don’t live next to you doesn’t mean they don’t count as neighbors in the sense that Jesus had in mind in the Good Samaritan parable. He deliberately chose a case of a foreigner helping an Israelite, indeed a foreigner most Israelites wouldn’t have seen any responsibility toward.

But does the parable of the Good Samaritan imply that as a Christian I should abandon pacifism and support armed intervention in Iraq? I don’t think so. Continue reading

Rev Sam on the Virgin Birth

Just before Christmas I caused a bit of a storm with some of my comments on the Virgin Birth. I have now just found that my fellow Essex blogger Rev Sam (hat tip to yet another Essex blogger, Paul Trathen) has spent much of the Christmas season (that is, in our shared Anglican tradition, the twelve days from Christmas to Epiphany) writing an extended series on The Marginality of the Virgin Birth. In this series he makes a number of the same kinds of points which I made, but in greater depth, and gives sensible and clearly argued reasons why he cannot believe in the literal virgin birth of Jesus, although otherwise he holds to orthodox Christian teaching. While I don’t agree with everything that Rev Sam says here, I much appreciate his take on these issues.

What's my eschatology?

ElShaddai Edwards recommended yet another theology quiz, this time What’s your eschatology? Well, I know my eschatology is somewhat confused. I used to be a premillenialist but without believing in a rapture before or during the tribulation. But my position has gradually been changing to something more on the lines of Moltmannian eschatology, to which ElShaddai provides a useful introduction. I studied some Moltmann years ago at London Bible College, and perhaps more of it rubbed off than I realised. But this also ties up with the kind of position I was looking at in my post on the book Breakthrough. So here are my results, based on quite a number of answers in the middle of the spectrum to questions which I could not really answer:

What’s your eschatology?
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Moltmannian EschatologyJürgen Moltmann is one of the key eschatological thinkers of the 20th Century. Eschatology is not only about heaven and hell, but God’s plan to make all things new. This should spur us on to political and social action in the present. 

Moltmannian Eschatology
85%
Amillenialist
80%
Premillenialist
50%
Preterist
40%
Dispensationalist
35%
Postmillenialist
30%
Left Behind
25%

CS Lewis on the true Word of God

Thanks to Tim Chesterton for this quote from CS Lewis, which complements my rather similar recent quotation from NT Wright:

It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, which is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to him. When it becomes really necessary (i.e. for our spiritual life, not for curiosity or controversy) to know whether a particular passage is rightly translated or is Myth (but of course Myth specially chosen by God from among countless Myths to carry a spiritual truth) or history, we shall no doubt be guided to the right answer. But we must not use the Bible (our fathers too often did) as a sort of Encyclopedia out of which texts (isolated from their context and read without attention to the whole nature and purport of the books in which they occur) can be taken for use as weapons.

From The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis: Volume III, p.246.

Another Emergent/Postmodern

Eddie seemed a little embarrassed to find that according to this quiz his theological worldview is Emergent/Postmodern. Well, I can encourage him by telling him that I am also, although only marginally. Here are my results:

What’s your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as Emergent/PostmodernYou are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don’t think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. 

Emergent/Postmodern
89%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
86%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
82%
Neo orthodox
75%
Reformed Evangelical
43%
Modern Liberal
39%
Classical Liberal
32%
Roman Catholic
29%
Fundamentalist
29%


I note that Doug is proud of being 86% Roman Catholic and 0% Fundamentalist on this quiz. I am proud that I am also not very Fundamentalist but to an equal extent not Roman Catholic.

Jesus is not a demigod

According to Greek mythology, Heracles (the Latin Hercules) was the son of a god, Zeus, and a human mother. This made him in some sense a demigod, a person who was partly divine and partly human.

Orthodox Christian theology has decisively rejected the idea that Jesus Christ is a demigod in this sense. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 a definition of the faith was agreed with the following words about the two natures of Christ:

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ

In other words, Jesus is not half divine and half human, but fully God and fully man, without any kind of confusion or change in the natures, while also being one person.

While this definition does not explicitly rule out the idea that God the Father or the Holy Spirit took the role of a human father in the conception of Jesus, it certainly makes it more difficult to hold. Christians have often been accused of believing that Jesus is the product of a sexual union between God and Mary, but this has never been orthodox belief. I would conclude (along with John Robinson and Arthur Peacocke) that this Chalcedonian definition tends to support, without actually requiring, the kind of controversial explanation of Jesus’ virgin birth which I put forward yesterday.