I recently picked up Hermeneutics: An Introduction from the EBC library.
Here I intend to propose my own hermeneutics before I begin reading the book and then, in about a weeks time, respond to what I have read and re-formulate my hermeneutic based on what I have learned. The project is not too ambitious, but I do hope to critique and better my own hermeneutic.
The author's definition of hermeneutics is
"Hermeneutics explores how we read,understand,and handle texts, especially those written in another time or in a context of life different from our own. Biblical hermeneutics investigates more specifically how we read,understand,apply, and respond to biblical texts."
First of all let me state my belief that hermeneutics is one of the most important issues facing the Church today, specifically as Christians try to engage personally and corporately in a world of diversity, violence, injustice and confusion. The divisions between high church and low church, 'Christian realist' and 'Peace Church', first world and third world, Emergent and Established seem to be caused by how we interpret the Scriptures.
Secondly I can not say I believe in a 'pure' hermeneutic, one separate from historical and social conditions. Even the concept of 'hermeneutics' can not be separated from the recent history of Christianity,the western academy and continental philosophy. Basically what I am saying is that any possible hermeneutic is text-ured, meaning that it is formed and built under the influences of certain texts. The primary one of these texts is the Scriptures themselves but also certain philosophical and theological texts - even the unconscious influence of Schleiermacher on Christians who have never read him. Finally even the personal and communal experiences we have are like 'text's, a metaphor I find appropriate.
Thirdly if a hermeneutic is text-ured it should also have a strong memory. Not only of the tradition of the church but of the tradition's hermeneutic. In the ancient Church, in the age of the patristics, one hermeneutic was the rule of faith which was basically a general understanding of the Gospel which guided the interpretation of scripture. Other 'rules of faith' or sources of authority include the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on Theoria.
Now to my hermeneutic itself -
First of all I adopt and adapt the patristic Rule of Faith. An issue with interpreting scripture through the gospel is that a primary text of the gospel is scripture itself. This new part of the the rule of faith I will call the Missio Dei. That concept already has a history of it's own, as illustrated by the wikipedia article, but I am using it here as part of my hermeneutic. Why? Where as the rule of faith interpreted as the Gospel is certainly a step in the right direction often in talking about the Gospel the references to the New Testament are abundant but reference to the Old Testament is scarce. The missio dei is an altogether better concept. Through the work of both NT Wright and Christopher Wright (which I have yet to read) the connections between the incarnation,life,death and resurrection of Christ and God's work through the old testament is profoundly connected under the Missio Dei, which is latin for the sending (of) God.
I will not go into it here but the basic belief that the sent-ness of missionaries is part of the deeper character not only of the church, or the scriptures, but of God himself. Thus the Missio Dei becomes the first part of my hermeneutic. Thus the sent-ness.
The second aspect is an adoption and adaptation of Theoria and Theosis. Both of these presuppose a God who not only acts but also reveals himself to and transforms people. Theoria is this vision of God and theosis is becoming like God (in the sense of Character). I want to build on these concepts with the ideal of discipleship. Discipleship not only acknowledges both theosis and theoria, albeit perhaps in Methodist-evangelical fashion, but also is grounded in the scriptures as a call of Christ to the apostles. Discipleship builds on the concepts of theoria and theosis as possibility by also acknowledging ecclesia in the form of community as well as the call to political discipleship. Here I can once again point out the text-ured part of this hermeneutic, as community is a value coming out of much discussion in the Emerging Church and political discipleship coming out of liberation theologies and Peace Church type thinking.
So here then is my hermeneutic: one of sent disciples.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Ecclesial Alliances
This is another in my series of posts on Peace Church type stuff.
The point of this post is to point to emerging alliances between Peace Church theologies, practices and organizations and other Church traditions and movements. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but a meager list.
Alliances:
- the thought and work of Walter Brueggemann -- > the reason seems to be that he focuses a lot on what it means to be the ecclesial community in post-Christendom. At certain points, in his criticisms of consumerism and militarism, comes close to Peace Church ethics on economy and nonviolence.
- Liberation theologies -- > not necessarily of the Latin American variety but the kind that do theology from the perspective of the marginalized as do Anabaptist theologians
- Black Church --> Martin Luther King Jr.'s transformation of nonviolent nonresistance to nonviolent resistance is especially impacting
- Postcolonial theologies --> any theology that engages with "Empire" and builds it's ethics around that subject
- Missional Church --> coming from the perspective of the Missions movement and Missiology this type of theology critiques Christendom ecclesiology
The point of this post is to point to emerging alliances between Peace Church theologies, practices and organizations and other Church traditions and movements. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but a meager list.
Alliances:
- the thought and work of Walter Brueggemann -- > the reason seems to be that he focuses a lot on what it means to be the ecclesial community in post-Christendom. At certain points, in his criticisms of consumerism and militarism, comes close to Peace Church ethics on economy and nonviolence.
- Liberation theologies -- > not necessarily of the Latin American variety but the kind that do theology from the perspective of the marginalized as do Anabaptist theologians
- Black Church --> Martin Luther King Jr.'s transformation of nonviolent nonresistance to nonviolent resistance is especially impacting
- Postcolonial theologies --> any theology that engages with "Empire" and builds it's ethics around that subject
- Missional Church --> coming from the perspective of the Missions movement and Missiology this type of theology critiques Christendom ecclesiology
Agents or Witnesses? Contesting ecclesiology
Some time ago I picked up for myself The Green Bible.
In the introduction NT Wright talks about protecting Creation as part of the vocation of discipleship. He expounds an eschatology of the renewal of creation and suggests that Christians are agents of this renewal. I want to focus on that word - agents. In technical terms agency expresses potency. In context it means the potency to bring the renewal of creation. Now this is not to accuse Wright of tying the full arrival of the eschaton to the full fidelity of the Church apart from God. It seems the agency, in Wright's estimation, is one of partnership with the divine.
The reason I bring this up is that the theological tradition I find myself tending towards, the Peace Church tradition, uses the language of witness. Now I will not go into the technical explanation of the this traditions theology but the populist belief it can produce. This belief is that we can witness - witness to the empires, to the powers - but have no chance of actually changing them. The witness is a positive thing, witnessing to the reign of God. But it does not bring the reign, it only witnesses to it.
The language of witness and agency, the debate between the uses of the words, may seem to be a overly detailed and nuanced academic discussion. It is not. It is a debate that refers directly to the faith, proclamation and praxis of real people.
Consider these situations (which are adapted from actual situations I have encountered):
- When confronted with corporate evils Christians shrug saying "this is a fallen world" and when confronted with the call to responsibility they accuse the confronter "of idealism"
- They can not connect Discipleship with Politics with any theologically critical thinking
In the introduction NT Wright talks about protecting Creation as part of the vocation of discipleship. He expounds an eschatology of the renewal of creation and suggests that Christians are agents of this renewal. I want to focus on that word - agents. In technical terms agency expresses potency. In context it means the potency to bring the renewal of creation. Now this is not to accuse Wright of tying the full arrival of the eschaton to the full fidelity of the Church apart from God. It seems the agency, in Wright's estimation, is one of partnership with the divine.
The reason I bring this up is that the theological tradition I find myself tending towards, the Peace Church tradition, uses the language of witness. Now I will not go into the technical explanation of the this traditions theology but the populist belief it can produce. This belief is that we can witness - witness to the empires, to the powers - but have no chance of actually changing them. The witness is a positive thing, witnessing to the reign of God. But it does not bring the reign, it only witnesses to it.
The language of witness and agency, the debate between the uses of the words, may seem to be a overly detailed and nuanced academic discussion. It is not. It is a debate that refers directly to the faith, proclamation and praxis of real people.
Consider these situations (which are adapted from actual situations I have encountered):
- When confronted with corporate evils Christians shrug saying "this is a fallen world" and when confronted with the call to responsibility they accuse the confronter "of idealism"
- They can not connect Discipleship with Politics with any theologically critical thinking
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Missional Church, Scripture and Tradition
The great gift/distraction of the internet to people who like to learn are sites like Wikipedia and Google Books. Thus it was a gift/distraction for me to be able to read part of the book Missional Church.
The final chapter had this quotation which I have been thinking about a lot the last three days:
"One of the most important and earliest ways in which the church's universal connectedness witnessed to the gopel was the process of canonization of scripture itself." (pg 251)
What the author is saying here is that in order to be missional, to organize both personally and corporately underneath the Missio Dei, the church essentially created the Bible. This is an alternative understanding compared to the usual discussion concerning the authority of Scripture. Though I feel those discussions are important I feel this different way of understanding it can be a better way forward both theologically and practically in terms of witness.
It also got me thinking about a lot of other things like how this can relate to Ordination, denomination and what is commonly referred to as the Wesleyan quadrilateral. There's a lot of potential here and I hope to explore it further.
The final chapter had this quotation which I have been thinking about a lot the last three days:
"One of the most important and earliest ways in which the church's universal connectedness witnessed to the gopel was the process of canonization of scripture itself." (pg 251)
What the author is saying here is that in order to be missional, to organize both personally and corporately underneath the Missio Dei, the church essentially created the Bible. This is an alternative understanding compared to the usual discussion concerning the authority of Scripture. Though I feel those discussions are important I feel this different way of understanding it can be a better way forward both theologically and practically in terms of witness.
It also got me thinking about a lot of other things like how this can relate to Ordination, denomination and what is commonly referred to as the Wesleyan quadrilateral. There's a lot of potential here and I hope to explore it further.
More about Peace Church
What prompted my other post on Peace Church the other day is that I am currently reading Violence, Hospitality and the Cross.
This quotation struck me as something I need to work through:
"The resurrection mandate of pure hospitality needs to be tempered, therefore, by the wisdom of conditional hospitality. Inasmuch as we are still constrained by current historical conditions, our welcome of the stranger and the prodigal will necessarily involve some restraint, conditionality and even violence. The penal element of the atonement offers some significant insights into the way we should act in our everyday social, economic, and political realities. Practicing hospitality is a difficult and painful task." (178-179)
He is arguing that although the resurrection promises pure hospitality the hospitality we offer is always conditional. He expands what he means by conditional by saying that it will mean, sometimes, violence. He accounts for this conditionality theologically by reading the violence of the cross as an example of how we, in our 'everyday social, economic and political realities', should act. Although his definition of violence is broad, a definition that ends up placing restraining your children and genocide in the same category, he does not advocate it's use arbitrarily. Yet he does advocate some violence based on the violence God use on the cross.
Now that I have un-packed his writing a bit I will go on to articulate my position.
First of all he has the presupposition that to act in nonviolence will actually increase the violence. I do not necessarily disagree but wonder if he is now basing his ethics on an ontology of violence, the belief that reality is essentially chaotic, aggressive and Malthusian, which, along with Milbank, he accuses Levinas and Derrida of possessing. Perhaps this binary opposition between a harmonious ontology of peace and discordian ontology of violence needs to be deconstructed to account for what exactly the Church means when it theologizes saying "this is a fallen world".
Boersma consistently references Paul in his book but I do not believe he takes an adequate look at a Pauline pneumatology and certainly he does not connect pneumatology to ethics. The phrase "the Spirit who rose Christ from the dead" is one of the canonical idioms in the Pauline corpus almost to the point of become cliche. It captures Paul's theology of the spirit quite adequately.
Because the Spirit has risen Jesus from the dead those who are part of the Church can be justified in participating in a different praxis. This praxis is no longer based on the conditional hospitality of a violent reality but based on the 'eschatological hospitality' (Boersma's wording) of the resurrection.
This different praxis is 'Christian' in the very literal meaning of the word, being based on the actions of Jesus. The actions which were to act non-violently in surrendering to the crucifixion rather than acting violently against the Roman or religious authorities. More importantly he did not put confidence in violence to establish the reign of God, nor did he accept that he had to match the chaotic reality on his own terms, but rather chose to obey God (cf. the Gethsemane narratives in the gospels) and was rewarded in being risen from the dead.
Now theologically, the historical life and especially resurrection of Jesus, means that the eschaton and it's reality has appeared in the present. Theology discourse, especially of the radical reformation variety, uses the language of God's kingdom having "broken in" within history. This has implications for our ethics. It means acting nonviolently is based not on pragmatic ignorance towards the violence that this might allow but based on three theological confessions: the counterintuitive death of the Jesus, the surprising resurrection and the inheritance of the Spirit.
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Romans 8:9-14, NASB
In this Paul is not directly talking about nonviolence but it is not inappropriate to use this passage to illuminate any discussion on the issue. Paul here contrasts 'the flesh' to 'the Spirit' in explaining some of his ethics and he manages to work the events of the death and resurrection of Jesus into this account. I understand that the historical reading of 'the flesh' has a significant amount of quasi-gnostic meanings to it but I do not have the space to go into that here. The point of the passage is because Christians have the same spirit who rose Jesus from the dead we no longer have to live according to 'the Flesh' or, in the context of my argument, violence, because we have been empowered to live otherwise.
Now it is not clear but Boersma seems to be saying that although we do have hope for that 'eschatological hospitality' because of the resurrection of Jesus we live in the time of 'conditional hospitality' (read: necessary violence) where the violence of the cross has implications. These implications it seems (he may be saying otherwise but I see no hint of this in his book) means necessary violence now which could mean things like the death penality, just war (or maybe, since he is Canadian, 'peace-keeping') etc. This seems like a bizarre reading of the implications of the cross to me, and I would suggest he read NT Wright's work (one of his main sources) closer and perhaps even the New Testament itself (which I admit, saying that is a bit polemical on my part)
There that is my counter-reading of the hospitality of the death and resurrection of Christ and it's implications. I will now proceed to show areas where further, critical reflection is needed on my part as I hope I have already shown some areas where reflection is needed on his.
Copious amounts of graphic nonviolence: the presupposition that is held by Boersma and not necessarily challenged by me is that nonviolence actually has no power. I believe that I need to do a lot more critical thinking, careful reading, meticulous observation and authentically pray about this issue. The hypothetical situation set-up to criticize advocates of nonviolence is that mass scale use of nonviolence will lead to very bloody war. I have had to engage with this situation on a theoretical level as well. Not to long ago I found this blog post which critiqued this view pointing to examples in history of nonviolence resistance, such as Gandhi, the civil rights movement etc.
Perhaps it is the historical situation (I refrain from saying it will always be the case) that most people, including most Christians, do not believe in nonviolence. And it is this particular situation which socially constructs the belief that nonviolence is ineffective and will produce more violence.
But it is this particular situation where the Church is called to act, and according to my belief act nonviolently. Which means, in effect, that our nonviolence will not stop violence. But I am finding myself disagreeing that the proliferation of violence makes nonviolence a choice complicit in this proliferation.That is to say makes nonviolence irresponsible and a contributor to violence. It is not people who choose to act nonviolently that causes the nonviolence but the fact that those who choose nonviolence are in the minority.
The final issue is my defense of a nonviolent stance from the position of my pneumatology. What does it mean that The Spirit gives life to our mortal bodies? Does it simply mean the wisdom and courage to act nonviolently or, alternatively, does it mean that our nonviolence will actually be effective?
This quotation struck me as something I need to work through:
"The resurrection mandate of pure hospitality needs to be tempered, therefore, by the wisdom of conditional hospitality. Inasmuch as we are still constrained by current historical conditions, our welcome of the stranger and the prodigal will necessarily involve some restraint, conditionality and even violence. The penal element of the atonement offers some significant insights into the way we should act in our everyday social, economic, and political realities. Practicing hospitality is a difficult and painful task." (178-179)
He is arguing that although the resurrection promises pure hospitality the hospitality we offer is always conditional. He expands what he means by conditional by saying that it will mean, sometimes, violence. He accounts for this conditionality theologically by reading the violence of the cross as an example of how we, in our 'everyday social, economic and political realities', should act. Although his definition of violence is broad, a definition that ends up placing restraining your children and genocide in the same category, he does not advocate it's use arbitrarily. Yet he does advocate some violence based on the violence God use on the cross.
Now that I have un-packed his writing a bit I will go on to articulate my position.
First of all he has the presupposition that to act in nonviolence will actually increase the violence. I do not necessarily disagree but wonder if he is now basing his ethics on an ontology of violence, the belief that reality is essentially chaotic, aggressive and Malthusian, which, along with Milbank, he accuses Levinas and Derrida of possessing. Perhaps this binary opposition between a harmonious ontology of peace and discordian ontology of violence needs to be deconstructed to account for what exactly the Church means when it theologizes saying "this is a fallen world".
Boersma consistently references Paul in his book but I do not believe he takes an adequate look at a Pauline pneumatology and certainly he does not connect pneumatology to ethics. The phrase "the Spirit who rose Christ from the dead" is one of the canonical idioms in the Pauline corpus almost to the point of become cliche. It captures Paul's theology of the spirit quite adequately.
Because the Spirit has risen Jesus from the dead those who are part of the Church can be justified in participating in a different praxis. This praxis is no longer based on the conditional hospitality of a violent reality but based on the 'eschatological hospitality' (Boersma's wording) of the resurrection.
This different praxis is 'Christian' in the very literal meaning of the word, being based on the actions of Jesus. The actions which were to act non-violently in surrendering to the crucifixion rather than acting violently against the Roman or religious authorities. More importantly he did not put confidence in violence to establish the reign of God, nor did he accept that he had to match the chaotic reality on his own terms, but rather chose to obey God (cf. the Gethsemane narratives in the gospels) and was rewarded in being risen from the dead.
Now theologically, the historical life and especially resurrection of Jesus, means that the eschaton and it's reality has appeared in the present. Theology discourse, especially of the radical reformation variety, uses the language of God's kingdom having "broken in" within history. This has implications for our ethics. It means acting nonviolently is based not on pragmatic ignorance towards the violence that this might allow but based on three theological confessions: the counterintuitive death of the Jesus, the surprising resurrection and the inheritance of the Spirit.
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Romans 8:9-14, NASB
In this Paul is not directly talking about nonviolence but it is not inappropriate to use this passage to illuminate any discussion on the issue. Paul here contrasts 'the flesh' to 'the Spirit' in explaining some of his ethics and he manages to work the events of the death and resurrection of Jesus into this account. I understand that the historical reading of 'the flesh' has a significant amount of quasi-gnostic meanings to it but I do not have the space to go into that here. The point of the passage is because Christians have the same spirit who rose Jesus from the dead we no longer have to live according to 'the Flesh' or, in the context of my argument, violence, because we have been empowered to live otherwise.
Now it is not clear but Boersma seems to be saying that although we do have hope for that 'eschatological hospitality' because of the resurrection of Jesus we live in the time of 'conditional hospitality' (read: necessary violence) where the violence of the cross has implications. These implications it seems (he may be saying otherwise but I see no hint of this in his book) means necessary violence now which could mean things like the death penality, just war (or maybe, since he is Canadian, 'peace-keeping') etc. This seems like a bizarre reading of the implications of the cross to me, and I would suggest he read NT Wright's work (one of his main sources) closer and perhaps even the New Testament itself (which I admit, saying that is a bit polemical on my part)
There that is my counter-reading of the hospitality of the death and resurrection of Christ and it's implications. I will now proceed to show areas where further, critical reflection is needed on my part as I hope I have already shown some areas where reflection is needed on his.
Copious amounts of graphic nonviolence: the presupposition that is held by Boersma and not necessarily challenged by me is that nonviolence actually has no power. I believe that I need to do a lot more critical thinking, careful reading, meticulous observation and authentically pray about this issue. The hypothetical situation set-up to criticize advocates of nonviolence is that mass scale use of nonviolence will lead to very bloody war. I have had to engage with this situation on a theoretical level as well. Not to long ago I found this blog post which critiqued this view pointing to examples in history of nonviolence resistance, such as Gandhi, the civil rights movement etc.
Perhaps it is the historical situation (I refrain from saying it will always be the case) that most people, including most Christians, do not believe in nonviolence. And it is this particular situation which socially constructs the belief that nonviolence is ineffective and will produce more violence.
But it is this particular situation where the Church is called to act, and according to my belief act nonviolently. Which means, in effect, that our nonviolence will not stop violence. But I am finding myself disagreeing that the proliferation of violence makes nonviolence a choice complicit in this proliferation.That is to say makes nonviolence irresponsible and a contributor to violence. It is not people who choose to act nonviolently that causes the nonviolence but the fact that those who choose nonviolence are in the minority.
The final issue is my defense of a nonviolent stance from the position of my pneumatology. What does it mean that The Spirit gives life to our mortal bodies? Does it simply mean the wisdom and courage to act nonviolently or, alternatively, does it mean that our nonviolence will actually be effective?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Nein! Barth adding to Milbank
"Nein!" was Karl Barth's boisterous response to the question whether there can be any natural knowledge of God apart from revelation. Here I intend to very briefly show that Barth's "Nein!" can add to Milbank's Ontology of Peace contra an Ontology of violence.
Can an Ontology of Peace be a known, as an alternative to a ontology of violence, by natural reason apart from revelation?
"Nein!"
Well, that is my creative synthesis of two theological projects. To be honest I am not sure whether I agree with my syn-thesis. But I think it would interesting to explore. Especially since an ontology of peace is drawn primarily from scriptural texts that are considered by the Christian tradition as authoritative, and are not be natural reason alone.
Can an Ontology of Peace be a known, as an alternative to a ontology of violence, by natural reason apart from revelation?
"Nein!"
Well, that is my creative synthesis of two theological projects. To be honest I am not sure whether I agree with my syn-thesis. But I think it would interesting to explore. Especially since an ontology of peace is drawn primarily from scriptural texts that are considered by the Christian tradition as authoritative, and are not be natural reason alone.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Modernity and Christianity
I remember when I read Paul Tillich's "The History of Christian Thought" I was struck immediately by a quotation, one that I can no longer find, where he points to both the establishment of democracies and the advancement of science as a positive result of the Enlightement. He found it strange that how Christians reacted so strongly against these which were generally good.
I find myself agreeing with him on this. Despite being a John Milbank fan and being highly influenced by Theology and Social Theory I disagree with the two-cities dialect inherited from Augustine and interpreted against modernity. I am starting to drift toward the Tillich camp in the belief that we need a different Method of Correlation to account for the relation between Christianity and Modernity. But unlike Tillich, who identified as an existentialist-Christian, I identify more with a narrative Anabaptist position tempered by a missional impulse.
I find myself agreeing with him on this. Despite being a John Milbank fan and being highly influenced by Theology and Social Theory I disagree with the two-cities dialect inherited from Augustine and interpreted against modernity. I am starting to drift toward the Tillich camp in the belief that we need a different Method of Correlation to account for the relation between Christianity and Modernity. But unlike Tillich, who identified as an existentialist-Christian, I identify more with a narrative Anabaptist position tempered by a missional impulse.
Peace - - Church: why you can not have one without the other
When asked about my family's background I point out their denominational heritage. I consider this far more important than our ethnic heritage even though the account of my grandparent's and their families being put in a concentration camp has effected me greatly.
One of the reasons I find this more important is I generally concede I lean heavily towards a pacifist interpretation of Christianity. Although this is not a-critical as many of time I have been challenged, by close friends and even by other family members, in this position. Although I still hold to this position I would like to point out something I have learning through critical engagement with the larger Christian tradition.
There is no PEACE interpretation without the supplement of CHURCH. What I am saying, therefore, is that pacifism is an ethic stance rooted in the church and thus peace-thinking is an ecclesiology.
I started thinking this way while reading a journal article of the stance of Reinhold Neibuhr which questioned whether he had an adequate ecclesiology. Neibuhr's ethics were national and not ecclesial, he based his answer to the question "What shall we do?" in the context of the American establishment and not the Church. To use contemporary Anabaptist discourse he answered as a citizen of the polis but not as a member of the ecclesia. This discourse use the greek concepts of polis (literally: City) and ecclesia (literally: Assembly or Called-Out Ones) and reads the bible through this lens. The church, the 'called-out ones' of God, must witness and provide a better alternative for the polis, or the human political establishment. Neibuhr answered from the perspective of an American citizen who also was a Christian but in the discourse of Peace Church questions whether you can answer from both perspectives as suggest you can not.
I generally agree with that line of reasoning and I would like to here an Ecclesialogical defense of violence from some-one of the just-war interpretation.
One of the reasons I find this more important is I generally concede I lean heavily towards a pacifist interpretation of Christianity. Although this is not a-critical as many of time I have been challenged, by close friends and even by other family members, in this position. Although I still hold to this position I would like to point out something I have learning through critical engagement with the larger Christian tradition.
There is no PEACE interpretation without the supplement of CHURCH. What I am saying, therefore, is that pacifism is an ethic stance rooted in the church and thus peace-thinking is an ecclesiology.
I started thinking this way while reading a journal article of the stance of Reinhold Neibuhr which questioned whether he had an adequate ecclesiology. Neibuhr's ethics were national and not ecclesial, he based his answer to the question "What shall we do?" in the context of the American establishment and not the Church. To use contemporary Anabaptist discourse he answered as a citizen of the polis but not as a member of the ecclesia. This discourse use the greek concepts of polis (literally: City) and ecclesia (literally: Assembly or Called-Out Ones) and reads the bible through this lens. The church, the 'called-out ones' of God, must witness and provide a better alternative for the polis, or the human political establishment. Neibuhr answered from the perspective of an American citizen who also was a Christian but in the discourse of Peace Church questions whether you can answer from both perspectives as suggest you can not.
I generally agree with that line of reasoning and I would like to here an Ecclesialogical defense of violence from some-one of the just-war interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)