Prodigal Kiwi(s) Blog

Kevin Vanhoozer: Speech-Acts and Union with Christ

Paul writes – Aside from realising that Vanhoozer can be extremely funny in his delivery of theological papers, I’ve reflected for a few days now on Vanhoozer’s paper delivered at Wheaton’s “Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with NT. Wright (16-17 April, 2010).” I’m particularly struck by his proposed means of reconciliation (or at the very least, of bringing into conversation) Tom Wright’s categories for talking about justification, with those that might be designated as typically Reformed categories. Vanhoozer wants to talk in terms of adoption and union with Christ, i.e. our being in Christ, and in Christ our being the adopted sons and daughters of God.

Here’s how Michael J. Gorman reflects what he heard Vanhoozer say:

“…Kevin Vanhoozer’s paper was a theological and rhetorical masterpiece. If I were an evangelical reformed theologian (I’m an Anabaptist Methodist with Orthodox and Catholic interests), I would have said what he said, and I would have said a good deal of what he said even without being reformed. (But remind me that if I ever give a lecture at Wheaton to design a first-rate PowerPoint presentation—and to bring extra batteries for the remote.) Besides being a fine response to Wright, it was a noble attempt to build a bridge between the Bishop and his conservative reformed detractors.

Vanhoozer drew on his well-known adaptation of speech-act theory to argue that justification as declaration is not a legal fiction but a performative utterance, calling on Eberhard Juengel’s idea that justification effects an ontological change, and arguing that [Tom Wright's] understanding of declaration sometimes neglects this effective dimension of declaration. He suggested that NTW’s emphasis on God declaring people part of the covenant should include the effective dimension—it makes people members of the covenant community. I am with KV 100% on these points.

Vanhoozer also raised the question of whether the juridical declaration that justification is should be seen as something like a civil case or a criminal case, that is, is one declared “in” (settling a civil matter) or declared “innocent” (settling a criminal matter). (My hunch is that if one follows the juridical model, the answer should be “both,” which is where KV landed, though many, especially those who oppose NTW, stress the latter.)

Vanhoozer then offered an interpretation of imputation and union with Christ that he dubbed “incorporative righteousness,” which means that human beings declared to be justified are both “in the clear and in the covenant.” He went on to build on Calvin’s understanding of the double grace of justification and sanctification (distinct but inseparable) by speaking of the triple grace of becoming sons [sic] of God, heirs of heaven, and partakers of righteousness. Incorporative righteousness/union with Christ is forensic, ontological, and covenantal, a Trinitarian communication of righteousness that the Father declares, the Son enables, and the Spirit effects.

Finally, returning to the question of what kind of court the metaphor of declaration refers to, Vanhoozer raised the provocative question, “Is the law court an adoption court?”

This was an exciting paper in many ways. Not only did it challenge NTW on justification precisely where I think he needs to be pressed—on the question of effective declaration, ontology, transformation, union with Christ, participation—it really did open the possibility of conversation between NTW and some of his severest critics—if they (the critics) are willing to talk, that is. My own work on justification resonates with Vanhoozer’s at some very significant points, though he did not (and likely would not) use the term theosis…”

Of equal interest were these three interviews, here (PDF), here, and here (March 10) with Vanhoozer and an excerpt from the introduction to his soon to be published book Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and Authorship. 

Henri Nouwen: Writing to Save the Day

“Writing can be a true spiritual discipline. Writing can help us to concentrate, to get in touch with the deeper stirrings of our hearts, to clarify our minds, to process confusing emotions, to reflect on our experiences, to give artistic expression to what we are living, and to store significant events in our memories. Writing can also be good for others who might read what we write.  Quite often a difficult, painful, or frustrating day can be "redeemed" by writing about it. By writing we can claim what we have lived and thus integrate it more fully into our journeys. Then writing can become lifesaving for us and sometimes for others too.”

Camels and Books

Paul writes – A couple of quotes have stuck with me from Sunday’s newspapers: 

The first was from a Stuart Jeffries article titled “A World Without Planes” in which he “dreams” of what might happen if the skies over Europe remained quiet, i.e. no planes. 

“…Alain de Botton, author of The Art of Travel, reminds us of the old Arabic saying that the soul invariably travels at the speed of a camel. “This new widespread ‘camel pace’ would return travellers to a wisdom that their medieval pilgrim ancestors had once known very well”, he suggests…”

And the second is from Cath Bennett’s interview with NZ author Margaret Mahy:

“…I like solitude, and being a reader I don’t feel it – I’m always surrounded with other people’s ideas. I feel I’m partly created by books, by other life stories…”

Churches in the Place Where God is @ Work…?

Paul writes - This morning a quote from Rowan Williams, drawing on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s understanding of church (i.e. ecclesiology): 

“…So if we ask about the nature of the true Church, where we shall see the authentic life of Christ’s Body – or if we ask about the unity of the Church, how we come together to recognise each other as disciples – Bonhoeffer’s answer would have to be in the form of a further question. Does this or that person, this or that Christian community, stand where Christ is? Are they struggling to be on the place where God has chosen to be?... Typically, Bonhoeffer does not give us quick answers about the problems of unity today or the problems of moral discernment that cause such agony to our various churches… Nor should we expect such an abstract answer from any source, Bonhoeffer or elsewhere. He will always tell us to simply look for Jesus in Gethsemane and stay there [and presumably “keep watch”, notice, and enter into the happenings and experiences of that place]…” (Italics and bold text, and additional comment within [] is mine, Paul).

From Rowan Williams sermon delivered in honour of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 5^th February 2006.

The Jesus we will never know…?

Paul writes - In the April issue of Christianity Today, Scot McKnight reflects on The Jesus We'll Never Know: Why scholarly attempts to discover the 'real' Jesus have failed. And why that's a good thing.

 “…We have now seen the death of latest historical Jesus studies as we know them. Well, not for all, because some are busy trying to reconstruct Jesus for themselves and for any who will listen. Still, the enthusiasm is gone, and the critical proposals are more often met with a ho-hum "yet one more" than a hope that we may once and for all have found the one who was buried under the interpretation of the earliest Christians…”

You can read his complete reflection here. 

NT. Wright responds (Abandon Studying the Historical Jesus? No, We Need History: A response to 'The Jesus We'll Never Know.'), as does Craig Keener, and Darrell Bock.

It’s an interesting debate, particularly on the back of the fascinating recent Wheaton Conference. More on the conference here (for link to audio of lectures. I highly recommend Richard Hay’s talk, and the ones by Wright (his one on St. Paul gives a fascinating overview of his “big” book on St. Paul, and the centrality of the Letter to Philemon), Thompson, Vanhoozer and Begbie (this latter one will be of interest to those involved in the emerging / fresh expressions ‘stream’)).

The best, written reflections on the conference are, in my humble opinion, those by Michael J. Gorman and Marcus Mahler.  Interestingly Gorman notes that the projected title of Wright’s forthcoming “Big” book on St. Paul is likely to be Paul and the Justice of God (which say’s a lot about the thrust of this book). JR. Daniel Kirk also highlights an interesting trajectory he’s taking in future research (in conversation with Tom Wright and others). Part 1, here. Part 2, here.

Henri Nouwen: Stepping over Our Wounds

“Sometimes we have to "step over" our anger, our jealousy, or our feelings of rejection and move on. The temptation is to get stuck in our negative emotions, poking around in them as if we belong there. Then we become the "offended one," "the forgotten one," or the "discarded one." Yes, we can get attached to these negative identities and even take morbid pleasure in them. It might be good to have a look at these dark feelings and explore where they come from, but there comes a moment to step over them, leave them behind and travel on.”

Faith Matters: Where Did The Mainline Go Wrong?

Paul writes – Peter Carrell directed my attention to an interesting article titled: Faith Matters: Where Did the Mainline Go Wrong? It’s written by Walter Russell Mead.

Now I’m not necessarily commending it in its entirety, but for me at least, it asks some good questions. Questions too often not asked. Al Roxburgh, Dorothy Butler-Bass and others, including myself, would resist any attempt to write-off mainline denominations and mainline congregations, but we’d all likely agree there are some very significant challenges facing aging, and largely irrelevant (certainly to those under 40 years of age).

We’d probably also agree that some mainline congregations won’t make it beyond the next 10-years or so; buildings will be unable to be maintained and will be abandoned. I saw a former Anglican church in the weekend that is now a house. Old mainline church buildings are being reconditioned and being used for all kinds of other activities (cafe’s, breweries, art galleries etc) all over the Western world. In the town I live in, a former church building is now a cafe and retail shop selling souvenirs etc. I’d hazard a guess that none in the congregation, at its height and early stages of decline, would have every imagined their “church” would be used in the way it now is.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

“... At the same time, to stoutly insist that the mainline churches are healthy today strikes me as despair masked in denial. It is not OK that more and more local congregations are grimly struggling with deferred maintenance, dwindling membership and marginal budgets.  It is not OK that the mainline churches no longer play the kind of role in public debate or intellectual discourse that they did thirty or fifty years ago.  It is not OK that the mainline churches have gotten locked into an antagonistic relationship with most of the church in the developing world.  It is not OK that the decline of old models of organization and ministry are far gone in decay but that new alternatives are still struggling to emerge.  It is not OK that so many young people raised in the church leave never to return, and that few come from outside to replace them. It is not OK that two generations of theological and liturgical innovations introduced with a conscious intention of making the church more relevant, more approachable and ultimately well, larger, have left the churches smaller and less relevant than before...

If all religions are more or less true (and, presumably, therefore, all more or less false), why pay particular attention to any one of them?  If the churches develop their ethical standards (sex before marriage, divorce, homosexuality, racial justice, political ideas) from secular society and the general American consensus, why go to church for anything except weddings, funerals and Christmas carols?  What do you learn in church that you can learn nowhere else?  What kind of relationships do you form in church that you can form nowhere else?

Why is churchgoing so important to you that you will not only go there no matter what — but that you will do everything in your power to encourage your friends and neighbours to join you?  Why is church the daily bread you must have, not a lovely garnish on an already full plate?

A sustainable religion must have answers to these questions.  Otherwise it will slowly fade away...”

You can read the whole article here. 

Wright at Wheaton April 16-17 2010 – Audio

Paul writes – Audio links (Mp3) for the Wheaton Conference 16-17 April (so, this weekend just gone) are available here – Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright 

Here’s a little piece by NK Gupta reflecting on Day 1, and advising that in all likelihood the papers presented at this conference will be published.

“…[Day 1] was the “Jesus” day, where there were several papers that worked through Jesus and the Victory of God and were thinking about this big book with Tom.  In the morning Richard Hays and Marianne Meye Thompson offered very well-crafted methodological critiques of JVG, especially in light of the book Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage (edited by Hays and Gaventa; Thompson was a contributor).  It happens that this book was a project very different from JVG and critical of the Historical Jesus project.  At SBL, Wright gave a response to this book and strikingly launched an attack on the methods and aims of the study.  In turn, Hays saw this as a chance to give a rejoinder and counter-criticism, but not with the single-minded hostility with which Wright had offered his response…"

You can read the rest of his post here. 

Learning to Lead…Five Approaches: Alan Roxburgh.

Paul writes – Al Roxburgh has written an interesting post – some might want to substitute “provocative” for “interesting”  - on Five Approaches to Leadership (training). 

Here’s the first approach:

1. The ‘Learning About’ Leadership Model

“…The most often used is what I would call ‘Learning about Leadership’. It is the second most ineffective of the five approaches. Almost every School of Leadership, (MIT, UCLA, Purdue, Queens, Western, etc.) offers summer institutes on Leadership. Now seminaries are following suite. They bring in speakers (well known experts or gurus) on leadership who talk about types and styles, or focus on a curriculum shaped by a set of topics, books and workshops. At the end of the institute a ‘happy and satisfied’ group of customers go back to their organizations with a ‘Certificate’. I have interviewed hundreds of people who have attended these summer institutes, asking them to articulate its value to them. Over and over, I hear the same story: “The sessions were great! I was put on a team with the country’s best leaders, and I did OK.” Many of the participants stay in touch with their team members for years. Many make contacts and friends that last a lifetime. However, not once did I hear that the ‘content’ or ‘what I learned changed me’. Not one person ever said that it was ‘Learning about Leadership’ that made the difference…” 

You can read the rest of the post and his other 4 approaches here.

“The Future Must Enter You Long Before it Happens…”

Paul writes – Came across this great quote from Rainer Maria Rilke (original source unknown, although I suspect it’s probably his Letters to a Young Poet): 

“…You must give birth to your images.

They are the future waiting to be born.

Fear not the strangeness you feel.

The future must enter you

            Long before it happens.

Just wait for the birth,

for the hour of new clarity…”