Augustine

All is Gift (Theology for Thanksgiving)

~ Mike Skinner ~ 1 Comment

“Where did you come from?”

This basic, almost childish, question of ontology is perhaps the basis of all right thinking about our lives. For Augustine, in his classical work Confessions, it grounds his ability to understand his life as completely and fully dependent on God.* We did not create our own lives. Our existence, and all of the different parts of that existence, are complete gifts from God.

This is a truth made clearer when one is in relationship with someone will special needs such as autism or down syndrome. I made no choice, and exerted no effort, in order to be given the physiological or biological abilities to walk, talk, think, speak, create, work, or relate to others. Accordingly, I didn’t choose my gender or my ethnicity. I didn’t choose my family or my location of origin. Upon reflection, I could have just as easily been born to a teenager in Syria who is now a refugee as to a well-to-do American family in a suburb who discusses the plight of refugees. I could have just as easily been born without the ability to think critically or communicate effectively.

Everything in my life, at the end of the day, is a gift.

It is only when I come to grips with this fact that I am able to live as a creature and express the most basic, yet most satisfying, instinct of a creature: thanksgiving. 

I offer to you, then, two poets’ reflections on the creatureliness of life and the inherent gift of gratitude that flows from it:

“What gain has the worker from his toil? I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put ignorance into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in his toil – this is God’s gift to man.” – Solomon, King of Israel [Ecclesiastes 3:9-13]

The colors of a sunrise,
a morning suprise,
the love you find in another’s eyes.
The hand that helps you up, when you’ve fallen down;
All is gift, my friend, all is gift from a loving God.

The changing of the seasons, life is born anew.
Laughter and smiles and birds that sing;
that hope that we cling to when the darkness comes;
All is gift, my friend, all is gift from a loving God.

Memories of a yesterday, tears that flow,
broken dreams, broken hearts we learn to grow.
A God who will let us know we’re not alone,
we’re not alone.
All is gift, my friend, all is gift from a loving God.

Hearts that unite, a friendship born,
in sacred earth seeds are sown and we are fed.
Hands unafraid to reach and souls that touch;
All is gift, my friend, all is gift from a loving God.
– Kathy Sherman

  • Stanley Hauerwas, commenting on Augustine’s thought: “That we are dependent beings is self-evident if we acknowledge as we should that we cannot remember our birth. Augustine, like Wittgenstein, emphasizes the significance of birth as a definitive human experience that makes impossible our temptation to ignore the fact we are bodily creatures. Our bodily character makes us mysteries to ourselves inviting us to ask the childish question, “Where did I come from?” It is Augustine’s willingness to risk appearing childish by probing the ontological implications of that question that Rees argues makes the account of his life in the Confessions so compelling.”

 

Is the past real?

~ Chad Chambers ~ 1 Comment

Another set of quotes from my PhD research. Last week I looked at Paul’s gospel, this week I’m going a different direction by looking at different views of the past.

Time is one of the key concepts in my thesis. In studying time, I have found just about every concept is debated so for the fun of it here is a sampling of different views of the past.*

Heidegger – the deep unity of time as future, past, and present…the backward move toward the past is retrieved in the anticipation of a present, therefore, in a being’s move toward death retrospection is reconnected to anticipation and anticipation is rooted in retrospection. (Ricoeur speaks of this view of Heidegger as he explains the becoming of being as the extension of life both backward and forward)

Richard Lehan – “…you cannot buy back the past, cannot realize ideals located in the past. The past is not a stable, solid block of meaning to which one can return at will. Present reality transforms the past. Because the past is constantly emptied of meaning – ‘you cannot go home again’…To seek meaning in the past is to seek it in a realm that will never be the same again.”

Aneesha Dharwadker – “The past dictates what we know, the very core of our existence…Menard defines history not as delving into reality but as the very fount of reality…The past changes the present as much as the present changes the past.”

Northrop Frye – “In our ordinary sense of time we have to grapple with 3 dimensions, all of the unreal: a past that is no longer, a future that is not yet, and a present that is never quite…but the centre of all time is ‘now.'”

Udo Schnelle – The past is available to us exclusively through present interpretations. In other words, history is not simply reconstructed but necessarily constructed as interpretation invents the past as we now see it by giving it a structure it did not previously have. Thus, the past exists only when it is brought into meaningful relationship with the present.

Augustine – “No time is wholly present…All past time is driven backwards by the future, all future time is the consequent of the past, and all past and future are created and set on their course by that which is always present.”

_________

*Italics are summaries, “…” are quotes.

 

 

 

A [Just] War for Romans 13: Towards a Nonviolent Reading

~ Mike Skinner ~ 7 Comments

“The text has disappeared under the interpretation.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

Romans 13:1-7 has a long and rich history as the classic biblical prooftext for the justification of lethal violence.  The “classical interpretation” goes something like this: the state has divine authority to inflict violence and go to war in order to punish evil and work for peace.  Such an interpretation is axiomatic to most Christians, who find it hard to even imagine that the passage might mean anything significantly different.  But what if Romans 13:1-7 does not justify Christian participation in violence?  While such an idea is difficult for many to even entertain, I’ve found the interpretive work of recent anti-imperial scholars and Christian pacifists [such as N.T. Wright and John Howard Yoder] to be just the catalyst needed to push my reading into a more faithful direction.[1]

One of the most significant decisions for one’s interpretation lies in how they understand the Greek participle tetagmenai translated as “instituted” [NRSV, ESV], “ordained” [KJV], or “established” [NIV].  This participle form of tasso is the same root verb used for the command to be “subject” (upotassestho) earlier in verse 1 and might be better understood as “arranging in an orderly manner.”  In fact, “ordered” is the gloss that Yoder argues for while Wright renders the participle “have been put in place.”[2]  The difference in decisions is subtle, yet important.  It is a question of direct divine involvement and moral approval.  Yoder compares God’s work here to that of a librarian: “The librarian does not make the books, does not write them, does not necessarily approve of them, but simply puts them in order.”[3]

Here is another way to approach the same issue: is the proper Old Testament background to these “governing authorities” the theocratic nation of Israel or the foreign empires of Assyria and Babylon?  The difference in one’s decision is again very important.  Many believe that since God directly commanded some of the wars of Israel that he also morally approved of them.  However, the relationship between God and the actions of Assyria and Babylon is a little more nuanced throughout the Bible.  Wright locates the conceptual background of this passage in Old Testament texts such as Isaiah 10, Isaiah 44, and Jeremiah 29.[4]  These texts speak of the providential sovereignty of YHWH over the foreign rulers of Assyria, Persia, and Babylon. Yoder thus argues that just as YHWH used the human evil of Assyria and Babylon for his good divine purposes, so Romans 13 is “an affirmation of providence overriding human rebellion, not ratifying it.”[5]  While God, in his providence, fit the Assyrian and Babylonian empires into his plan of redemption, he in no way morally legitimized the actions of these governing authorities.  Likewise, if read in this way the text does not grant moral authority to the governing powers but simply reassures believers of God’s divine, if not mysterious, sovereignty.

This understanding fits in nicely with the historical context of the passage.  It is important to remember that at this point in history the Christian community was on the outside looking in when it came to participating in government.  Rome was no modern liberal democracy and the early Christians did not feel the affinity for their government that is so common to current Westerners.

In turn, these decisions help clarify the apparent contradiction between Romans 12:9-21 and Romans 13:1-7.  As Stanley Hauerwas puts it, you simply must not read Romans 13 without first reading Romans 12.  Indeed, a close reading should take note of the fact that there is an interesting “verbal interplay around the concepts of vengeance and wrath” in the immediate literary context of Romans 13.[6]  For instance, Romans 12:19 instructs Christians to never exercise vengeance but to leave it to God.  Paul then describes the governing authorities of v. 1 as the ones who execute this role, a role that he has clearly excluded Christians from.  Yoder believes that “this makes it clear that the function exercised by government is not the function to be exercised by Christians.”[7]  Paul doesn’t directly address the issue of Christian participation in government, but it should be fair to say that he most likely wouldn’t exempt believing government officials from the universal commands of Romans 12.

When read in this way, Romans 13 does not contradict the non-violent statements made by Paul in Romans 12 or by Jesus in the Gospels.  Paying close attention to 13:6-7 helps us in this regard.  Many scholars believe that Romans 13:6-7 refers to the temptation to revolt against oppressive taxes that existed in Rome in the first century (which might make for an interesting understanding of America’s founding).  This would make Romans 13 say basically the same thing that Paul had already told them in Romans 12, but now applied to the specific context of the Roman government: Christians should not repay evil with evil, but should overcome evil with good.[8]  As Yoder says, “Romans 12-13 and Matthew 5-7 are not in contradiction or tension.  They both instruct Christians to be nonresistant in all their relationships, including the social.  They both call on the disciples of Jesus to renounce participation in the interplay of egoisms which this world calls “vengeance” or “justice.”[9]  Or again, “The call [of Romans 13:1-7] is to a nonresistant attitude toward a tyrannical government.  This is the immediate and concrete meaning of the text, how strange then to make it the classic proof for the duty of Christians to kill.”[10]

It is time for the text to reappear over the interpretation.  In a violent world, it is time for Jesus’ people to undertake a [just] war for biblical texts, like Romans 13:1-7, that have been commandeered to support political theories fundamentally at odds with the message and hope of Christ.

What do you think?
Are you convinced that it is possible to read Romans 13 in a nonviolent way? 

[1] This post is a shortened version of a paper I read at the 2013 Regional SBL/AAR conference in Dallas, TX.  The paper was a comparison and evaluation of Augustine’s reading of Romans 13:1-7 with the reading of N.T. Wright and John Howard Yoder.
[2] Yoder, Politics of Jesus, 201-202; Wright’s The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation.
[3] Yoder, Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution, 329.
[4] Wright, New Interpreters Bible Commentary on Romans, 718.
[5] Yoder, Politics of Jesus, 198.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Wright, NIB Commentary on Romans, 720: “The methods of the Messiah himself [Romans 12:14-21] must be used in living out his kingdom within the present world.”
[9] Yoder, Politics of Jesus, 210.
[10] Ibid., 202-203.

‘Literal’ hasn’t always meant ‘Literal’

~ Chad Chambers ~ 5 Comments

When discussing biblical hermeneutics, inevitably the ‘literal’ meaning of scripture pops up. The ‘literal’ meaning of scripture in some quarters signifies the holy grail of interpretation and in others all that is wrong with biblical scholarship. Yet, what is the ‘literal’ meaning of scripture?

In my study of classic doctrines of scripture, I find Aquinas’ thoughts on the literal sense of scripture fascinating because he uses ‘literal’ to argue for the opposite of what many mean by it today. Furthermore, he does so with a deep conviction of scripture’s unity and divine authorship.

Aquinas is convinced that since all parts of scripture work together to fulfill God’s designed purpose they are unified, but not univocal.  Aquinas’ concept of unity draws upon his complex understanding of the literal sense of scripture.  At first glance, his understanding of the literal sense seems to fall in line with the Augustinian tradition.  For example, he writes, “Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one – the literal – from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended to allegory” (1.1.10).  Yet, one must be careful to clarify what he means by the term literal sense.  For Aquinas, the literal sense of scripture is related to the intention of the author.  On the one hand, the human author may have intended the words to refer to a historical fact or a material reality.  On the other hand, since God is the ultimate author of scripture it can have several senses or meanings.  He states, “Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting…if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses” (1.1.10).  Consequently, the literal sense of scripture, for Aquinas, can entail all four aspects of the medieval four-fold sense of scripture depending on the intended purpose of the author, who is ultimately God. 

In effect, it is precisely because scripture “derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge” (1.1.5) that Aquinas finds it inevitably multi-vocal.  God, whom is beyond human capacity to understand, cannot be defined plainly and as a result, Aquinas anticipates a passage will have a multitude of meanings, even on a literal level.  Thus, his understanding of scripture as unified in purpose does not mean that scripture is singular in meaning or that each word, verse or passage has one true meaning.  Instead, scripture’s unity is found in that it has many meanings and through the power and purposes of God, they do “not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity” (1.1.10).

Hermeneutics: Theoretical, Practical or ?

~ Chad Chambers ~ 6 Comments

Over the past several months, I have listened to Hermeneutics courses – thanks iTunes U, edX, OpenEdX – from multiple universities with various religious affiliations or no affiliation. While each course presented a particular perspective, I found one constant – hermeneutics is taught either in theory or practice.

The theory of hermeneutics, commonly referred to as ‘the art of interpretation’, is usually more philosophical and approaches hermeneutics as a general theory of human understanding. A course will often discuss the works of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, and Jacques Derrida. In religious contexts, Anthony Thiselton and/or Stanley Porter regularly serve as guides.

The practice of hermeneutics, also known as ‘exegesis’, is usually a strategic approach that identifies the principles (or a model for) exegesis. In such a course, one would encounter different paradigms of interpretation, such as ‘the fourfold sense of scripture’, historical-critical method, literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, social-scientific criticism, canonical criticism, advocacy criticism, and theological interpretation. In religious contexts, Gordon Fee and/or Michael Gorman are common companions.

Yet, I am puzzled how each of these methods differs from the way earlier generations of Christians approached the issue (not trying to discredit them, each is informative and necessary in own right). For the past week, I have returned to Augustine (On Christian Doctrine), Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis), and Aquinas (Summa Theologiae) and have been constantly struck by their two-fold primary focus of hermeneutics – the centrality of God (the Holy Spirit) and the life of the exegete in understanding. As Clement aptly states, “Almost all of us…have ‘in power’ grasped through faith the teaching about God.” Or consider Augustine’s seven steps to understanding Scripture:

  1. Fear of God – humility
  2. Piety – what is written is better and more true than anything else
  3. Knowledge – begins with understanding sinfulness leading to repentance
  4. Fortitude – a hunger and thirst for justice
  5. Counsel of mercy – exercises love for neighbors
  6. Cleansing – death to the world
  7. Wisdom – “Therefore this holy one will be of such simple and clean heart that he will not turn away from the Truth either in desire to please men or for the sake of avoiding any kind of adversities to himself…From fear to wisdom the way extends through these steps.”

Wisdom is the result of a process, but it a process of transformation not information. The first step towards understanding (or six according to Augustine) is humbly submitting to the purifying work of the Holy Spirit. Then the Holy Spirit who is at work in our lives will also open our eyes to the truth contained in scripture.

I understand to some these are antiquated ideas that can’t be left behind fast enough, but to those in confessional Christian settings:

Do your hermeneutics courses teach about the power of God and the life of the exegete as well as about the philosophy and principles of hermeneutics? If so, what resources do you use? If not, what keeps you from approaching the subject this way?