Email exchange....

A dear friend of mine just wrote, and he is a part of my journey (and happy for me to include this).

 Here is his email, then my response.

Hi John,

Yesterday i read your post about balance theology. I definitely find this topic very interesting (I'll try to find time to read Wax's article). This lead me to think (not sure why) about Carl's book "The Art of Not Evangelism" which focuses away from doctrines and dogmas but rather on Jesus and making him known. I remember vividly a passage where Carl says we need to point the way to Jesus and simply encourage people to get to know him personally rather than impose a set of laws they need to abide to to be "included" in our church group. This ties as well to what I touched on about Jesus being the only way to the father and by extension, his person being central to our faith (him being God himself or not). So I wanted to know how you perceive this book and its message now that your "wrestling" with the person of Jesus? Maybe that topic can be covered when we talk about how our theology impacts our testimony. R.

Response:
You are right about Medearis book, it was my favourite book last year. I do not feel like my main wrestling is with Jesus, although you or others could see it that way. It's more avout the possible gap between scripture and the creeds. I am happy to conform my thinking to the Bible! But to understand the Bible, I need to re examine the influences the creeds may have had on my interpretation. I also need to better understand why some ecumenical creeds are rejected and others accepted, and on whose authority. Luther's?

Remember, creeds are like lenses that affect deeply how we read the scriptures and ultimately how we relate to God. Maybe they do not affect our good deeds or personal testimony so much, but they might affect the ideas we try to share.

You are right bro, the jump from "balance", be that in discipleship or in theology (this is what Wax confused), is a slightly separate topic, but we can apply it here. Will I keep a balance of enquiry, i.e. Honest discipleship with submissive discipleship?  Yes I will try. You can - please do - hold me accountable to that and help me! j

Balanced theology: "EVERY THEOLOGY HAS A DEGREE OF PASSIONATE EXTREMISM"

How does passionate over-emphasis work out in theology among the people of God? Whilst researching Moltmann a bit, I came across this article by Trevin Wax at the "Gospel Coalition", which I found interesting, check it out. Note this comment left at the bottom of Wax's article by a reader, identified as James Houghton, which at my time of writing has still not yet been responded to by Wax:

People often call for balance what I find interesting is that Jesus never did.

There are two issues here: Wax's unfortunate lack of clarity on his underlying point and definition of "balance", and unclear assumptions from Houghton's short comment, which I shall also respond to.

I really enjoyed Wax's article on my first read-through. However, I now realise that there is a subtle and perhaps unhelpful shift of emphasis away from what I understand in Stott's work on balance in the life of the Christian toward theological balance, which I think is actually a different point entirely. In turn, this unfortunately makes it less clear which of these two elements of "balance" James Houghton thinks is out of sync with the testimony of Jesus, or if indeed it was simply the mention of the word "balance" that connected with some personal bee in his bonnet.

Let us talk briefly about Jesus' "balance". He could certainly be very extreme: outrageous comments and stories against the religious leaders of his time, turning the tables, the dead can bury their own dead, "you" are my family if you do God's will, willing to die for sins while none of those sins were his, pretty much the whole of the Sermon on the Mount, the list just goes on and on. But was Jesus really saying that the dead should bury the dead? Was he even saying that the spiritually dead should bury the dead? Or was Jesus greatly saddened by death? Did he first weep at Lazarus' death before powerfully raising him (textually rhetorical!)? Could we not say that Jesus was drawing on ideals similar to our modern notion of balance when he said:

Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's (Mark 12:17) 

A couple of other Jesus and balance examples that come to mind: As NT Wright also points out, the house where the paralytic was lowered through the roof is quite plausibly Jesus' house. He was settled. Jesus also "balanced" his time between time with his heavenly father, his disciples and the crowds. And so on.

I also have in mind a relevant comment from Bart Ehrman, which I am certain everyone can agree on. He says that we are to remember that literally billions of events occur in every human being's life, including of course, Jesus (see here for article). He mentions this to help students ask good questions of the text, and identify the different kinds of questions that we can and should ask. But the point is that the vast majority of actions and sayings that took place in Jesus' life are unknown to us, we have just a tiny fraction in four rich flavours. As a Christian theologian, I hope and believe that the fraction we have is the most significant, but it does not exclude from my mind the possibility that, in addition to some of the examples noted above, Jesus could very easily have thought and even explicitly taught that there is balance to be had in Christian life (Stott) and in theology (Wax), but that the gospel writers did not remember it or chose to exclude it. This is an indisputable possibility, despite Houghton's objection.

As to my own conclusion, on this issue of balance in Christian discipleship, I have to respond that Stott's model seems very appealing, I agree with it and can identify with it. With regards to the church's theological balance through some degree of passionate extremes, which is a different point entirely, I think Wax (following Motlmann as he makes very clear) makes a very interesting point. It brings us back to the "unity in diversity" values we often hear, although Wax is clearly going further: if the church benefits through these sometimes extreme views, then we could even point to longer-term stability through some theological boat-rocking!

I do, however, want to throw a diplomatic line to Wax, and suggest, after all, an overarching idea that does gather in his discipleship balance point at the start of his article, and does also I think faithfully reflect the position of Jesus:

There is a rather paradoxical balance: a balance between balance and passionate extremes, or over-emphases. (The clue was in Wax's title: a DEGREE). This post is already too long, but it would be wonderful to explore more fully what this kind of balance could look like for me.

Strange teaching

May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?

You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.

These words from the Acts of the Apostles seem peculiarly relevant to the quest in hand.

I and the Father are ONE and a bit more on the unitarian vs trinitarian debate

"I and the Father are One": John Chapters 10 and 17

This has been a difficult choice for me - to exclude or not to exclude the John 10 instance of I and the father are one, cited by trinitarians as excellent textual support for Christ's full divinity [blue category]. To exclude it, that is, from my New Testament study seeking to statistically review evidence cited in favour of Christ's Nicene status or that discounts the strength of the Nicene claim: Jesus is "Very God" [this category I call the green category]. In this study, I hope it is clear from the many other references that I have included in the blue category that I am consciously being as neutral as I can be. I am not attempting to demonstrate textual credibility for the doctrinal conclusions any more than I am attempting to discredit these conclusions, simply to examine the ways in which the various texts seem to lean and how they collectively add up - if indeed they do or must do. For me, the lack of clarity so far and the ongoing debate, with evidence pointing in different directions, could open the way to either or both of the following projects:

1. Legitimising a change in where we lay down our limits of divine and christological comprehensibility.
2. Proceed in a more cautious way in response to what I am defining as “canonical pressure”, in opposition to Stephen Holmes’ and others' “exegetical pressure”.

So why exclude “I and the Father are one”, if I am as open-minded as I claim and strive to be? Why exclude any passages from the study? Because some passages can be described as compatible with both positions, or even in some instances are considered actively supporting both positions, as one day we shall see in the historical battles over John 5:19 and other instances also.

If we had John 10 alone, then it would have to be blue, for sure. Not because it provides overwhelming evidence for Jesus' deity - Jesus neither accepts nor denies the allegations that he is calling himself God (unitarians will take the OT quote further in their own defence) - but because the statement could be and consistently has been labelled as solid support for the claim. The point of this post is to say that this seems to me a clear case of REVERSE ENGINEERING (a wonderful expression a theologising friend and companion taught me today - a pretty solid trinitarian as it happens).

However, we do not have just John 10 - we also have John 17, which provides us with greater context for this expression and what John understands Jesus meant in this statement.

Before I proceed, we should be clear that we are working on the assumption that between John 10 and John 17 we have the same author whose views and language are consistent, who views that Jesus' views are consistent, and who when he uses the same words in a different context does not mean something radically different than what he understood Jesus to mean in the first context. That sounds like a big assumption, but I do not think it actually is (although I should probably find a good example to back this up). I also note that the contexts are actually not so different: Jesus is referring to his beloved believers in both cases.

My point is this: John 17 gives us good reason to reject intended reference here to common divine identity of Jesus' saying "I and the Father one", i.e. one divine personality or one divine essence, because of how this same wording, used twice more in John 17, is applicable in the same way to humans. Perhaps I am being too subjective here (I do not think I am), but a natural reading of this phrase is that of a unity of purpose, a total lack of disagreement, total agreement, common vision, alignment of wills, etc. Here again are those verses, with my emphases (v11 and v20-23) :

"I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one...

"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one - I in them and you in me - so that they may be brought to complete unity."

The oneness between Jesus and the Father is the same as that which can be shared by humans, or hoped and prayed to be shared. The hope here is never that the believers become one self - indeed the beauty of the oneness is that it is achieved by distinct persons, in a way that can remind us of a how a husband and wife become "one". I need to be careful here not to appear to argue this text from a unitarian position (this is why I deliberately write "persons" and not "beings"). That is not at all the purpose of this post! The point therefore is to stress inter-person oneness for a purpose: unity. Both unitarians and Trinitarians should be happy with that conclusion, as this text should be compatible with both positions:

Unitarian: the oneness is compatible with our view that as invested with authority as Jesus is by God (Matt 11:27, all things have been given to me by the Father), he is not God himself because the same oneness is plainly requested by the Messiah for humans, so there is nothing here that demonstrates that Jesus is God any more than I am my wife or even I am my couple. Taken out of context like in John 10, then we might think that. We can also ask, as does Apolytus, what does “is” mean? the Father and I are (plural) one, rather than the Father and I am one. 

Trinitarian: although this kind of unity-bond is of the same kind that two or more like-minded humans can share, we would expect nothing less from a triune God so it is compatible for us trinitarians too. We should also remember: Tertullian and Hypolytus' understanding of the “Divine Economy” as a way of organising relationships. Three distinct beings but perfectly unified in will and purpose.

So we have compatibility in both directions, but no specific support from these passages for either position (even though I sense that there is more natural flow on the unitarian side on this one). Since we are looking for verses that support one position rather than are simply "compatible", then these passages become less useful to this task.

Thus, my reasoning provides a rather surprising exhortation: unitarians and trinitarians - you can be relatively united over this text! Pick your fights elsewhere please.

NB: I also wonder if the "being one...so that they may be brought to complete unity", could be an indication of how Jesus seeks that those who believe in him take their momentary or partial oneness to a total and permanent state of unity. Note that the pressure of this conclusion is toward beautiful harmony of persons who do not lose their separate states of consciousness, being, etc. To resume the marriage example, therefore, we could see the oneness cemented in "wedlock", a state of permanent and desired unity.

UPDATE (MARCH 2015)
- I see I mentioned Tertullian there, and another quote I have found of his demonstrates his interpretation of this passage, which I sense is already in discord with John's meanings, or at least seems to require John to apply his language of unity inconsistently. Here's the interpretation he gives:

... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, .... ("Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.")

Tertullian seems so caught up in a debate over "unity of substance" and "singularity of number", and there is true occasion to his writings, notably the patristic passion heresy. This means that he might not see other options. For instance, as described above, a unity of purpose and vision. There is no need for "substance" here, at least in my view, and this seems to be backed by a lot of modern social Trinitarian writers.

Couple of links

Gosh there are some amazing blogs out there, wish I could write and present like that! Please check out Wallace's balanced review of Blomberg's book, Can we still believe the Bible, here, definitely seems like adding to my book list.

Also see an entertaining debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace here. I may blog about that debate at some point soon. It concerns our access to the original texts of the New Testament.

Luke 1:35 - learning to live within the confines of ones own convictions

35 The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[a] will be holy; he will be called Son of God. [NRSV]

1. Luke 1:35 Other ancient authorities add of you

Sometimes this blog might seem to be deeply questioning the scriptural validity of the creeds. But it does not stop there. Luke 1:35 sheds light on how all of us read Scriptures, whatever our persuasion. Luke 1:35 is an absolute favourite it would seem of many Biblical unitarians and antitrinitarians, but through it, I am learning to question their assumptions too. The reason why they get so excited about it, I am fairly sure, is they want to demonstrate Biblically that Jesus is not eternal. No matter how highly God has exalted him since he was miraculously conceived, we must know that the Bible says he had a beginning in time, and that is written black on white in Luke 1:35. 

I receive Anthony Buzzard's somewhat crudely-argued monthly publication, Focus on the Kingdom, (some of which is enlightening, but there is never any uncertainty, sense of evidence-weighing, etc., which I find quite unsatisfying) and I am certain that this Luke reference comes up in pretty much every issue. But is it so clearly stating that Jesus' life begins at this point of history? Let us read the verse again:

35 The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;

All I am sensing so far is that Mary is going to be made pregnant by God, future tense. So far totally in line with the trinitarian view that God became human at a point in time.

therefore. As a result of it being the Holy Spirit of the one true God making Mary pregnant, we can prophecy certain things of this child:

the child to be born [of you]. Still nothing strange here.

will be holy. A clear link to the Holy Spirit, the child coming directly from the Holy God. It's all future tense here, which linguistically makes sense in the context of this prophecy.

he will be called Son of God. This is the only part I can see where some debate can be made, because of the lack of the definite article, "the". In fact, we can see quite clearly if we look up Strongs 5207, υἱός, that the term here is not "the son", so the resulting indefinite article of "a son" needs some explanation. Attention is drawn away from this problem, if it is a problem, by translations like the NRSV simply dropping the article altogether.

How might a trinitarian respond? Firstly, I think, they must remind the unitarian that actually most of the verse makes a lot of sense, while they should admit that it might have been more convenient for them doctrinally for the Greek to say  υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ like elsewhere in the New Testament canon. Doctrinally, it is completely possible to say that Jesus is A son of God, even if it is not at all the wording that the 4th Century fathers would have wanted to use. I think a final defence would lie in remembering just how overwhelmed and afraid Mary was. She has only so much capability of understanding, she was young, vulnerable and about to be impregnated by God, so this was quite enough information!

Conclusion: some unitarians weaken their position by over-relying on this passage, Buzzard in particular. Lacking the "the", however, and being an important text for biblical unitarians, I am including this passage in my main study as a "dissuasive" text, more suggestive (but by no means determinative) of a non-Nicene position. 

Two wills

Hi and welcome to Monday's blog-entry, the goal of 3/week remains thus far upheld, so why not publically state it and keep going? So Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, rock on.

Ever since viewing Holmes' talk on Inseparable operations at Fuller, and a small email exchange with this fascinating scholar (big privilege for me), I cannot stop the questions gushing.

If Nicea 325 (Trinity, with a capital T) leads to Chalcedon 451 (two-natures of Christ, his "hypostatic union"), then Chalcedon leads to the third Council of Constantinople, in which monothelitism and monoenergism are designated heretical, i.e. that Christ cannot have only one will, for the same reason that God cannot be divided or have more than one will. For me, this makes sense

This rather epic doctrinal voyage needs to be seen - in my view - as necessary. That is to say, with hindsight, that these three ports-of-call were always going to be necessary once having docked at the first. It is not a simple affair, as I might previously have thought, to follow the Reformed and Lutheran traditions, who object to such a prescribed itinerary, since they only recognise the first four ecumenical councils (or parts of). This means that they accept Nicea I and II (Trinity), Ephesus (?!) and Chalcedon (hypostatic union of Christ), but from the sixth ecumenical council (the one in question), they are out of the game, no doubt put off by the debate around Mary's title (although note my "?!" around the third ecumenical council in Ephesus which is already condemning the title Christokos.)

Right, onto the questions, and assuming that the doctrinal itinerary relative to Christ - rather than his Mum - is necessary (that obviously needs to be explored in greater depth at another time to see quite how the Lutherans can consider "bowing out" of the doctrinal journey as a legitimate option):

Firstly, declaring that Christ has two natures, is one thing, but to declare that he has two wills, or “centres of volition”, and that this is foundational to orthodox Christian faith, does this not mean that we as Christians accept that Christ has more wills than God?

Secondly, do we uphold that the hypostatic union once forged and in maintaining these two wills, remains eternally so within an eternal hypostatic union? If Jesus at times wills, does and says certain things that are not His divine will, divine actions and divine words, then where does that leave the cross and the resurrection? Is there a fourth port of call? That God died on the cross, that Christ only died in respect to his humanity, or do we finally have to defer to mystery at this point? In my main scriptural overview, the question of God raising Jesus is the third largest and most consistent distinctive placed between "God" and "Jesus" in the New Testament, only behind "God and Jesus" passages and "Son of God" passages. So with no less than 12 (although possibly more, I have yet to finish the first run-through) occurrences of this sort (within which, 2 Corinthians fits but refers to God with His pronoun), I think we need to take the following very seriously in questioning the great doctrinal voyage:

Eph 1:20

Eph 2:6

Rom 8:11

Rom 10:9

1 Cor 15:15

Gal 1:1

1 Thes 1:10

2 Cor 4:14

1 Pet 1:21

Col 2:12

Heb 13:20

Acts 10:40

Ephesians 1:20

God[a] put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places

Ephesians 2:6

But God [...] raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places

Romans 8:11

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ[a] from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through[b] his Spirit that dwells in you

Romans 10:9

if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Corinthians 15:15

We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

Galatians 1:1

Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

For the people of those regions[b]report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus

2 Corinthians 4:14

we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring us with you into his presence.

1 Peter 1:21

Through him you now trust in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory

Colossians 2:12

Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead.

Hebrews 13:20

may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep

It seems like a lot of doctrinal work had to be done to navigate through contrasting wills, the greatness of the Father exceeding the s/Son’s, but what is the catholic view around the divine Son's death at the cross?

Your thoughts please.