I will begin this post with a famous quote from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). The reason for quoting Nietzsche is to make a claim about the modern worldview which will then serve as the starting point in an argument regarding my understanding of how we should do theology.
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” — As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? — Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
Using this vivid language, Nietzsche paints a picture that can be said to well represent how the modern man have come to understand the world. God is dead, they preach, and so it is now dark. The modern worldview perceives the world as unchained from God and the result is that everything is understood to function on its own. The tendency had for centuries been to push God further and further away from the order of existence and Nietzsche predicted, as did many others, that God would in the end be out of sight . . . dead and decomposed. To many people’s surprise, the death of God never occurred and today we rather speak of God’s return than of his death, but I save that discussion for another day. What I want to adress instead is a fundamental question for theology, a question which sets us off in radically different directions depending on how we answer it.
Should the undertaking of theology be understood as a way of mediating the Christian faith to the modern man?
Many have thought that this question should be answered in the affirmative, but I would like to propose that this is a futile way of doing theology and I believe that it will not only fail to achieve its goals but our theological understandings will themselves will be distorted as a result of it. The worldview of the modern man is devoid of God’s presence in the world which in effect creates a specific understanding of the order of things and thus distinctions that are foreign to the viewpoint spelled out in the Biblical narrative. Consequently I claim that it is impossible to articulate Christian theology within the language structure offered to us by modernity.
Theology should not be about mediating the Christian faith to modern men and women, rather theology should be about helping them to understand themselves as part of the Biblical story. The words that we use when we write theology are connected to each other in a specific way and therefore carries a certain meaning within the overarching Biblical structure. If you change the structure you consequently change the sense which you are communicating. If theology is written, or spoken for that matter, within the structure offered by the modern worldview, then it will be controlled by this way of understanding both the world and God, and ultimately the message will never be true to its source. That is why I propose that we should understand ourselves as part of the Christian narrative and invite people to understand themselves as part of this story rather than understanding the Christian faith as part of their own.
The Nietzsches of our age close the shutters of their cottage and claim there is no sun. But there is a sun, and it shines. Whether we “mediate the faith” by opening the shutters, or whether the sun itself heats the cottage until its occupants can no longer deny its presence, one way or another, they will one day admit that there is a sun. Traditional evangelists open shutters. The alternative way Josef describes seems to allow the sun to manifest itself through its heat, i.e., through grace.
Brilliant! I have never thought about this issue before but it makes sense. Love the way you think. Could you parhaps give an example on how the modern structure twists the biblical message?
Just to name one example, think about how modernity distinguishes between the natural and the supernatural. The natural is the way things function without God intervening and the supernatural is that which happens when God do intervene. Some people believe that supernatural events can take place, others don’t. However, what they have in common is that they make the distinction between the natural and the supernatural.
This distinction is part of the modern worldview (since God has been ‘pushed’ away) but it is nowhere to be found in the Biblical worldview. So when people try to explain why they believe in the supernatural, when they formulate doctrines within this structural framework, and so on, the Biblical message will become distorted.
Thanks. I see what you mean and I think that you are right in what you are saying. Great post!
So, the Holy Spirit didn’t stop inspiring humans when the “official” works were finalized into The Bible 1800 years ago. The story in the Bible continues.
The Church teaches, and I believe, that the Holy Spirit no longer inspires writers to convey new revelations from the Word of God, but He inspires many by His grace to interpret what the Word has previously revealed. In this sense, “the story continues.”
As Gregory of Nyssa says at the end of The Life of Moses, he asks the reader to transfer to their own life “what is contemplated through spiritual interpretation”.
I agree with you Josef. “Our” world (but really it is Gods world) has tried to disconnect itself from her Source, it sometimes feel like it is the whole world that is depicted in the prodigal son. This running from God and salvation just like Adam was hiding from God in the garden. Or the more open hostile approach, like the Scribes blaspheming the Holy Spirit and as a consequence denies themselves forgivness. This hiding or “trying to explain God away, or calling Him something else” (the Scribes called Him Belzebub) in pride I think is the eternal sin (αιώνια αμαρτία). And post humanistic soceity and “naturalism” is very good at blaspheming the Holy Spirit. As for the task of theologians: I believe like the church fathers, “the true theologian is the one who prays”, this is the task of the theologian. Becuase in praying we recognice the Lord (becuase we talk and listen to Him) and so we become a part of His narrative. I think we would do well in recognizing that it is not us that invites God into our lives or “our story”, but it is God Who invites us into His life and His story.
I agree with every word brother.
Further understanding of God (Theology) and Divine mysteries is only granted to the one who enters into them.
I think so too, and as I have tried to express here, if that is how we understand theology then the modern worldview should not be the structural framework for our understanding. It’s always hard to write a blog post on a subjet that is big enough for a dissertation but I think that you understand what I attempted to express. As the last line of the post says, I believe that it s more fruitful to understand ourselves as part of God’s story rather than understand God as part of our own. Hence, that is what we should try to express when we do theology.
Yeah, the expansion and retraction of Theology is as vast (in both directions) as the One Who it concerns. But the tension of being apart of a narrative is very exiting!
Thanks for your work and efforts in this huge task.
Thanks. I just looked at your blog, and just so you know, jag är också svensk =)
Jag hade mina misstankar om detta
Jag bor numera i Canada och verkar som pastor har. Jag studerade aven teologi har i Nordamerika (ratt sa sparsamt med ortodoxa seminaries i Sverige..) Kul att kunna dela lite tankar med nagon som (jag tror) delar mycket av ens egen “paradigm”. Vi hors vidare.
May the Lord keep you.
(Jag tar det på engelska så att andra kan förstå)
I read your latest blog on the tension between orthodoxy and evangelicalism, and I liked it. But I wonder what you mean by Orthodoxy? Could you elaborate?
Hello Josef,
For me and for the ekklesia that I am a part of “Orthodoxy” means “straight path” or “correct teaching”. It does not mean “old tradition” that in many local settings have become nominal. I take the word “Orthodoxy” very much at face value and without a cultural (as in nationalism) notion. I think Orthodoxy, a correct teaching, provides an everlasting frame/context/structure of where then life (the good news/evangelicalism) can be revealed for people. Very much like the Jewish – Christian journey. I find a very helpful picture in the workings of energy (as a mentioned in my blog) where energy seems to happen where you have the right context and structure for it (a point A a point B and some kind of “agent” between the two). I realize this is very simplified but I think you catch my drift. Also, I think Orthodoxy “allows” us to be students our whole lifes since its also has a high emphases on mystery while scolasticism took a lot of the mystery out from the Christian revelation. Orthodoxy also view the world as a whole, scolasticism I think had a nobel intention in “picking the world apart to know it” but it forgot to put the pieces back together (and now we have 38.000 denominations in the world). These are some of the ways I view “Orthodoxy”. How do you see it?
I think you summarize it well. The reason I asked was that I wondered whether you belong to an Eastern Orthodox church and I take it that you do. I like that and I think that Western Christians have a lot to learn from our Eastern brothers and sisters.
Hi again, our “denomination” is not “connected” to the canonical orthodox churches in the way they view apostolic succession so in a sense we are not an Eastern Orthodox Church, but then on another hand we are… For more information about our theology and backround please pay a visit to http://www.evangelicalorthodox.org. There is a congregation in Halmstad, Sweden.
Good article and comments. My experience has been that when the Spirit of Truth, entered my life through faith, and by God’s grace, as Jesus said, he would guide me in to all truth and reality. He inspires my understanding, as He does you all, as we “seek” Him. The new revelation is the old revelation becomes new, The problem many of us have is, though He lives in us, if we do not seek revelation or inspiration, it does not automatically engage us. Jer.29:13, thanks for the article!
When I paused to imagine myself stepping into God’s story, instead of insisting that they come to mine, I saw it was like a huge party filled with all kinds of people–all the interesting characters and colorful individuals that I would never have invited to my own party. My party, my story, is truly confined to my own narrow understanding and therefore limited in its impact. I see how I need to insert myself into His narrative, then, not only because it is so much more beautiful than mine, but also because I realize I have a part there. I need to stop just telling people about God’s party, but actually find my own place inside it. That, placement, then, is my story.
Hmm. That actually makes the term “evangelism” take on a whole new meaning, doesn’t it? Thank you for a jarring post. I’ll be thinking about this one for awhile.