Reading Tillich 7: Destiny and Freedom

Our destiny is that out of which our decisions arise; it is the indefinitely broad basis of our centered selfhood; it is the concreteness of our being which makes all our decisions our decisions. When I make a decision, it is the concrete totality of everything that constitutes my being which decides, not an epistemological subject. This refers to body structure, psychic strivings, spiritual character. It includes the communities to which I belong, the past unremembered and remembered, the environment which has shaped me, the world which has made an impact on me. It refers to all my former decisions. Destiny is not a strange power which determines what shall happen to me. It is myself as given, formed by nature, history and myself. My destiny is the basis of my freedom; my freedom participates in shaping my destiny.
Systematic theology I, 185.

The problem of human freedom has caused much confusion throughout the ages and continues to do so today. Those that deny freedom today refer more to biology and "neuroscience" than strange forces, but there still seems to be a very poor understanding of what man's freedom actually means. A Finnish philosopher, Hannes Nykänen, has written that trying to prove the freedom of the will is a bit like trying to sneak a peak of oneself in a mirror. The fact is that we experience ourselves as free, and when one is denying our freedom on the basis of "science" one is simply addressing a different matter. Much confusion, yes.

The genius of Tillich's polarity of freedom and destiny is that it explains and acknowledges the limits of our freedom. This idea returns later in the system when Tillich treats Original Sin.

Based on this description of the structure of being, it seems reasonable to try to use the limited freedom one has to increase one's freedom. Obviously one can not escape one's destiny, but the choices we make "participate" in the forming of this destiny. This is valid on a cultural level too. What we are doing when we change the climate and use up the earth's resources is reducing our freedom.

Br. Roger and the Catholic Church

Controversy has arisen over the supposed "conversion" of Brother Roger of Taizé to the Catholic Church. On September 6th, Le Monde published an article suggesting that Brother Roger secretly converted to the Catholic Church, thus implying that his ecumenical stance was built on fraud. Today the Taizé community has responded by publishing four articles on their website, explaining the relation between Brother Roger and Rome and his own ecumenical position.

Do read them, its my conviction that Brother Roger's way is the only way forward for the ecumenical movement. Ecumenism has to happen in persons, not between institutions.

The Taizé Community states: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3864.html

Interview with Brother Alois: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3865.html

Bishop Gérard Daucourt: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3875.html

The French Protestant Federation: http://www.taize.fr/en_article3871.html

Reading Tillich 6:Religious nationalism

The Old Testament certainly is full of Jewish nationalism, but it appears over and over as that against which the Old Testament fights. Religious nationalism is the mark of false prophets. The true prophets threaten Israel in the name of the God of justice who is able to reject his nation because of its injustice ... As the god of justice he is universal, and, if justice is violated, he rejects any claim on the basis of a special relation to his nation. The term "elected nation" is by no means an expression of national arrogance. To be elected includes the permanent threat of rejection and destruction and the demand to accept destruction in order to save the covenant of election. ... Empirically speaking there is no happy ending for the elected nation - or for the elected one of final revelation. But "empirically speaking" is not the prophetic form of speaking.
Systematic Theology I, 143.

On this day, I think I will let this stand without a comment.

Chrisendom: An Audience with the Küng

Is there anything you always wanted to ask Hans Küng? Now's your chance, thanks to Chris Tilling. Go to Chrisendom to find out more.

No, I can't think of anything, really.

Reading Tillich 5: Symbolical Language

A long one today:

The knowledge of revelation, directly or indirectly, is knowledge of God, and therefore analogous or symbolic. The nature of this kind of knowing is dependent on the nature of the relation between God and the world and can be discussed only in the context of the doctrine of God. But two possible misunderstandings must be mentioned and removed. If the knowledge of revelation is called "analogous," this certainly refers to the classical doctrine of the analogia entis between the finite and the infinite. Without such an analogy nothing could be said about God. But the analogia entis is in no way able to create a natural theology. It is not a method of discovering truth about God; it is the form in which every knowledge of revelation must be expressed. In this sense analogia entis, like "religous symbol", points to the necessity od using material taken from finite reality in order to give content to the cognitive function of revelation. ... The phrase "only a symbol" should be avoided, because nonanalogous or nonsymbolic knowledge of God has less truth than analogous of symbolic knowledge. The use of finite materials in their ordinary sense for the knowledge of revelation destroys the meaning of revelation and deprives God of his divinity.
Systematic Theology I, 131.

This immensily important realisation, that talk about God must be symbolical in order to protect the truth about God, in one stroke makes fundamentalist and traditionalist theology impossible. This is why theology, to be theology, must change. I cannot remain the same, it cannot use the same formulas and concepts as before because human language is constantly in flux. In that situation, to hold on to traditional formulas in theology, without trying to explain them with current language will lead to lying about God.

Of course, it is this realisation that leads Tilich to develop theology with the "method of correlation", as an attempt to find new form to the eternal truth contained in the Christian gospel.

I have had great use of this method not only in my few and far between sermons, but espeically in my reading of Christian litterature, especially in my case the fathers. To always keep the "existential question" they are trying to answer in the back of my head while reading has helped me, I think, to appreciate an aspect about the fathers that go beyond theological polemics, the main trap of any reader of patristic literature.

Clearly this is not an uncomplicated matter, for it leads over to the very tricky question of what remains the same and what changes in the human condition over the ages.

Reading Tillich 4: Sainthood

The term "saint" has been misunderstood and distorted; saintliness has been identified with religious or moral perfection. Protestantism, for these reasons, has finally removed the concept of sainthood from religion. But sainthood is not personal perfection. Saints are persons who are transparent for the ground of being which is revealed thorough them and who are able to enter a revelatory constellation as mediums. Their being can become a sign-event for others. This is the truth behind the Catholic practice of demanding miracles from every saint.
Systematic Theology I, 121.

I have often wondered what a person belonging to a tradition where saints play a central role feels about this definition. It strikes me as very accurate. I have met a few person in my life and read the works of several others that I would consider saints. What Tillich points to is exactly it: the encounter which such a person become a revelation of the divine that grabs me and transforms me. It has little to do with moral perfection, although to be transparent for the ground of being, that is to be truly genuine and at ease with one's identity, tends to lead to a certain moral solidity I would think.

I one's had a long discussion with one of the brothers in Taizé about saints in today's world. We were both of the opinion that people look for something different in holy people today that a hundred years ago. Whereas earlier people looked for something removed from the human situation in a saint (i.e. moral perfection) today we look for deep honesty in holy people. An honest that involves the realisation that moral perfection is impossible in this world. This realisation becomes a point of connection between us and the saint, which lets us appreciate the honesty, the "transparency
for the ground of being".

The saint also seem to be a person that has been able to create a unified narrative of his or her life. The saint has been able to reconcile the negative experiences with the positive and seen a sense, a meaning in it all.

Which leads me to think that what the world needs today more than anything else is more saintly people.

Ben Myers on Being Human

Ben's Theology for Beginners series has reached its 12th installement, and it discusses what it is to be human.

I'm not 100% sure about the "priests of creation" symbol today, the notion of priests carries so many connotations, some of which are not really that useful, but I think what Ben is aiming at is very sound. Do check it out!

Reading Tillich 3: Mystery

"Mystery" in this proper sense, is derived from muein, "closing the eyes" or "closing the mouth". In gaining ordinary knowledge it is necessary to open one's eyes in order to grasp the object and to open one's mouth in order to communicate with other persons and have one's insights tested. A genuine mystery, however, is experienced in an attitude which contradicts the attitude of ordinary cognition. ... Mystery characterizes a dimension which "precedes" the subject-object relationship. The same dimension is indicated in the "closing of the mouth". It is impossible to express the experience of mystery in ordinary language, because this language has grown out of, and is bound to, the subject-object scheme. I mystery is expressed in ordinary language, it necessarily is misunderstood, reduced to another dimension, desecrated. This is the reason why betrayal of the content of the mystery cults was a blasphemy which had to be expiated by death.
Systematic Theology I, 108-109.

The main reason I love Tillich's theology so much is because it is so intensely spiritual. While many more traditional theologians shy away from talk about the divine in our life, Tillich says extremely bold things about things like miracles, prophecy, ecstasy and, as here, mystery. Again, his isn't a theology of cool reflection, it is all the time a theology in the face of despair, a theology that struggles to make life meaningful.

The etymological background to the word mystery is well-known, but it is seldom taken to this breathtaking conclusion. Tillich is secretly very polemical, only he very seldom bothers to name those he argues against. Here I think he is at the same time addressing fellow theologians, as well as preachers in the churches. He is attacking the tendency to say things about that which cannot be said. And in what way! "If you would have been members of an ancient mystery cult and talked about the divine the way you do, they would have killed you!"

I think this may be the reason that I, as student of the church fathers, feel so at home in Tillich's theology. They too knew where the line should be drawn for what could be said, and they never tried to go beyond that. And we all know what happens when humans try to formulate that which cannot be formulated: this is when churches split, people are anathematized and religious wars are fought.

Tillich's warning is still very much needed.

10 000 visitors

I had my visitor number 10 000 to this blog today. From Thailand, it seems. So now you know.

Reading Tillich 2: New Theonomy

Autonomy and heteronomy are rooted in theonomy, and each goes astray when their theonomous unity is broken. Theonomy does not mean the acceptance of a divine law imposed on reason by a highest authority; it means autonomous reason united with its own depth.
Systematic theology I, 85

Ok, today's quote is a bit cryptic if one isn't familiar with Tillich's language. Tillich is talking about reason, and how the way we think can vary. Autonomous reason is thinking that strives to be independent, not influenced by outside forces. It strives to be faithful to its own inner structure. Its opposite is heteronomous reason. That is when an outside authority conditions the way we think, be it in the form of a tradition, an institution or a person.

What Tillich is trying to do is to point out the shallowness of the collectivism-individualism discussion. In a rather amusing one-paragraph history of the world, Tillich shows how heteronomy and autonomy has battled each other through-out the ages, with brief periods when a theonomy has been created.

What does Tillich mean with theonomy? Theonomy is reason that is united with the "ground of its being", that is has realized that the identity of the individual is rooted in God. This is not a state that can be reached in this life fully.

Today, of course autonomous thinking reigns supreme. Tillich's analysis of the situation is still valid:

Under the guidance of technical reason autonomy conquered all reactions but completely lost the dimension of depth. It became shallow, empty, without ultimate meaning and produce conscious or unconscious despair. In this situation powerful heternomies of quasi-political character entered the vacuum created by an autonomy that lacked the dimension of depth. The double fight against an empty autonomy and a destructive heteronomy makes the quest for a new theonomy as urgent today as it was at the end of the ancient world.

The way forward from a situation where individualism has reached its full course is not to turn to a "safe" orthodoxy or to put one trust in formal authority (like all those that think democracy isn't really that important today.) What we need is a cultural climate that connects our sense of who we are with a way to be in communion. For this we need a new theonomy. We cannot recreate an old one.

Global Dimming. You need to know about this.

You can watch this excellent but extremely scary BBC documentary free (legal) online. Follow this link, chose "get this film". You do not need to register, just chose to "view the sample movie HERE".

Global warming may be much worse than we thought.

Reading Tillich 1

It is not an exaggeration to say that today man experiences his present situation in terms of disruption, conflict, self-destruction, meaninglessness, and despair in all realms of life. This experience is expressed in the arts and in literature, conceptualized in existential philosophy, actualized in political cleavages of all kinds, and analyzed in the psychology of the unconscious. It has given theology a new understanding of the demonic-tragic structures of individual and social life. The question arising out of this experience is not, as in the Reformation, the question of a merciful God and the forgiveness of sins; nor is it, as in the early Greek church, the question of finitude, of death and error; nor is it the question of personal religious life or of the Christianization of culture and society. It is the question of a reality in which the self-estrangement of our existence is overcome, a reality of reconciliation and reunion, of creativity, meaning and hope.
Systematic Theology 1, 49.

Tillich was even back in the fifties criticized because of this description of the experience of modern man. Many Americans asked were he got this gloomy outlook from, and it was suggested that he was describing the experience of living in Germany in the 20's rather than living in America in the 50's. Maybe it was an exaggeration to claim that this was what "man" experience, rather than just artists, philosophers and psychologists, as Tillich actually says.

55 years on, in what way do we need to modify this description? First of all, unlike in the fifties I think it is completely impossible to suggest that there is one experience that could be claimed to be even to a small degree universal. Our world has become much more fragmentized. We do not experience together any more, rather we experience as individuals.

Secondly, a major change compared to the world Tillich was addressing is that today the vast majority of people, in the western world anyway, actually very seldom encounters "reality" in the way Tillich seems to suggest. We are entertained into oblivion, and generally prefer to be fooled into believing that everything is OK.

What kind of question arises out of this situation? Well, I think Tillich's suggestion still holds up pretty well, there is still a deep self-estrangement at the core of our lives, but most of the time we do not experience it - we have found an antidote: television. Today theology needs to start with the question of responsibility, I think. The lack of responsibility over one's own life, the fear of taking charge of one's identity.

New series: Reading Tillich

After finishing my Ideas for a Theology of Decline, I will have to think of something else to fill this space with. I go to work by bus every day and today I started to re-read Tillich's system. It's been a few years since last time, but I still think that the introduction is one of the greatest theological texts written.

So I will share some of my thoughts while reading trough this system in the coming weeks. Here are some preliminary remarks.

First of all, If one wants to take Tillich seriously, one has to recognize that the system is now over 50 years old. This means that the "situation" has change quite a bit. This should mean, if Tillichs approach is correct - and I think it is - that large parts of the system is outdated. Our generation need to again formulate the Christian message for our time, just like he did. It won't look the same. This will be one of my guiding principles when reading and commenting on passages from the system.

A second principle will be that I will look for stuff in the system that I feel still speaks to us in our situation - that is the culture in decline. So I will keep up the general theme of this blog in this new series also.

As an introduction to this series I will post my text on why I love Tillich that I wrote for Ben Myer's "For the love of God" series back in May.

Why I love Paul Tillich

My first encounter with Paul Tillich was within the first weeks of my theological studies. Obviously this was not a course I was supposed to take, but I had bluffed my way in. One of the texts we worked with was the final chapter of Tillich’s The Courage to Be. This is not an easy text, especially taken out of its context like that. But something made me read it again and again. A few years later I read the whole book and I decided to write my Master’s thesis (or pro gradu as we call it in Finland) on Tillich and the Systematic Theology.

Many people find Tillich’s language difficult. All this talk of “being,” “ultimate concern,” “self-alienation.” But for me, then completely fed up with conventional religious language, this was enlightenment. It was like I had been given back my faith.

Reading the system was an overwhelming experience. It was as though Tillich put into words every vague notion I had ever had. Suddenly everything made sense. The genius of Tillich’s method is that it creates meaning. Everything becomes relevant. The system is based on experience. It is not the product of cool reflection; it is about getting involved in the world and in the revelation.

I think this was what made me “fall in love” with Tillich: he completely rejected the notion that being Christian meant existing on some higher plane than the rest of the world. He showed that culture and religions are two sides of the same coin: only a false religion separates them.

Tillich’s reinterpretation of the Christina doctrine enabled me to see that theology is a way of life, not a body of information. There are no limits whatsoever to what theology can be or what can be theology.

Ideas for a Theology of Decline

Well, I am finished! Yesterdays post is the last in what is probably the very first - though very small - systematic theology of the blogosphere (if anyone can direct me to one that beat me to it, please do so, otherwise I claim my place in the history books).

Ok, obiously this isn't even comparable with the Barths and Pannebergs and Tillichs that take up over shelf-space, but this is a new medium and this is about the size adequate for this medium I think.

Also, part of the medium, I think, is the fact that it has been thought out as it was written. In other words, I did not have much of an idea of were it would end up when I started it. I just wanted to explore the idea of theology in the context of a culture in decline. This also means I have dealt quite briefly with some areas of the Christian doctrine (The trinity and Christology come to mind), because the guiding principle has been to treat those areas of the doctrine that are seem relevant in this context.

There has been much discussion of the texts as they have developed. This has been enormously helpful, and this obviously is a real strength of doing theology this way. Thanks to all who have taken their time to read my thoughts. If someone would want to take the time to read the whole thing through and post some thoughts on that, it would be incredibly fun.

Finally, Ill be doing some slight editing of the texts, mainly correcting bad spelling and adding some links forward. I'd like to apologise to my feed subscribers who will get a lot of old posts the coming days.

Anyway, here it is:

Ideas for a theology of Decline
Introduction

• About this blog
• The Need for a Theology of Decline

God and Creation

• God the Father and Creation in Crisis
• Creation Continued

Sin and the Forces of Evil

• Sin, Identity and Destructive Culture
• Original Sin
• Fighting Demons

The Eschatologial Nature of the Faith

• Why believe in God
• The Resurrection of the Body
• The Need for Eschatology
• The Church as an Icon of the Next World

The Human Existence and Salvation

• Identity, Death and Meaning
• The Problem of Identity
• The Problem of Death (part I)
• The Problem of Death (part II)
• The Problem of Meaning
• Guilt and Salvation
• Salvation as Growing Up

The Sacraments

• Sacraments and Ritual
• Baptism as New Beginning
• Communion and Community
• The Eucharist as an Exercise for the Next World
• The Body of Christ
• The Eucharist and Salvation

The Church

• Ways to See the Church
• What is good ecclesiology?
• Who belongs to the Church?
• Ten Propositions on Authority in the Church
• Where is the Church?
• The Church in a Declining World

Sermon online

The very few of you that read Swedish may read a sermon by me posted at the site of the music and arts festival at which I preached a while ago.

The Church in a Declining World

In what way, then, is it helpful to participate in the Church when one is living in a culture that is in decline and even approaching its destruction?

Well, first of all, let me say that I do not believe that the Church will be able to do something very substantial towards reversing this trend, or even reducing its effects. I think we are beyond the point where there is very much that can be done, be it about the environment, the intellectual climate or the humanitarian situation. Obviously the Church have to do all it can in order to minimize the effects of this development, and especially in caring for those that will be most severely affected by it, i.e. the poor. But at this point, to hope that we will be able to "save" the world, is probably counter-productive.

What we need is a way of life that can handle living in a culture that is self-destructing. And it is this I think the Church can offer.

First, what does such a life look like? Obviously this is very speculative, but I think the key would be to found one's identity on values that are not threatened by the decline in culture. This is fairly obvious when it comes to material things. If owning fast cars and lot's of books (ouch!) are important to you, a collapsing economy will not be a pleasant place to be. But then I think humans are very adaptable when it comes to these things, so that will probably not be most critical aspect of decline. But in a situation where resources are lacking, any life that is built on what you do and what you have will be severely threatened.

On the other hand a person who's identity secured and fairly autonomous in relation to the workings of society will do much better. A person that is not depending on what other people think but rather is focused living one's life in open relationships with other humans will probably be able to deal with the difficulties that will come.

A person that has learned to find meaning in whatever he or she does will not loose the sense of purpose when society undergoes drastic changes. Such a person finds joy in even simple tasks, and can find encouragement in small things. That can be the key to surviving.

And obviously, a person that is working towards overcoming the fear of death will not be easily paralysed if bad times come. Such a person finds strength in the freedom of Christ, and is able to live life in a meaningful way even when society is collapsing.

In other words, a person that is living the reality of the future salvation here and now will be able to stand apart from the collapsing culture and not get - spiritually - dragged along with its fall.

As I have tried to show, this is the kind of person the Church can foster - this is the outcome of a person becoming transformed by the gospel. By entering into communion with others in the Church, we are reminded of another existence and we are able to see the relative value of this one. Thus we can separate ourselves from a culture that is destroying the creation, and together with God, the creator, give hope to other human beings who are suffering in this decline. This, too, creates meaning.

A person who is has overcome the problems of Identity, death and meaning will be able to stand against the forces that are bringing our world towards destruction. It may not be possible to stop them, but it may be possible not only to save one's own soul, but also the souls of our brothers and sisters from perishing in that destruction.

Where is the Church?

The Church, theologically, is not the same as the sum of people who are Christians. This is something agreed on by most. But how do we "locate" the Church without getting caught in some symbol-game, throwing around terms as "body of Christ", "Kingdom of God" and "People of God" without any obvious contact with that particular group of people? I will no return to this fundamental question of ecclesiology.

A person belongs to the Church if he or she participates in the life of the Church. This means that the person believes that the life of the Church is fundamentally significant for his or her own identity, as I said in an earlier post. There I used the formula "biblical narrative, sacraments and worship" in an attempt to be as inclusive as possible. Personally I am no sure that a congregation that focuses on the preaching of the Word of God can be equated with a congregation that focuses on the sacraments or on worship (clearly all three are present more or less in all Christian churches, with the exception of the sacraments, which is a real problem no matter how cool the Quakers generally are.) Personally I feel the Sacraments are the best way to preach the Word of God and worship. While focus on the Sacraments naturally includes (or should include) the Word of God and worship, this cannot be said about a service focused on the Word of God or worship. In such traditions the sacramental aspect is reduced.

That said, the Church is more that a "thing" where people preach, celebrate the Eucharist and sing hymns. And this is the heart of the problem: It is not these outer signs that constitutes the Church, but what they signify. This means that although the Church can be said to always be present where people meet to hear the Word of God, participate in the celebration of the sacraments and worship, this is not the only place where the Church is present. Because the true mark of the Church is the content of Word, Sacraments and Worship, the Gospel, the Church is present wherever the Gospel is interacting with people.

The Gospel is not something that can be easily put into words. I have tried to do so in this blog. A person that encounters the Gospel becomes more secure in his or her identity, overcomes fear and finds meaning in life. This is just one expression of the Gospel, there are other that are as valid or more so. The point is that the Gospel is bigger than any religious ideas about life. We have to believe that God with the gospel genuinely want to help people with their lives, not primarily turn them into Christians. This means that wherever people find themselves, security and meaning, there the gospel, and thus the Church is present. It may be in any organisation or institution, or in a group of close friends or in solitude reading a book or watching nature. The Church may be present anywhere, also in other religions than Christianity.

And obviously, there are many houses that says "Church" on the door where the church is seldom present, because the gospel has bee forgotten. Here again I think a sacrament-centred service is harder to "destroy" than another form of service.

Ten Propositions on Authority in the Church

Lists of propositions seem popular so here goes...

1. No particular way of governing the Church can be historically traced back to Jesus or the apostles.

2. The Church should at any particular time in history be governed in such a way that the method of government reflects the Gospel in that time.

3. Continuity throughout the ages is part of the identity of the Church, part of its message and part of its raison d'être. This can be communicated by the way the Church is governed, i.e. by a distinct continuity in its ministry.

4. The form of government in the Church is part of the spiritual Identity of the Church. It is not "merely administration". It must conform to the general rule that should always be a mark of the Church: that it reflects what the Church believes life will be like in the coming world.

5. The Church needs authority with various geographical scope. There needs to be governing with local, regional and global jurisdictions. The primary function of the different levels of Authority in the Church is to be a symbol of the catholicity of the Church.

6. The notion of a hierarchy in the sense of a ladder of power where everyone submits to those above and rules over those beneath is at odds with the general sense of just government today. Since it is not based on the bible it should be avoided in the Church today.

7. The notion that some people have authority over others based not on merits or insight but on office is incomprehensible today and should be avoided.

8. The general principle of distribution of power in the Church should be to try to minimize central authority and maximize local authority: The Church should trust its regional and local bodies to be able to make informed decisions that maintain orthodoxy. Again, the primary role of the global authority is symbolical.

9. The general principle of local authority should be to trust and support the individual to make choices in his or her personal spiritual life.

10. The Church should strive to reduce the power of individuals over other individuals in all areas and at all levels of the Church. This way she fulfils the commandment of the gospel that "if you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others".

Cool Theology?

Ok, who googled "The coolest theological blog"?

(Mine came in fifth, but the only blog to beat me was alastair.adversaria.)

Btw, a good place to look for theological blogs, cool or otherwise is, of course, Theology Blogs.

Who belongs to the Church?

Ecclesiology must try to answer not only What the Church is, but also the Who and the Where of the Church.

Who is a member of the Church? I think this question has to be answered differently depending on who asks the question. We need, on the one hand, some kind of objective answer that the Church can use do decide who is a member and who is not. But this answer may be different from the subjective answer to the question "Do I belong to the Church?".

Regarding the objective answer we must first ask why the Church as an institution needs an answer to this question. The reason must not be in order to know who to serve and who not: The Church must show the same kind of love to all humans regardless if they are Christians or not. A Church that turns away a person in need, spiritually or physically, is no church. This, I feel includes rituals such as the Eucharist. The Church can uphold a practice of admitting only Christians to the Table, but not turn away someone that wishes to participate based on some objective criterion.

The reason there needs to be a kind of objective criterion of Church membership is that the Church needs to respect that some people do not want to be treated as members by the Church. This refers to people belonging to other religions, as well as people that feel the need to protest against the Church for one reason or other. These feelings are rooted in a searching for identity, a search that the Church in such cases may support the best (thus fulfilling the Church's mission) by stepping back. But the Church should not deny anyone what it has to give in any situation. Love knows no other way. This objective criteria is obviously baptism, no other criteria is possible. (Churches that do not have baptism obviously must find some other solution)

The subjective answer to the question "do I belong to the Church?" is much more difficult to address. Here baptism is not enough, such an answer does not answer the problem formulated in the question. This is especially true because of the practice of paedobaptism. If a baptised person does not feel secure about being part of the Church, this is not a question about objective membership but a question of identity.

A person belongs to the Church if he or she believes that the use of the biblical narrative and the participation in the sacraments and worship of the Church is helpful in overcoming the existential problems encountered in life. This is a technical way of expressing what can in religious language be expressed as to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. The biblical narrative and the sacraments and worship ultimately aim at making the life story of Jesus Christ an internal part of the individuals life story.

There is room for variations of emphasis here: while one tradition puts the emphasis more on the "Word of God" another may emphasize the sacraments. The point is that I feel it is difficult to call someone a Christian (except in the sociological sense) unless a person believes that being Christian benefits him or her in some way. But there is no way of objectively establish who fulfils this criterion and the Church should not try to do so. There are obviously indicators ("holiness"), but these are not foolproof and the Church, as an institution should not base its practice on them.

Extraordinary Christians

Check out Darrel Pursiful's League of Extraordinary Christians from the patristic era.

Schillebeeckx on Galatians 3:26-28

The Greek literally reads, 'the male and the female no longer exists' - a clear reference to the Septuagint translation of Gen. 1:27, 'male and female he created them'. In this line of thought the baptism of the Spirit is the eschatological restoration of an order of creation with an equality which was destroyed historically and in society - it is 'new creation' (Gal. 6:15). The baptism of the Spirit removes historical discriminations. The three categories of those discriminated against are clear from the Jewish-Christian perspective: the Gentiles (discriminated against in favour of the Jews), the slaves (discriminated against in favour of the free), and women (discriminated against in favour of men). Nowadays we could add yet more categories. In principle, Christian baptism completely removes all these social and historical oppositions within the community of believers.

Edward Schillebeeckx: The Church with a Human Face, p. 38. (Ten crowns in a used book store!)

Being busy.

That's what I have been the last weeks and what I will be this week. The rest of the ecclesiology series will just have to wait.

This blog is usually low on personal content, but I'll tell you this: I am right now in "Sweden's Oxford" Lund, for a four-day patristics conference. I will present my research on Thursday, and its the first time I have done such a presentation to a wider audience that actually will know what I'm talking about. So I will have to concentrate on that for now.

Anyway, the theme of the conference is Eros and Agape - Benevolence, Love and Mysticism in the Early Church. If there are any papers that particularly catch my ear I may give you some short reviews. So far I can only say this: Lund is a very nice little town, With lots of Used Book Shops and small streets to loose you orientation in. Highly recommended!

What is good ecclesiology?

We're having blackouts here today, which leaves us not only without light and internet-connection (my laptop still has some life in it), but the doors don't work either. It's amazing how power-dependent we are.)

Anyway, WTM posted a comment to my last post on ecclesiology, asking what is the criteria for a good model of the Church. Is it a model that works? Or is it one that is theologically correct? Well, to me it seems that the problem is that neither of these alternatives is right. Even if a model "works" according to some criteria (church growth, doctrinal  unity , whatever)  it can still be a false model. And even if a certain model has a sound theological theory behind it, it can still fail to fulfil its mission.

I actually did give a kind of definition of the church in an earlier post: The Church is the acting out of the hope of the future world in this world. And this is the criteria. If a model fails to do this it is a bad model. This means that if you have 100.000 new members a month, but fail to be an Icon of the kingdom of God, your model is not good enough.

Now, as I have shown in my posts on the sacraments, these rituals are the most important ways in which the Church can reflect its hope in the future world. But even if "The Word of God and the Sacraments" are present in a church, the model used may be failing unless that particular church fails to communicate this to the world. This means that the Criteria of a "good" model of the Church has an element of cultural relevance to it. In some way the model that is in use must be adaptable to a particular cultural context.

This means that it may be difficult to find one model that works all over the world in our time, but this is part of the problem, because at the same time the Church has to be catholic - there has to be an element that identifies the Church in every culture and in every age.

I'm not Luther (either)

Well I am glad I got high points on most alternatives, since I feel the disputed questions are the wrong one's to ask anyway. I feel 100% comfortable with "symbol" language as well as transsubstation language. Maybe that was what Luther meant too, he didn't want to limit the ways we can enter the mystery. For more on my understanding on the Eucharist, see my recent posts on the subject: Communion and Community, The Eucharist as an Exercise for the Next World, The Body of Christ, The Eucharist and Salvation.

You scored as Luther. You are Martin Luther. You'll stick with the words of Scripture, and defend this with earthy expressions. You believe in an orthodox Christology. You believe that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, but aren't too sure about where he goes after the meal, and so you don't accept reservation of the Blessed Sacrament or Eucharistic devotions. Luther 100% Catholic 81% Calvin 75% Zwingli 44% Unitarian 25% Eucharistic theology created with QuizFarm.com

Ways to See the Church

The concluding part of my "theology of decline" will be devoted to ecclesiology, that is, the doctrine of the Church. I feel this subject is extremely difficult, for it is my belief that if the present problems in the Christian Church is based on doctrine, it is in the notion of the Church that the heart of the problem lies. I can only hope that the 21st century will be the century of ecclesiology, much like the fourth was the century of discussion on the trinity, the fifth on Christology and the 20th was the century of discussion of the relevance of history for theology.

The problem of the Church is in theory very simple: We have this group of people. And we have this theological concept of the Church. How do we relate this group of human beings to the theological concept? This in essence in the ecclesiological question. In this first post I will approach the question negatively: I will point out the - rather obvious - problems with the current models. If there is anything left of my blog and theological self esteem after that, I will try to bring something positive to the table.

Now, I know that the below discussion is very simplified, it is not to be read as an accurate description of how the different denominations understand themselves. The names are of lesser importance, it is the ideas that count.

1. The Roman Catholic Model
The Church consist of people who belong to the worldwide institution of the Roman Catholic Church. You are a member if you are baptised and accept the authority of the hierarchy of the Church from the pope down, including in matters of doctrine and teaching. All those that confess unity with this organisation, personified by the Bishop of Rome make out the "people of God".

Now this model is in crisis today because people do not see the reason to accept this authority. People in our culture are thought that the right thing to do is to think for yourself and to make your own mind up about matters of faith, and it is thus difficult to see the reason that people belonging to the priesthood would have an inherent authority in such matters. Since the Roman Catholic Church has lost most of the "worldly" power it once had, people do not understand why they should submit to it in "spiritual" matters.

2. The Eastern Orthodox Model
The Church consist of all those people that express the true faith through the traditional liturgy that is more or less the same everywhere and always. The organisation that exists to uphold this tradition can look a bit different in different nations, but as long as it upholds the tradition from the fathers expressed by the continuity of the hierarchy it is considered part of the true Church. The authority in matters of doctrine lies in the hands of the entire Church: not even a synod of all the bishops of the Church can make a decision in a doctrinal question unless the Church as a whole (the believers) accept the decision.

I must confess that I'm partial to this model. However, history has shown that the autonomous "state churches" that make up the Orthodox Church do risk to become pawns in the hands of ruthless worldly rulers. Also, to make doctrinal decisions today is practically impossible, which may be a problem in face of the difficult questions that face believers today. Also, there is a tendency in the Orthodox tradition that shuns contact with culture, which makes it difficult for the Church to react to times of sudden change in the cultural climate.

3. The Protestant State Church
Far from being one model, this system has worked out different ways in different countries. At the core is at any rate a kind of opt-out system of membership as opposed to the opt-in of the other models. In other words, in countries such as England, Sweden or Finland, you belong to the State Church unless you decide not to. Of course, signs like baptism are present, but in reality you belong to the church in most cases based on the nationality of the land on which you happened to be born.

Since this is the predominant system of the my country I have obviously thought about it a bit, but I'll try to keep it short. The model has some clear advantages: Since the vast majority of the population are members, the servants of the Church can assume that all people they meet are members, which means that there is no "us and them" mentality, and all people will thus be treated with the same respect. However, the system has lead to a situation where ceremonies such as weddings and funerals are often seen as more important in the life of the Church than the services where the Eucharist is being celebrated. This is already a very serious ecclesiological problem. But it has also lead to a situation where a vast portion of the members do not feel related to the Church at all, even though they are members, and essentially see the Church as a kind of institution that offers services at certain times in life, without any sense of community at all.

4. The free Church model (traditional)
There are new models for being a church cropping up every minute, but this is the more traditional Congregational model. You belong to the church if you chose to accept the doctrine and lifestyle of the particular group you wish to join. The emphasis may vary, but usually there has been a rather strong emphasis on how ethics rather than dogmatics.

The model has the advantage that it very easy to say who is in and who is out. That's very practical. But the model has many deep flaws. First of all, the actual criteria that decides if a person is deemed acceptable can be almost arbitrary and often based on more on cultural prejudices than biblical teaching. The model often fosters an ugly "us vs. them" mentality and a black-and-white worldview to accompany it. Since the groups can be pretty isolated they can easily turn into sect-like scenarios if a person with an inflated ego becomes the leader. Finally, it seems that these kinds of congregations have a surprising difficulty to adapt to the changes of culture, and they thus tends to become pockets of backwards thinking in areas such as ethics, leadership and gender roles.

5. The free Church model (recent)
Under this heading I'd like to lump together a whole bunch of more recent ideas, that are being tried around the globe right now. The actual criteria are similar to the ones in the above model, but the actual group can look very different. For instance, some kind of network model can be used, thus combining the free church model with a catholic like hierarchy, where the unity of the church is guaranteed by the formal or informal connection to some leadership figure(s). These new models do not really escape the traps of the more traditional model, they are usually developed for different reasons such as church growth.

Well, as I said, these are all caricatures, so please do not be too offended. My point is just to illustrate how important this question is in the Church as a whole today.

Sci-Fi Theology

This is not what it looks like, but I'm actually going to link Sci-Fi theology a second time in the same week... The reason is pretty obvious, Alex has a post on Isaac of Nineveh, whom I spend my days studying.


Most of it is wrong, of course, bu it will have to suffice untill my book is published in 2008... ;)

Theology Blogs reaches 50 blogs

Theology Blogs now includes, with the latest additions, 50 blogs with theological content. This is still, I think a rather small part of the theological blogosphere, but the increase is steady, and the blog has proved to be especially useful as a place that keeps track of new blogs on theology.

If you haven't yet added your blog, head over and do so!

However, according to technorati only 23 links to Theology Blogs are found at the moment... It would be nice if a few more would consider to add the list to their blogrolls.

New blog: Sci-fi Theology

I'd like to direct you to a fairly new theology blog worth visiting: Alex Thompson's Sci-Fi Theology. Alex has been quite active since early July, and particularly his ongoing series of "Text's in time" is worth reading (1, 2, 3, 4).

Firefox Extensions for Blogging

OK, this is off-topic, but I just thought I'd share some tips in case someone out there hasn't found out about these. Firefox really is an amazing browser, and by adding extensions you can make it do almost anything. Here are a few I find useful.

First of all, Spellbound is an absolute must! It is a spellchecker that works inside any text box  you write in on the web. Yes, including those that you write your blog posts in. Actually I found this only yesterday, but expect my texts to be a bit less irritating in the future. (Isn't a bit ironic, though, how the word "blog" is always considered erroneous?) There are loads of free dictionaries available too.

I'm currently trying out the Performancing for Firefox, a text editor for blogging. The idea is that you can have a window on your lower half of the firefox window and write you posts in that. Compared to bloggers built in editor it is great, much faster. I have had some problems with it so far though, it seems it has difficulty to connect to the blogger server. Anyway, it is well worth checking out. (HT: connexions)

Finally there is a great little extension that lets you create an HTML link from a page with a mouse click, and then paste it anywhere you want to. Very useful.

Of course, there are several reader extensions for Firefox, but I haven't been too impressed with any of the one's I have tried.

Any more tips, anyone?

Adversaria: Sinfulness

Alastair has a thoughtful post on Sinful Nature, Justification, Sanctification and the Spirit, well worth the time to read.

Christians are not to think of themselves as those with a fallen nature, but as those who have died to Sin. Such a way of speaking about our nature is a description of our nature as it appears to sight. The Scripture, I believe, speaks differently. For the Scripture our true nature is found in Christ. Whilst Christians certainly sin, when they do so they are living in conflict with their essential nature. Sin, whilst undoubtedly present in our lives, is a very much an alien and ‘unnatural’ presence

I wrote a post on sin a couple of months ago that has some similar ideas in it.

Creativity and Holiness

Tillich has a wonderful definition of the holy. Something is holy only by negating itself in pointing to the divine of which it is the medium.

In other words, when something or someone is holy, it (he/she) becomes transparent for a deeper reality, it opens up and shows the presence of God. To be holy is to point towards God by being what one really is.

In my last post I explored the connection between Creation and Revelation, to concepts that seem to be very closely related. If to create is to reveal, than to be creative is to be holy.

The opposite of holiness, for Tillich, is the demonic. A holy object becomes demonic when it stops pointing towards something beyond itself and instead points to itself. This too is applieable to human creativity. When we use our creativity to point towards ourselves, to lift ourselves up, our creative act is not holy but demonic. This is what happens in our culture all the time. Music and art, when it is good, opens up reality and gives us a deeper understanding of it. But when it becomes commercialised and turned into entertainment it instead covers up the depths of reality and presents the superficial as the real content. And what is worse, it teaches us to mistake the experience of the superficial for a real experience of reality. This is why entertainment can be so dangerous - at least in the amount we are consuming it today - it numbs the natural tendency in us to look for meaning, and makes us satisfied with what is merely entertaining. Instead of living we are, as Thom Yorke sings, just passing time. Demonic indeed.

But the beauty with creative living is that it too is contagious. When we meet someone who lives creatively in some way, we are inspired to be creative in our own way. When we meet someone who is transparent for the deeper reality, for example by genuinly engaging in performing a song, it gives me the listener, a longing to express the same reality in a way that corresponds to my personality, by living in a creative manner.

Creation and Revelation

Some time ago, I wrote a kind of throw-away post on (the lack of) creativity in today's theology. In it I wrote that to be a Christian involves cultivating one's creativity, because we are made in the image and likeness of the Father who is Creator. One response I got was that humans cannot create ex nihilo, and therefore should be content with stewardship. (I'm not 100 percent this is the intention of the commentor, but I'm simplifying to make a point).

Well, this is true if we consider creation ex nihilo as bringing atoms into existence out of nothing. Granted, this is something we would believe to be involved in God's creative work. But this is not the theological point of creation. The point of the theological doctrine of creation is not primarily about explaining how the world has come into existence - if this was the case, all ancient creation myths would have been deeply unsatistying, since they all included some form of unexplained actor, in the case of the Genesis story, God.

No, the point of the creation doctrine is to say something about God. God is the one who creates. What God does when he creates is not about bringing something into existence - though this is the result of the activity. The purpose of God's creative act is to reveal himself as creator. Thus we see a great unity in all of God's works: from creation to eschaton, God is creating and revealing himself at the same time. If we see creation as revelation is it also easy to include the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ in God's creative work: they all flow from the same longing to reveal himself.

Now, if we take this and apply to it the idea that humans are called to create, we can gain a deeper understanding of human creativity. To say that a human artist is not creating ex nihilo, because he or she is using paint and canvas is completely beside the point: what is created is not the paint on the canvas - what is created is the revelation found in the work of art. Just like God reveals himself in creation, humans reveal their deeper nature when they are creative: be it in the form of art, theology or any other human activity.

To live one's life so that one is opening up reality to other people is the most fundamental aspect of being a follower of Christ. That is to live in the likeness of the Father, that is theosis. Thus holiness and creativity are synonyms.

Universalism in the Blogosphere

D.W Congdom at The Fire and the Rose has rounded up recent posts on Universalism from the blogosphere... There's alot of them: The Fire and the Rose: Universalism in the Blogosphere

The Eucharist and Salvation

I few weeks ago I wrote that salvation in the Christian sense of the word is to become free from those forces that threaten our identity, exploit our fears and rob our lives of meaning. I also noted that these forces are that same that are currently destroying our planet, in other words, very real political and economical institutions and powers.

Salvation is something that is properly attained only in the next life, but in faith we are able to receive some of this freedom already in this life. This is indeed the purpose of the Church: to make some of the future freedom present in this world.

In what way does the ritual of the Eucharist proclaim this freedom? In several ways.

When participating in the Eucharist we are strengthened in our identity, because we see ourselves as individuals interacting with others, in a communion not based on what we do or who we are, but on God's grace. If we learn to look at other people in this way, we can also learn to look at ourselves in this way. We also learn something about being human, that is, to be human is to receive rather than to act.

When participating in the Eucharist we are able to find relief from our fear of death, because we see how Christ's death and resurrection is connected to my death and resurrection. Again, it is my bread that is used in the celebration.

When participating in the Eucharist we are shown how our lives are meaningful, by highlighting how we are called to give what we receive to others. During the epiklesis the Spirit descends upon my bread and turns it into the Body of Christ. In the same way my life is transformed and becomes meaningful when I find my relation to God and to other people.

The Sacrament of the Eucharist, then, can help us to cope with our existential situation on many different levels. These are only examples of course, and serve to connect my ideas about the sacraments to the theological ideas of sin and salvation.

Next, I will attempt a discussion on Ecclesiology. I feel this is the most difficult part of the Christian doctrine, because it seems that all models we know have outlived their usefulness. How should we think the Church in a declining culture?

The Body of Christ

It helps to understand that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist is my bread and wine. As I already mentioned, in the early church it was customary that everybody brought a piece of bread to the Service.

It is my bread and wine that is turned into the body and blood of Christ. It is not something that I am a only a witness to, it is something that involves me directly. This is why I feel it is helpful to speak of a transformation in the Eucharist. The point really is that something changes.

A friend of mine taught me this (if anyone know where he got it from I'd be happy, although I may have modified the original idea): The bread and the wine represents, respectively, my work and my play, my seriousness and my joy. When I bring my bread and my wine to the altar, and break the bread, the Spirit descends on it and turns it into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Spirit changes its meaning. In the Eucharist my whole life (not just the serious part, but also all that stuff I do for joy only) into something meaningful. It is as if God takes my life looks at it, smiles and gives it back to me with approval.

Of course, when my work and my play is turned into the Body of Christ it also becomes the Church. I realize that my work and play becomes meaningful only when I recognize how it relates to other people. By itself it lacks spirit.

The Church, then, is the community of persons that want to see their lives connected to other persons. The Eucharist is there to help us recognize that our lives really are holy, to help us overcome sin by recognizing who we really are.

The Eucharist as an Exercise for the Next World

The celebration of the Eucharist is a type of the life in the next world. Theodore of Mopsuestia, one who perhaps more deeply than any of the Fathers understood the typological character of the Church emphasized this. The sacraments were given for to be able to learn to live after the manner of "Citizens of the Kingdom of God".

In other words, when we celebrate the Eucharist we are learning something about how life in the next world will be. I think one aspect of the Eucharist is the very special sense of communion we experience in it. As I wrote in my last post, it is not a communion with people we are similar to, with people we like or get along with. Rather, it is a communion with people we in this world find it difficult to love.

We we go to the altar to receive bread and wine, we are, within the borders of this ritual, allowed to let all those things we normally base our appreciation of other people go. When we gather around the table things like class, race, gender, political affiliation, manners, personality - all such things are of no importance because the communion is not based on human love but on divine giving. Within the ritual we carry out a kind of pre-practice of how we should relate to other people in real life. Because we have the safe framework of the ritual we can experience this kind of "heavenly" communion here in life, and then slowly learn to take this experience into our daily life and let it transform our relationships to those we meet.

Communion and Community

This is the first post in a series on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the heart of the Church. It is part of the main theme of this blog, theology in a culture in decline.

What kind of community is expressed when we celebrate the Eucharist? First of all, I think it is important to be clear about the fact that it is not in fact a community with the people we celebrate the Eucharist with, that is the people in the same room. Indeed these persons are mere symbols of a much wider community, the worldwide community reaching through the ages. This is of great importance, because we can easily be lead to believe that we are somehow ordered to be very close friends we the people we go to church with. I think that notion is built upon a flawed ecclesiology.

This kind of community is often expressed through liturgical symbols. For example, in Finland at least, the congregation gathers around the alter in a half-circle, expressing that the rest of the circle is made up by those not present: the dead, the sick, the ones far away. These people too are part of the celebration.

The idea that the community we express is primarily one of community with those not present was also expressed in the early church by the fact that only a small part of the bread was consecrated and used during the mass. The congregation brought bread with them to Church. The part not used was to be distributed among the poor.

When we celebrate the Eucharist then, we are celebrating a ritual where we teach ourselves to be aware of our community with the poor and oppressed of the world. It is into this kind of community that God enters.

This means the Eucharist becomes a political act. When the church celebrates the Eucharist it expresses its belief that God always stands on the side of the poor. This is through even if the church in other areas have forgotten this, the Eucharist can act as a protest within a Church that fails its true calling by joining with the rich and the powerful.

Justice or benevolence?

Dan of Poser or Prophet has an important text on the problem involved when charitable organization accept money from big corporations.

Dan, who is involved with work with homeless youth, writes:

By licking the boots of executives from Canadian banks, we ensure that kids stay on the streets, and that families stay in poverty, while also providing the powers with the assurance that they're actually running good and moral institutions.

Read it all.

Oh, ok then...

Strictly out of competition, of course.

And the winner is: Jürgen Moltmann!

Despite the expected complaints issued at the judge (as I said early on, like FIFA, I may be sligthly evil, but it is I who run things), I can now declare Jürgen Moltmann the outstanding winner of the World Cup of Modern Systematic Theologians 2006!

Jürgen won four of the five polled categories as well as the over-all vote. (Nearly 100 people voted in the polls!) von Balthasar's works was considered by the majority to have a more timeless quality, but in spite of this, Moltmanns relevance for his age, as well as his impact on church and academia was considered to be more significant. See the results of the polls here. (Can anybody explain the very geographical clarity with which our American friends seem to have voted?)

Moltmann's way to the Victory was impressive. After winning his group with the highest margin in the field he went on to beat no lesser theologians than Congar, Ratzinger and Rahner in the finals. There must be some irritation among a certain kind of catholics about this. ;) That said, v. Balthasar did manage to beat protestant superstars Frei, Pannenberg and Jenson in his finals, which is a good example, IMO of the impressive ecumenical spirit that has been present throughout the Tournament. For a overview of the latter half of the Tournament, see the Tournament Brackets.

There were also a prediction competition during the tournament. This competition was won by David Scott who succeeded to correctly predict all games but one. According to the rules of that competion, David's price is a post with a link from all those that participated in the prediction competition. As soon as I receive info on whether David has a blog and where it is found I will fulfill my part of the agreement.

Finally, before the return of the regular programming on this blog (stay tuned for the sacrament of the eucharist in the context of a declining culture), I would like to thank everyone involved in voting and commenting. I have learned a lot, and I hope this is true for others as well. I'd especially like to thank my two "commentators" One of Freedom and Scott Paeth, who have been running regular features about the tournament on their blogs, as well as everyone else who have helped to spread the word about it.

Congratulations to Jürgen Moltmann, first ever winner of the World Cup for Modern Systematic Theologians!

Introducing "Theology Blogs"

A few posts back I threw out an idea about a blog that is basically a a listing of blogs about systematic theology. I got only positive feedback about the idea, so I went ahead and set up one. It is very basic so far, and may stay that way, we'll see. But you may now start submitting blogs to the listing. I haven't listed any other blogs than mine so far, I think the owners should decide if they want to be listed or not.

Defining systematic theology is no easy task, and traditions vary a great deal between different countries. I have written a first post, feel free to comment on it, (I would also appreciate if you would point out any grammatical errors and such, the first post will become an "about" post, that will stay relevant.

As I said, I'd appreciate if anyone wants to help out with this. I think I can handle the adding of new blogs myself, but If anyone wants to take the site further by introducing other features, I'll be happy to share the editorship.

Anyway, the url is: theologyblogs.blogspot.com

Check it out! Add you sites, and of course, to get the whole thing going, I need your help to spread the word!

World Cup Final: Moltmann vs. von Balthasar

Ladies and Gentlemen, the moment have arrived to officially start the final in the World Cup of Modern Systematic Theologians! After 39 one-on-one games we now have only one left, the ultimate battle between Jürgen Moltmann and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

For this final game we will use both comments and polls. You can vote in all the polls below, and then finally leave a comment where you give your overall opinion of the contestants, i.e. which theologian you feel is more important or worthy of the Title. However, you can chose not to vote in all the polls, and not to leave and overall opinion in the comment. All the polls and the comment-vote a weighed in when the winner is decided.

Note: I will leave this game open for about 48 hours, so everybody will have a chance to participate.

Rahner is the winner of the bronze medal!

Ok, I admit I have no idea what medal Rahner receives in the picture, but he is now the official bronze medalist in the World Cup of Modern Systematic Theologians! He beat Jenson fairly easily, Jenson only managing to claim the consistency trophy with the slimmest of margins. Rahners won the most influential poll with a landslide, and the most creative clearly.

Rahner lost to Moltmann in the semi-final, after beating Jüngel and Torrance in the previous rounds, and winning his group clearly.

The Impotence of Science

Cynthia Nielsen has a very interesting post regarding Nietzsche and Dostoyevski on the Effects of a "Purely" Scientific Metanarrative. This is a snip out of the Nietzshe quote:

Therefore a higher culture must give man a double brain, two brain chambers, as it were, one to experience science, and one to experience nonscience. Lying next to one another, without confusion, separable, self-contained: our health demands this.

Read it all at per caritatem.

Oh dear...

Ok, the cat's out of the bag now...

Well, a warm welcome to all new visitors!

What about a Blog of Theology Blogs?

Looking slightly envious at the Biblioblogs.com site, I thought that it would be great if there was a similar site for blogs geared towards Theology. I could imagine editing such a blog, if sufficiently people would find it interesting. I'd of course be happy to share the editorship if someone would be willing.

The concept would be more or less the same as the biblioblogs site: to provide a comprehensive list of blogs that contain systematic theology. To define what blogs qualify could be tricky, but not impossible.

The point would of course be, that unlike most blogrolls maintained by individual writers, this list would not reflect personal opinion, but cover the entire field of theological blogs.

What do you think of the idea?

Bronze game: Rahner vs. Jenson

So Rahner and Jenson both lost out in the semifinals, but they still have a chance to finish the tournament on a positive note. For the bronze game we will do it the same way as in the semi finals, (I will try to think of something special for the final).

World Cup Results Day 21

The second finalist is Hans Urs von Balthasar, who will be facing Jürgen Moltmann as soon as the bronze game is settled.

von Balthasar beat Robert w. Jenson very clearly regarding influence and creativity, but Jenson managed to take home the consitency award (incidently the same situation as in the first semifinal, so the bronze game should be consistent indeed...)

Another interesting aspect of this tournament is the predictions. Three people can go home with the award for the best predictions of the Tournament.

Aaron Ghiloni on Grief

Aaron has written five pieces on the topic of grief. Very interesting thoughts. Some quotes:

My mind immediately jumped to G.W. Bush’s suggestions that Americans get out and shop in the wake of 9/11 and promises to rebuild New Orleans before Katrina had even begun to subside.There is something deeply diseased about a society that tries to omit its humanity by considering grief a nuisance, mere ceremonialism that can be done away with.

I want to suggest that our society is unnerved by grief because we are a society that is mesmerized by control. Whether it is controlling birth rates, or controlling atoms, or controlling other societies, or even controlling calories…we are obsessed with having the power to micro-manage life. I want to suggest that our society is intimidated by grief because we are a society that unequivocally believes in the myth of progress. And thus, we are rarely capable of comprehending something as primitive and primal as grief.

Good stuff!

Here are the posts: Grief (i), Grief (ii), Loss of Grief (iii), Loss of Grief (iv), Loss of Griev (v).

World Cup Results Day 20

We have our first finalist! Moltmann has been a favorite throughout the tournament, and he has not let his fans down yet (or is it the other way around?). Moltmann beat Rahner in a fairly close semi-final. Rahner was clearly perceived to be the most consistent, while Moltmann was considered more creative and influential.

Rahner will have to settle for a bronze-match. Against who will be clear tomorrow, when we will also see who will face Moltmann in the game for the World Cup for Modern Systematic Theologians!

Tournament Brackets.

Semi-final 2: Jenson vs. von Balthasar

In the first semi-final, Rahner seems to be closing in on Moltmann? Will he be able to turn it around in the last hours of the game?

However, it is time to start the second semi-final, between Robert W. Jenson and Hans Urs von Balthasar. We will do it in the same way as the first semi-final, so see that post for instructions.

World Cup Results Day 19

In the last quarter-final, Hans Urs von Balthasar won over Wolfhart Panneberg with 12 votes against 7. von Balthasar will face Robert Jenson in the second semifinal.

Tournament Brackets.

Semi-final 1: Moltmann vs. Rahner

For the finals we will again vote by polls, although I hope you will make much use of the possibility to comment also, it makes a more interesting game.

However, instead of just one poll, this time we have three. This means you may vote for both theologians, in case you find choosing difficult.

We will vote on three questions:

1. Which theologian is more influential, in theology, the Church and society? You may motivate you vote in any way, as long as it regards the influence of the theologian.

2. Which theologian is more creative, that is which has brought more new ideas, or more important ideas to the theological discussion?

3. Which the is more consistent, that is which theologian is more thorough, more exact, more stringent in his arguing?

Do take the opportunity to argue for you choices in the comments!

The winner will be the on that wins the most polls.

Rahner debated.

One of our semi-finalists, Karl Rahner, is being discussed over at the Pontifications blog. Alvin Kimel feels the Catholic Church needs to Get Over Rahner.

As Ben Myers writes in a comment, the Catholic tradition has been able to house rather conflicting traditions at the same time before. Just think of the wide variety of "theologies" around during the 13th-14th centuries!

Check out the discussion in preparation for the semi-final, starting in just a few hours, where Rahner will face Moltmann!

World Cup Results Day 18

Robert Jenson beat Colin Gunton with the score 11-3, and will be the only English speaking semi-finalist.

Tournament Brackets.

Quarter-final 4: von Balthasar vs. Pannenberg

The last quarter-final is another battle of Giants. Hans Urs von Balthasar meets Panneberg. Who will get that last place in the semi-final?

As before, to vote write a comment, and then vote in the poll. Only the comments are counted.

Buzz marketing is evil

Just a short note to tell you I have find a new thing to hate... I guess this is an old thing for most of you but it is just coming to my part of the world. Companies that "hire" (except they do not pay them) ordinary people to give away free samples to their friends of new products. Evil Evil Evil. Using the most valuable thing in life, love, to sell stuff. EVIL.

Interestingly, searching the blogosphere on "buzz marketing" or "word of mouth marketing" gives plenty of results, 100 % positive. People feel it's cool to "know about stuff" before their friends. We really have stoped being humans and become 100% consumers.

Some critical articles can be found here.

World Cup Results Day 17

In the second quarter final Karl Rahner beat Eberhard Jüngel with 11 votes agians 5.

Rahner will face Moltmann in the Semifinal.

Quarter-final 3: Jenson vs. Gunton

The two last two contestants that do not speak English meet in the third Quarter-final. In the semi-finals there will be only one: Robert W. Jenson or Colin Gunton?

As before: to vote give a comment below. Then vote in the poll below too. But it is the votes in the comments that count.

World Cup Results Day 16

The first quarter-final of the World Cup for Modern Systematic Theologians resulted in a Victory for Jürgen Moltmann over Joseph Ratzinger with 18 votes against 8.

Tounament Brackets.

Quarter-final 2: Rahner vs. Jüngel

Since the comments voting have gone so well in the first quarter-final, we'll just continue with that system. Makes interersting reading IMO. The comments count, the poll below is just for fun.

Karl Rahner and Eberhard Jüngel meet for the second quarter-final. Two theological giants both well deserving a place in the semi-final. Who will it be?