In fairness, apart from the unnecessary dismissal of everyone to the left, right and behind him, this is not that bad! I appreciate the attempt to nuance our view of Scripture from a recognition of its historical origin and theological relation to Christ. I'm still unconvinced that the dramatical model is either particularly new or helps us with any of the 'difficult' issues.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=334
I suppose it would be interesting to hear some interaction from those who would disagree with Wright on his position on homosexual practice ... and whether his ideas on Biblical authority move the discussion on at all.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Theology or History?
"What matters for our purposes in the present book is the ground of Paul's argument, since unlike him we are not presupposing Jesus' resurrection and building on it a theology of Christian hope, but examining his theology of Christian hope in order to understand more precisely what he thought had happened to Jesus."
N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003), p. 315. My italics.
An infelicitous phrase? A valid academic exercise ...
N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003), p. 315. My italics.
An infelicitous phrase? A valid academic exercise ...
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Healing of the Heart
What is the point or goal of psychological healing? Is the answer, perhaps, to relieve distress or alternatively to make 'whole'? What constitutes as the 'norm' or the acceptable state to which we aim to bring people who are in need in of healing? Further, who is it that is in need of healing? Perhaps we should not assume we know this. When we attempt to heal, are we actually trying to bring people to our state of being? Might we ourselves be in need of healing? How can we answer these questions as Christians, and when we do so what will be the relationship of God, and particularly the Holy Spirit to these processes of healing?
The created purpose of humans is to love God and neighbour. This might not seem the obvious place to start. Much ink is spilt on disputed questions about what it means for humans to exist in the image of God. I would say this, however: focussing on an inherent God given dignity of humans - in effect using the imago dei as a cipher for human rights - risks obscuring that the nature of God, in whose image we are made, is finally revealed in Christ and Christ tells us in word and deed to love God and love neighbour as he, God, has loved us. The created and ultimate purpose of humans is to love God and neighbour.
People need healing when an aspect of their lives impedes their freedom to love God and neighbour as he has loved us. Consider addiction. The addicted person is not free to love God and neighbour as he or she ought. The individual feeds their addiction before they can interact with the world. If the addiction is concealed, because society looks down upon it, then the individual lives with a lie and is at least in part unable to fully reciprocate relationships. One might argue that the purpose of healing is to alleviate suffering. It is, without a doubt, true that our freedom to love our neighbour should result in our actually loving our neighbour and working to remove distress. But is this the ultimate end for Christians? A life of painlessness is not a Christian ideal.
One consequence of this idea is that medical healing now appears to have a different character to psychological healing. It is not the case that those with broken bones, or indeed cancer, are unable to love God or neighbour even if illness may well make practical demonstrations of love impossible.
An advantage of viewing people as loving agents is that we cease to view anyone as completely healed or, to put it another way, as having arrived at a position in which grace is no longer necessary. Human beings are not so much returned to a state of health, as faced with the ongoing need day by day to surmount obstacles which impede their freedom to love.
Two questions remain for me at the current time. These are how the above relates to the work of the Holy Spirit and to eschatology.
I shall start with eschatology. The resurrection reveals the relativity of all human health! Although this may not be the most helpful term, it may be useful to think of all healing as having the character of sign. The purpose of using this term is not to undermine the significance of the healing of affliction, but to recognise all such healing can only be understood as temporary or partial when viewed from the perspective of the whole world and in the shadow of mortality. Healing, then, points us to the greater transformation which Christians wait for at Christ's return. If we forget about eschatology we risk being disillusioned at the scale of suffering in the world.
The Holy Spirit is the bringer of life. Life is freedom. Christians have received the Spirit of God. It was the Spirit of God who brings them and sustains them in union with Christ and so brings them into new life. It is on the basis of this Spirit established life and freedom from a past life of sin that the Christian is urged to live in step with the Spirit, that is to seek to love God and neighbour with fewer impediments. The freedom of the Spirit is not an immediate emotional or relational healing with God or neighbour. It involves the granting of the knowledge - indeed only partially appreciated - that God has loved the individual and it involves the inviting of the loved to embark on a transformation of their love toward God and neighbour. It will be appropriate for Christians to use all the God-given means of grace at their disposal in order to enjoy this transformation. These will include worship and the use of the sacraments, loving and being loved in the community of the church, the practice of 'disciplines' and also the hearing of God's word as it informs us of the basis and on going necessity of all of these things, that is God himself.
The created purpose of humans is to love God and neighbour. This might not seem the obvious place to start. Much ink is spilt on disputed questions about what it means for humans to exist in the image of God. I would say this, however: focussing on an inherent God given dignity of humans - in effect using the imago dei as a cipher for human rights - risks obscuring that the nature of God, in whose image we are made, is finally revealed in Christ and Christ tells us in word and deed to love God and love neighbour as he, God, has loved us. The created and ultimate purpose of humans is to love God and neighbour.
People need healing when an aspect of their lives impedes their freedom to love God and neighbour as he has loved us. Consider addiction. The addicted person is not free to love God and neighbour as he or she ought. The individual feeds their addiction before they can interact with the world. If the addiction is concealed, because society looks down upon it, then the individual lives with a lie and is at least in part unable to fully reciprocate relationships. One might argue that the purpose of healing is to alleviate suffering. It is, without a doubt, true that our freedom to love our neighbour should result in our actually loving our neighbour and working to remove distress. But is this the ultimate end for Christians? A life of painlessness is not a Christian ideal.
One consequence of this idea is that medical healing now appears to have a different character to psychological healing. It is not the case that those with broken bones, or indeed cancer, are unable to love God or neighbour even if illness may well make practical demonstrations of love impossible.
An advantage of viewing people as loving agents is that we cease to view anyone as completely healed or, to put it another way, as having arrived at a position in which grace is no longer necessary. Human beings are not so much returned to a state of health, as faced with the ongoing need day by day to surmount obstacles which impede their freedom to love.
Two questions remain for me at the current time. These are how the above relates to the work of the Holy Spirit and to eschatology.
I shall start with eschatology. The resurrection reveals the relativity of all human health! Although this may not be the most helpful term, it may be useful to think of all healing as having the character of sign. The purpose of using this term is not to undermine the significance of the healing of affliction, but to recognise all such healing can only be understood as temporary or partial when viewed from the perspective of the whole world and in the shadow of mortality. Healing, then, points us to the greater transformation which Christians wait for at Christ's return. If we forget about eschatology we risk being disillusioned at the scale of suffering in the world.
The Holy Spirit is the bringer of life. Life is freedom. Christians have received the Spirit of God. It was the Spirit of God who brings them and sustains them in union with Christ and so brings them into new life. It is on the basis of this Spirit established life and freedom from a past life of sin that the Christian is urged to live in step with the Spirit, that is to seek to love God and neighbour with fewer impediments. The freedom of the Spirit is not an immediate emotional or relational healing with God or neighbour. It involves the granting of the knowledge - indeed only partially appreciated - that God has loved the individual and it involves the inviting of the loved to embark on a transformation of their love toward God and neighbour. It will be appropriate for Christians to use all the God-given means of grace at their disposal in order to enjoy this transformation. These will include worship and the use of the sacraments, loving and being loved in the community of the church, the practice of 'disciplines' and also the hearing of God's word as it informs us of the basis and on going necessity of all of these things, that is God himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)