The Assabet River (which flowed behind our house in Massachusetts)
This is one of the busiest times of the year for Church of the Nations. I do not have much time or energy this month for posting. But since I appreciate people coming here I do want to post something.
There is a member of the congregation who often sends long responses to my sermons. They are extremely thoughtful and enjoyable even when they “push back” on some things that I have said.
The last two weeks there have been some exchanges in response to my sermon about the perfection of the Christian church. I want to be careful to respect the privacy of the fine brother in Christ – so rather than provide a name or direct quotes just brief indirect summaries and my thoughts in reply.
Does the idea of “perfection” create problems for doing theology? Most disciplines (such as biology) have abandoned the idea of perfection. And yet we say God is “perfect” and unchanging.
My reply included the following:
4) Of course Christian tradition does speak of perfectionism with regard to God. As you know my personal bias is to side with Christian tradition. Although always with the awareness that tradition might best be understand as a snapshot of a slowly moving river. (Where the heck did that come from?!?)
5) As you know lately I have been reading a great deal of Orthodox theology. One thing that shocked me was reading two rather difficult articles: “Doing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective” by John Meyendorff and “Tradition and Traditions” by Vladimir Lossky. Picking any one quote from Lossky is dangerous but perhaps:
“If tradition is a faculty of judging in the light of the Holy Spirit, it obliges those who wish to know the truth in the tradition to make incessant efforts… It must not be thought that the conservative attitude alone is salutary, nor that heretics are always innovators. While the church preserves it [truth?] in the tradition, this preservation is not static or inert, but dynamic and conscious”.
I was astonished to read that (and the rest of those two articles). …
6) As you probably know the common way to handle the perfection of God is that God in his “essence” does not change but God in his <insert favorite concept or term> does change. The <x> can be “his relationship with creation” or “emanations” or something else. So that God “does not change” and yet clearly God does “change”.
7) I do accept the words of Jesus “be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect”. But then… what does Jesus mean by perfect? The same thing as later philosophers and theologians? Perhaps not. Indeed Hebrews says that the son was made perfect through suffering – which to me is a profoundly significant statement that may offer insight into what is meant by “perfect” in the New Testament.
Which generated another reply that was more insightful if that is possible. This brother focused on how I do theology. It appears that I do not say “I believe x, y, z and therefore I am a Christian” but rather “I am a Christian and therefore I believe x, y, z – or at least am inclined to do so”. He particularly seized upon the idea of theology as “a snapshot of a slowly moving river”.
My second reply included:
2) I had not thought of the distinction you make (which is a profound and sensitive insight). That my Christian faith biases me toward certain doctrines/dogmas – rather than the doctrines/dogmas are what “makes” one a Christian. In a nutshell I trust the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the entire Church (past and present). It does not mean I will never question or disagree with “Tradition” – I have a bias in favor of that. But that I will do so carefully and reluctantly. And may even say “I will teach or proclaim or practice such and such – even though I have personal/private reservations”. This might make me a marginal Protestant. ?
2b) Right or wrong I distinguish between “Christian” (noun) and “Christian” (adjective). By this I mean whether someone “is a Christian” or not is not my determination to make. I am relatively comfortable holding opinions on whether a particular teaching is orthodox (small o) or not. In other words someone may be a fine and wonderful Christian and yet hold heterodox(!) opinions. Who am I to judge whether an individual Mormon is “a Christian”? But I do not mind one bit saying “the Mormon understanding of the Trinity is extremely wrong”.
2c) But what… moderates(?)… the above stance is the “snapshot of a slowly moving river”. There is always – always – the “but I/we could be wrong”. Hence the quotes from Florovsky [sic - it was Meyendorff] and Lossky.
(I hope I have not overstepped the bounds of privacy and discretion.)
What do you think?
