A Whole New World

Another book I'm in the middle of is Stanley Hauerwas' new book Working With Words: On Learning to Speak Christian.  It is a collection of essays that is not unlike the other 327 books Hauerwas has written.  In some ways this book explains why he has written so many (in that he reads a lot, reading makes him think, so he has to write to figure out what he thinks).  In some ways this book is a new way of looking at his general project and the way in which this project has developed over the last thirty years.  Being a Christian ethicist (whatever that term means) the particulars of his project have changed as the modern problems have gone from global-thermo-nuclear war to modern medicine and all its quandries.  However, his main point has remained pretty similar.

I do think this book, however, makes his whole project more understandable if you can read between the lines and get a sense of the general point made by the disparate essays.  The breakthrough came when reading his essay on greed.  He begins by talking about how we as a society believe that the economic crisis was/is/has been caused by greed.  However he questions whether or not we have enough of an understanding of greed to really make and understand such a claim.  It seems that if we did have a proper understanding of greed then we would be rethinking more about our economic system than just the past few years.

I have a good friend that, while being a pastor, was an economics major in undergrad.  It was talking to him that almost made me a fiscal conservative politically speaking.  In many cases I think the economy's job is to create the most amount of wealth possible.  I am a liberal because I believe other institutions ought to step in and look out for those whom the economy, in its pursuit of more wealth, leaves behind.  That's a pretty crappy view of economics, if I do say so myself.  But it shows how deep we have bought into the delusion that our lives are not sustained by greed itself.

Modern capitalism is dependent on changing greed from vice to virtue.  Our lives are sustained through a desire to have more.  To have more money.  To have more stuff.  To have more security.  To have more.  Hauerwas argues, convincingly I believe, that we cannot help but fall into greed.  He says that we have a little success in life and when that happens we become worried that what we have will go away.  So we work all the harder to get more so that we won't lose what we have.  But the problem is all this gets compounded exponentially as we get more and more and more.  And all of a sudden we're greedy bastards.

I think Hauerwas' account of all this is true because it resonates with the way I see others I know living their lives.  And if it applies to them, I am sure it applies to me.  Those that would sacrifice pay in order to do more noble things are called irresponsible.  We are told to be good, responsible parents we must fall into this trap of greed.  We are told that to be good, responsible citizens we must fall into this trap of greed.  All of it seems inescapable.

Which is where the thrust of Hauerwas' project comes in: Jesus creates a new way.  Jesus creates a new world in which it is possible to not be greedy.  Jesus creates a new world in which it is possible to not live through the lens of scarcity.  Jesus creates a new world where success and responsibility are not measured in dollars and cents, but in faithfulness to God.  Jesus creates a new possibility and a new world.

And this is where I find Hauerwas more helpful than Niebuhr or the Protestant liberalism.  Protestant liberals would look at life with its myriad crappy choices and say "Well What would Jesus do?"  Then in following that, the world would magically become better.  That's hopeful and optimistic, but doesn't really explain all the Christians in Congress.  Niebuhr, writing against the Protestant liberals, would look at life with its myriad crappy choices and say "Well, do the best you can and when it gets a little better, that's the best we can do."  That's helpful in the sense of helping us make sense of why the Kingdom isn't brought in when the CEO converts, but doesn't provide a real robust eschatological vision.  Hauerwas on the other hand looks at life with its myriad crappy choices and rejects them all in favor of the new world opened up by Christ.  The world might only get a little better, but that's only because we're greedy bastards.  The CEO might convert by that won't bring in the Kingdom because we can't bring in the Kingdom.  However, the Kingdom will be brought in.  There is not only a better way...there is a new and better world.  That's big.  That's true hope and optimism . That's the Gospel.

But since its a new world it takes a whole new way of living.  And seeing.  And speaking.  We have to learn how to live in this new space.  That's what the church is all about.  So if you want a real alternative from all the crap in our society and in this life, pick up Working with Words and learn to speak truth.

Hello, my name is...

I just finished part 1 of R. Kendall Soulen's new book The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity.  Well, actually I finished part 1 of volume 1 which is itself entitled Distinguishing the Voices.  123 pages in and I can say with confidence that this is a must-read for any student of theology.  However, 123 pages in and I think he structured the book wrong.  Allow me to explain.

In the first half of the book Soulen stated his premise in the introduction and then went into a broad sweep of the history of Christian thought from the Bible (kind of) until the modern day.  He primarily focused on representative thinkers through different epochs, namely the Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius, Augustine, Thomas, Luther, Barth, Robert Jenson, and Elizabeth Johnson.  Having arrived at the end he restates his premise and gives a hint that the next part will be more constructive than descriptive.  I wish he had done it the other way around.

His basic premise is that there exists a three-fold pattern of naming the persons of the Trinity in the history of Christian thought.  The first, which he dubs a theological pattern, is based on reference to the Tetragrammaton.  The second, the christological pattern, is based on the male kinship relations Father, Son and Holy Spirit and is thus called christological because it is based upon the specific existence of the human Jesus.  The third pattern, called the pneumatological pattern, is based on a multiplicity of names that are context-specific coming out of the Holy Spirit's outpouring on Pentecost.  Soulen outlines these patterns in the introduction/first chapter.

In the second chapter, Soulen attempts to show how the first pattern is evident through the nomina sacra, a group of terms that were given a special orthography in antiquity.  Very early on, Jewish scribes began using special orthography for the name of the Tetragrammaton.  New Testament scribes took on this practice when composing and copying the New Testament writings, but instead of using special orthography for the Tetragrammaton alone, they also applied the practice to Jesus, Christ, Spirit, etc.  Soulen argues that this was perhaps the earliest creed of the church and visually argued not only the divinity of Christ, but also God's Trinitarian nature.  Soulen then argues that the pattern and creeds formed by the nomina sacra can be seen copied into the Nicene Creed.

In the chapters that follow, Soulen argues that immediately following Nicea and Constantinople, the first pattern of naming the Trinity was dropped.  He then goes through an expansive historical-theological outline in order to show how we have arrived at the current modern debate over inclusive language in naming God.  While these chapters serve as an impressive primer in Trinitarian theology, I feel that another way of organizing the book would have allowed Soulen's argument to function better.

At this point, halfway through the book, Soulen has set up a methodology for Trinitarian naming.  However, at this point, halfway through the book, that methodology seems relatively trivial.  He has not built a case for why this three-fold pattern of naming is more true to Scripture, the historic Christian witness, or will help mitigate current ecclesial and theological debates.  The reader assumes and anticipates Soulen will do this at some point.  Yet when critiquing the vast history of Christian thought it is best to have your alternative already in place.

Ultimately, Soulen is asking us to trust him.  Essentially, right now Soulen has built a case for a three fold pattern of Trinitarian naming based off of an esoteric pattern of writing a few words and one particular way of reading the Nicene Creed.  The special orthography, which to this point is the only thing he has to build his case, was so ubiquitous that by the late 4th and early 5th century, the Bishops of the church had no idea it existed.  All the giants of the Christian church (Augustine, Thomas, Calvin, Luther, Barth, Anselm, Gregory, etc.) are all said to be in error and the only thing there to convince us is orthography.  

This is not to say that Soulen is wrong or that his thesis will ultimately prove without merit.  In fact, I imagine the second half of the book constructs a wonderful argument for his proposed three-fold naming system that will help mediate current ecclesial debate as well as allowing theology to be more true to Scripture.  Elizabeth Johnson herself calls the book "One of the best books on naming God in years" so on that recommendation alone there is hope.  However, I wish Soulen had done the constructive work up front.  That way we would have in mind a fully developed three-fold naming pattern when judging and critiquing the tradition.

Introduction

No one should read this.  No, I mean seriously, no one should really ever read this.  We clear on that?  Good.

Why should no one read this?  I mean, I guess that's a fair question.  I am writing this.  I am "publishing" it (if clicking the so-called "publish" button is the definition of publishing we're employing these days).  Stands to reason I would think that people should read this.  But they shouldn't and I'll give you a few reasons why.

First, its about theology.  To be more specific its about Christian theology.  To be more specific its about the small strand of Christian theology best classified as "the books I'm reading."  The subject of these posts are so narrow that really no one should care.  Except me.  But I have to.  I'm writing this.  But if you are interested in the subject, please don't read this.  Go to church instead.  You'll find much better things there.

Second, this is my own way to make sense of the things I'm reading.  In his book Working with Words Stanley Hauerwas talks about why he writes so much and basically says he writes because he reads and the only way he can make sense of what he reads is to write.  I agree.  For the past 18 years (or something like that) I have been a student.  After getting my Master's degree (M.Div. if you care) I realized that I was gonna be done with school for a while.  No one makes me read or write papers anymore.  But what's crazy is I still want to read.  And in order to understand what I'm reading, I need to write.  Hence the blog.

"Well, if you don't want people reading this, why a blog as opposed to a diary?"  Simply put, I don't like handwriting things.  "Then why not an open word document or something?"  I don't know...this seems more real I guess.  Fine, you can read it if you want.  But don't say I didn't warn you that it would be better for you to just go to church.

So, if you must stay, welcome to the blog.  It will always be really nerdy and about topics very few people care about.  The writing will probably be bad.  Nothing will be edited.  I won't feel bad if you just stop reading (I told you not to read in the first place).  But I will always welcome comments about my reading and my arguments because this will always be about me figuring out what I think.  Narcissistic?  Yes.  But hey, that's what blogs are all about.