Happy New Year

I'm out of town for the next week, and my internet access will be spotty while away. Have a great one!

BENAZIR BHUTTO ASSASSINATED

Pray for Pakistan. That country is a mess.

Feeling Stupid from Time to Time

The past few weeks I have been feeling very stupid. As reflected in the paucity of the quality and quantity of my posts lately, I have not been oriented toward theology at all. I'm far behind on my various reading projects. I feel very inadequate to think theologically, and I'm glad that I don't have to face a classroom full of students for nearly two weeks. The last question of one of the last lectures I taught directly concerned the subject of my D.Th. thesis, and I was almost like, "Duh...", which was scary. (Some of that, however, I will blame on too many administrative pressures at the time.)

This happens from time to time. When I was doing my M.Th., sometimes all of a sudden I would feel like I was totally in over my head and incapable of doing what I needed to do. After struggling for a while, grace would be given, new folds would pop over in my brain, and I would emerge from the period of cloudiness better than before. I'm hopeful that this will happen soon, but this is a deeper funk of stupidity than what I have experienced before.

Has anyone else experienced something similar, or am I alone in this?

Violence against Christians in Orissa (Again)

I missed this reading the morning paper:

BERHAMPUR: Curfew was imposed in four towns of Orissa’s Kandhamal district on Tuesday after violence which broke out on Monday escalated. A youth was killed, six churches were vandalised and two houses of a Minister were targeted in largescale communal violence and arson, following an attack on a VHP leader, who led an anti-conversion movement.

The youth, yet to be identified, was killed and 25 were injured in mob violence at Barakhamba, a senior police officer said. Six churches, mostly thatched, were either ransacked or the vacant premises set on fire since Monday night, Revenue Divisional Commissioner Satyabrata Sahu said.

Updates here. Pray for the suffering Christians of Orissa; they have it very difficult in that state.

EDIT: Here's a more lucid summary from BBC News.

Christmas Eating Highlights

Nothing too exciting. We prepared mediocre Thai food. Thai is a good compromise; it's something a little different but most people will try it. (I know too many people who refuse to try Western food and will only eat Indian.) The coconut curries are also exceptionally easy to prepare, which is good for a holiday like Christmas when we have no help around the house. (The maids have the day off. Yes, I have maids. Two of them.)

As I noted, the results were mediocre. For some reason, the chicken curry was not as good as it normally is--still nice, though. We ran out of eggs, so the fried rice was a little dull. And for some reason, I am hopeless with noodles. They always say, "Cooks in X minutes," but after X+5 minutes, mine are never ready, and then when I do whatever needs to be done with them, they don't really turn out all the great, certainly not like anything you'd get in a good or even just decent restaurant. I am great with pasta, but for some reason I can't get Asian noodles to turn out right. That's a pity as I really like them.

No special dessert as my wife has been baking nonstop the past week or so and we've been pigging out on cookies and cakes. She's a great baker.

Christmas is so much more than food, of course, and all in all it was a great day.

Theologians Confusing One Another

I fully stand by this post, but I also affirm that theologians sometimes try to confuse each other. As N.T. Wright writes in The Resurrection of the Son of God:

There are at least ten meanings of the word "eschatology" currently being employed within the guild of New Testament Studies.

We like to use certain buzzwords to show that we are hip and in with the current theological trends. "Eschatological" is one of these; I've read some works where it occurs in every third line. Rarely, however, is it defined to show which particular sense is intended. Quite often, the work would make just as much sense omitting it or substituting "red," "happy," or "cubic."

Lazy liberation and contextual theologians are especially guilty of this sort of thing; I'm half sure some of the articles I've read on the subject were just written automatically via Word macros. Just throw out the terms "liberation," "oppression," "perspective," "globalization," "eco-feminist," etc. in some random order, and there are some "journals" that will automatically publish whatever happens to stick to the paper.

Hark! The Herald! (My All-Time Favorite Carol)

"Hark! the herald angels sing" is by far my favorite Christmas carol. I love the theology of the hymn--and it is very good theology--and how it captures the jubilation of the triumph of Christ.

Like most good hymns, this one was written by Charles Wesley. He wrote thousands. What many people do not know, however, is that usually they were originally much longer than the different versions that have ended up in our hymnals. Here is "Hark!" in its close-to-original form, courtesy of the Cyber Hymnal:

Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King;
Peace on earth, and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled!”
Joyful, all ye nations rise,
Join the triumph of the skies;
With th’angelic host proclaim,
“Christ is born in Bethlehem!”

Refrain:

Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”

Christ, by highest Heav’n adored;
Christ the everlasting Lord;
Late in time, behold Him come,
Offspring of a virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’incarnate Deity,
Pleased with us in flesh to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel.

Refrain

Hail the heav’nly Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings,
Ris’n with healing in His wings.
Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them second birth.

Refrain

Come, Desire of nations, come,
Fix in us Thy humble home;
Rise, the woman’s conqu’ring Seed,
Bruise in us the serpent’s head.
Now display Thy saving power,
Ruined nature now restore;
Now in mystic union join
Thine to ours, and ours to Thine.

Refrain

Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
Stamp Thine image in its place:
Second Adam from above,
Reinstate us in Thy love.
Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
Thee, the Life, the inner man:
O, to all Thyself impart,
Formed in each believing heart.

Refrain

I particularly like the last two sets of verses, which sadly are rarely sung. "Rise the woman's conquering seed/bruise in us the serpent's head" refers to the protoevangelion of Gen. 3.15 and reflects the Christus victor theme of the work of Christ, not just the putting away of sin but his triumph over the powers of evil. These two sets also portray a powerful understanding of salvation and the desire for a holy, transformed life. Salvation is not simply God pardoning us few wretched sinners over against the masses of the hopeless lost. Rather, salvation is God pardoning and restoring and gloriously uniting himself to all who call upon him in faith.

May we all, in the coming year, desire and seek after such transformative grace for our lives.

For the Children

For those interested in the subject:

Orphanages stunt mental growth
Foster care boosts IQ of children in orphanages

Coffee Victory!

Yes! I finally got a new cappuccino machine yesterday. (My old one died on Thanksgiving.) It took me nearly a month to find one. I had to go to the big city so I was able to get one from the Big Bazaar. This pretty much constitutes my Christmas present, so, Merry Christmas!

Joke Posts

I had a post all ready to go in response to the stupidity that is this, but it appears that it is somewhat of a joke. Hence, I shall refrain.

I do, however, have in the works a few posts about synergism and salvation and the whole problem exemplified in the statement here that "belief is a work." Hopefully I will get it up around Christmas. More fluffy stuff is coming in the meantime.

Yet Another Nice Thing about Living in India

Camels for your Christmas pageant, $12/night. Donkeys, $2.50, and they'll throw in some lambs for free.

I got called on to give "greetings," which means a mini-sermonette. I took the easy way out (hey, the week's been crazy) and shared some of Barth's thoughts on the virgin birth. Got a couple "Ooh, interesting"s afterwards.

Theologians vs. Preachers

Or, "You Can Keep All That Junk to Yourself"

A couple weeks ago at our college, we had a little half-day paper reading. Even though it was from the Old Testament department, it was rather interesting; I didn't come close to falling asleep. The main topic, succinctly put, was that of historical criticism versus canonical criticism. More simply put, it raised the question, "Do we in biblical studies spend more, or even too much, time investigating the historical background to the text and not enough theologizing about and applying the text?" A good time was had by all. Our college is very new, and we have not done much of this sort of thing. I am happy it was a success.

This was mostly an academic seminar attended by students, faculty, and a few outside friends of the college. One from the last category raised an all-too-familiar question, or rather objection (paraphrasing):

I don't know why we need theologians. There are so many great preachers in our area that are winning so many people to Christ. Theologians just seem to confuse the people. Please, don't confuse the people.

Or, in other words, be more like the big preachers. He tried not to make it insulting, but of course, in the end it was. (Just imagine how you would feel if someone came to a meeting your company/school/church was holding and told you your chosen profession was worthless.) Like I said, this is not an unfamiliar question or objection; I've heard similar sentiments many times before. A few points of response:

First, this was an academic seminar, not a church service. In such a setting, certain assumptions are made about the technical knowledge and abilities of the audience. Anyone not interested in such stuff should not attend or at least not be surprised at the level of the discussion. In other words, it's not our fault if you come and can't understand it. (It would, however, be our fault if you invited us to speak at your church and you couldn't understand our message prepared for that context.)

Second, anyone who makes such a point has never actually read a theology book; for that matter, such a person does not even know what the word "theology" means. Yes, theologians can complicate things, but in the end, theology is simply "talking about God," and systematic theology is "talking about God in a systematic way." Anyone who does not understand the need for such talk is fundamentally lacking a clue as to what it is about.

Third--and this is the really ironic part--this objection was raised by someone who himself is an academic in the humanities. The impression we get, then, is that higher studies are fine for all other branches of knowledge but not for Christian studies. Learn all you want about science and the arts, but your knowledge of the Gospel should be able to be summarized in a tract. Men and women who devote their lives to serious, disciplined study of the things of God are not responding to a higher calling but simply wasting their time. Keep all that junk to yourselves.

Finally, the main point: big preachers do a lot of good work, but theologians just confuse people. Excuse me? Are you saying the big name preachers don't confuse people? Turn on your TV and let me know after a few hours if you still feel the same way. Enormous problems are created in the church today because of preachers who have rejected theological training to come up with their own messages and slants on the Gospel. In India, we have huge problems of syncretism and grace-less-ness that could be fixed by the healthy teaching of theology. Yes, there are problems with academic theology, but simply dumping it wholesale won't fix its problems. Something always comes to fill a vacuum, and people who think they can get away from tradition/religion/theology always ending replacing such things with their own, usually much lesser, versions of the same.

The main speaker deftly handled the question by saying, "I think we (preachers and theologians) need each other." Academic theology is needed because, in a disciplined environment of mental accountability, we are forced to face the questions we really should be facing and work through the problems we are confronted with by the Word and by the world. The history of Christian theology has been the story of just that. It happened the way that it happened for valid reasons, and it was it is today because of those questions and problems. We cannot throw out its fruits because we do not like or understand its agenda. If you do not understand, please ask questions; if you feel there is more we need to be doing, please let us know; but please do not judge and reject us when you really do not know what we are all about.

Posting to Annoy!

Over here, Nick is annoyed with blogger who don't post that often. We'll do something about that soon.

My chosen light reading for this holiday break is N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is sure to annoy Dr. Jim West. I've read some portions previously and they've given me glory bumps--nice BibStudies that won't put me to sleep.

Finally, I have in the works a post on synergism in salvation that's sure to annoy the Calvinists (not a difficult task). Yup, you have to do stuff to get saved. It doesn't just happen and then you find out about it later. Nope, I'm still not a Pelagian. (See, you're annoyed already!)

/removes tongue from cheek to go for dinner...

Taking a Little Break

Frequent interruptions in my power supply and internet service are keeping me from blogging. Additionally, at this stage in the term, I need a little break; theology's not just a hobby but my job. Thankfully, my last class is Thursday then it's basically three weeks off. I'll try to get a post or two up later this week then more after the weekend.

Be blessed!

Barth on the Virgin Birth

In doing my read through of Barth's Church Dogmatics (CD), I certainly don't intend to do a section-by-section summary. (I can do one or the other, either write about Barth or read Barth.) Some--thankfully few--parts are boring, and I am hurrying through them at a responsible speed. However, his section on the virgin birth ("The Miracle of Christmas,"CD I.2, 172-202) is quite fascinating and worth sharing.

Barth affirms the virgin birth, which is quite a bold step for a German theologian. (In fact, he basically tells those who deny it to shut up.) No single miracle, not even the resurrection of Jesus, has caused as much uproar among modern theologians as the virgin birth. Some are simply squicked out by it ("No no-sex, please, we're moderns"), while other do have genuine theological problems with it. A readable and powerful presentation of the case against the virgin birth is given by Emil Brunner in his Dogmatics, vol. 2, 353ff. While one may not agree with his position, it is worthy of respect; one great advantage to it is that it immediately and completely terminates all Mariolatry. That's not such a bad trade-off.

Earlier, Barth likewise denounces Mariology and Mariolatry: "Mariology is an excrescence, i.e., a diseased construct of theological thought. Excrescences must be excised" (p. 139). Twisting a quote from a Roman Catholic source, he also states,

We can only confront Kiekamp's declaration with the equally definite Evangelical declaration that where Mary is "venerated," where this whole doctrine with its corresponding devotions is current, there the Church of Christ is not. (p. 143)

I was a little surprised at the harsh tone, but we must keep in mind that this was before Vatican II. Barth also states on the same page, "In the doctrine and worship of Mary there is disclosed the one heresy of the Roman Catholic Church which explains all the rest.. [the cooperation of humanity] in its own redemption on the basis of prevenient grace..." which made my Arminian ears burn. (Addressing this, however, will have to wait until a later time.)

Aside from the purpose of simply being faithful to Scripture and affirming what it affirms, we do have to ask, of what the theological value and purpose is the virgin birth? The old traditional belief is that Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to be sinless as the sinful nature is passed on by the male in the procreative act. This is, of course, ludicrous as well as sexist, and there are enormous problems presented by pursuing such a line of thought. Women are just as sinful as men. The main purpose of the virgin birth, of course, is as a sign; that is how it is prophesied in Isaiah 7.14, which Matthew quotes, and Barth speaks of this in detail. It is important that we not confuse the sign with the thing signified. To paraphrase his conclusion, the Son of God was not sinless because he was born of a virgin, rather he was born of a virgin because he was the sinless Son of God.

Barth brings out a number of other valuable insights:

• The virgin birth (in Latin, ex Maria virgine) parallels creation (creatio ex nihilo). The new creation inaugurated in Jesus Christ presupposes the old and is both in continuity and discontinuity with it (186-187).
  
• In keeping with his agenda of denying all true natural knowledge of God, he sees the virgin birth as yet another indicator that knowledge of God comes only through his initiative and grace. By sending his ultimate revelation, Jesus Christ the Word, by miraculous means, he closes the possibility of another such revelation being generated by human beings through natural means (188).
• Although it should not be interpreted so as to judge all sexual relations as utterly sinful, the ex virgine precludes the possibility of divinizing eros or confusing agape with sex (192).

Again, summaries do not do adequate justice to Barth's brilliance. The insights given here can help us form a much richer doctrine of the virgin birth, and it is because of such insights and depth that I read him.

The Great BW3 on the "Gospel of Judas"

And related sillinesses:

It is time to stop talking about 'lost Christianities'. For one things, scholars have known about the Gnostics, the Ebionites, the Marcionites and others for centuries. Neither Gnosticism nor Marcion's movement has any serious historical claims to have begun during the time that the original eyewitnesses and apostles of Jesus lived. Indeed, there is no good historical evidence either existed before the second century A.D. And it is especially unhelpful to call something a form of early Christianity which is in fact antithetical to the claims made about Jesus and his movement by our earliest and best sources for the study of early Christianity-- the documents that ended up in the New Testament. If one is 'Christian' the other is not, or else the law of non-contradiction must be deemed to have ceased to function in the discussion of earliest Christianity.

The Gospel of Judas and Translation Agendas

Well well well well. You know the whole "Gospel of Judas" stink of a few months ago? Apparently there were some major problems with the translation done by National Geographic that skewed it in the direction it went. (Hat Tip: Rod Dreher)

As I've remarked previously, these attempts to overthrow the foundations of Christianity on the basis of late gnostic writings are nothing new. Mainstream Christian scholars are quite aware of them and have been for some time; they are dismissed simply and decisively because there's no substance (and never has been) to this whole sensationalistic enterprise. Lay people, however, can become disturbed upset by it, which is precisely the intent (besides making money) of those promoting this agenda. To take care of this problem on a long term basis, we need to teach more theology and history in our churches. Trying to skip from the first to the sixteenth to the twenty-first century while ignoring everything in between simply isn't working.

Shah Rukh Khan's Nipples

Or, Kaho Naa... Moobies Hain.

(Please note: This post has nothing to do with food or theology. It will make no sense if you are not familiar with Indian cinema, Bollywood actors, and how films are advertised here. It is also a twisted attempt on my part to drag in more page views via people doing Google searches for, uh, something other than theology. Be thankful at least that I'm not putting up a photo.)

Dear SRK,

Hi. You don't know me from Adam (though we do have, believe it or not, a mutual friend we've both lost touch with), but I thought I'd send you this friendly note. First, let me say that I'm very happy that you have discovered the benefits of anabolic steroids (and also the airbrush) this late in your acting career. It's quite obvious that you are happy with the results and want to show the world your newly acquired buffness. You've certainly achieved that goal. Even in this small, non-Hindi speaking town, every available free space is plastered with posters of your naked torso. We have no choice; we have all now Beheld.

Except not all of want to see your moobies.

India is a big country. I would cautiously estimate that there are several hundred million people who don't want to see them. Yet, we have no choice. "Avert your eyes, Sean," some would say. That's difficult to do while driving around, when I have to make sure no one to my side is going to do anything crazy all of a sudden. Yesterday while driving around at lunch time, I got more than a healthy dose. **barfs**

I'll never forget what my wife said about such men. "From biology class, you know how the frog you are dissecting looks after you get the skin off? That's exactly what they look like."

Shah Rukh, do us a favor please and cover up, m'kay?

If you need me, I'll be in the vomitorium.

Cordially,

Sean Babu

Objections to Barth and How NOT to Do Theology

Lots of ideas right now, but there seems to be some blockage between my brain and my fingers. I don't feel so much like writing (typing). Anyway, here's a little something...

As far as I can tell in my reading of different sources, there are four major and substantive conservative complaints against Karl Barth's theology:

1. His alleged modalism
2. His alleged denial of the sinlessness of Christ
3. His denial of inerrancy
4. His doctrine of election and its potential for universal salvation

We could also add to this list his total rejection of natural theology and the analogia entis, but it's difficult to say if all conservatives would agree that that was a bad thing, particularly given his context. I still have not made up my mind about this one; I want to read further in his Church Dogmatics (CD) as well as his debate with Emil Brunner.

Number 1 was discussed and dismissed here in my discussion of CD I.1. With a theologian of Barth's caliber, I am willing to take him at his word when he rejects modalism even if his trinitarian language is somewhat different than we are traditionally accustomed to.

Number 2 I have encountered in CD I.2 and will discuss in a later post after I have finished his treatment of the virgin birth, which he affirms. Number 3, which is quite true, will also come up soon in CD I.2., whereas no. 4 comes up much later in subsequent volumes.

As I said, these are the four major complaints that conservative (i.e., evangelical) theologians have with Barth's theology. As has been shown and will be shown further, not all of these complaints are warranted. Barth's positions are what we could nicely describe as "nuanced" or not so nicely describe as "typical of German theologians" in their lack of clarity and conclusiveness.

More important than these specific concerns are the broader issues raised by evangelical objections to Barth in general. While widely acknowledged as one of the greatest theologians in the history of the church and indisputably the greatest of the twentieth century, few theological camps are willing to claim Barth as one of their own. For (American) evangelicals and fundamentalists, the above complaints (especially no. 3), rule him out as "one of their own." Many do not realize, however, that Barth did more than any other to reign in the excesses of 19th century liberalism; in many ways, he was liberalism's complete antithesis. He fit comfortably only in the narrow space of "neo-orthodoxy," the heyday of which is long over.

In my view, this evangelical rejection is quite unfortunate. More than anything, it is the result of a methodological problem I call the "cherry-picking of heresies," a habit derived from the tendency to polemics inherited from the Reformation. Too often, theological works aren't read for the positive contributions to our understanding of theology, which is our understanding of God. Rather, they are first searched for potential errors and heresies to determine if they are one of the "good guys" or not. If any objectionable point deemed serious enough is found, the theologian and his or her writings are dismissed as "liberal," not one of the "good guys," and not necessary for study by the real "good guys." (Barth, while acknowledged as great, isn't always acknowledged as good and therefore not read as widely as he deserves.) Pretribbers won't read (for edification and learning, at least) posttribbers; Calvinists won't read Arminians; supralapsarians won't read infralapsarians (at least not happily). (Arminians read Calvinists because they write all the books.) No, not everyone does this (must every statement be qualified by weasel words?), but the reality of this tendency cannot be denied. Many people refuse to read the primary sources of such theologies, instead trusting the assessments made by other "good guys." This is quite unfortunate as first, the "good guys" aren't always fair and accurate in their representations, and second, a lot of good theology is thrown away with the alleged bad.

Barth's greatness, his brilliance as a theologian, shines forth on virtually every page. Most people could read hundreds of pages in one of his volumes before encountering anything objectionable; should 500 pages of holy insights be thrown away because of five that are found to be disagreeable? Even if one disagrees with the ultimate results of a particular theologians meditations, it's very helpful to read those we disagree with simply to see how they think and how they address different theological problems. (Let's face it: if you've read one traditional 5-point Calvinist systematic theology, you've read them all.) I have problems with Barth's Calvinism--in fact that is my greatest problem with him--but I've been incredibly edified by everything of his that I have studied. The same goes for theologians such as Jürgen Moltmann, the various liberation theologians, even Rudolf Bultmann! And, most who come to disagreeable conclusions do so out of a genuine belief in their approach, their perspective on a problem, not because they are simply anti-God, anti-Bible libruls. (Most conspiracy theories are wrong.) Again, studying their reasoning in such cases helps with our own thinking; we do not have to agree with everything in order to be respectful.

This "cherry-picking of heresies" is one major way in which theology should NOT be done. While there is an essential core we can never safely move away from, we should not become overconfident of our own knowledge and its finality. We must acknowledge that theological knowledge is contingent until the eschaton. Till then, the goal of theology as our talk about God is to try to grow in that knowledge despite its contingency. The way of humility and therefore growth is found in listening to other voices in the conversation and sometimes being surprised by the profoundness we hear from unexpected sources.