andygoodliff

Gunton (iii) on Revelation

Apart from The One, the Three and the Many (1993), it is perhaps, A Brief Theology of Revelation (1995) that is Colin’s most important work. This short 134pp – it really is brief – book examines the doctrine of revelation, which in Barth is so strongly employed – and according to Gunton ‘overemployed’ – and establishes its proper place in theology. The main thrust of Gunton’s argument is that ‘revelation in Christian theology is mediated’ (18) and revelation can be mediated in different ways and so the reverse there is no unmediated revelation.

He makes the claim that all kinds of things are revelatory and this is ‘not necessarily revelatory of God – we must not try to reach that place too soon – but of themselves, or of the order of things in world’ (106). He argues for a general theology of revelation, that ‘revelation is necessary to what we call knowledge,’ that is, if we are to know anything, or anyone, they must in some respect be revealed to us’ (106). However, in order to be able to say this, the tacit operation of a number of theological doctrines need to be employed. Firstly, a doctrine of creation is required, which ‘holds that that the created world is the kind of world within whose structures there can be revelation’ (33). Gunton is claiming that there can be revelation, because the world is so made that it can be known – there is a reality that I can investigate and know. Secondly, a doctrine of anthropology, which claims that ‘we are able to appropriate the revealedness of nature because we are the kind of beings we are: a part of nature, yet also such as we are able to transcend and understand that of which we are a part’ (34). And thirdly, a doctrine of pneumatology, which holds that all revelation is a gift of the Spirit, who ‘brings it about that human rationality is able, within the limits set to it, to encompass the truth of creation’ (34-35).

Gunton next discusses a theology of general revelation, the issue of what can we know of God from creation. He rejects natural theology, because it stems from a failure to adequately articulate a Christian doctrine of creation. Instead, Gunton argues for what he calls a theology of nature. This allows for a general revelation, but that ‘we are unable to recognise [it] for what it is’ (61). General revelation, for Gunton, is not something that ‘operates in parallel with biblical revelation, but is derived from it’ (61). A theology of nature can claim ‘that the world reveals the glory of God because it is creation’ (61); ‘the world reveals the being of God by virtue of its capacity to be a framework for culture’ (62) – good culture (art, music, etc) reveals the goodness of the creator he created a good world; and ‘the world reveals the hand that made it in the remarkable combination of unity and diversity, of relationality and particularity, that it manifests, marks that can be recognised by their analogy to the unity and diversity of the triune God’ (62).

Gunton’s description of a theology of nature lays considerable weight on scripture, as the mediator of revelation, which is the subject of his next discussion. Gunton affirms the inspiration of scripture, but denies that scripture is revelation; rather, scripture is a medium of revelation. He writes, ‘scripture is revelatory … by virtue of the fact that it participates in those things – persons and events – that we call revelation’ (108). Therefore, according to Gunton, ‘the unique character and authority of scripture as revelation is that it claims to be more than the provider of unique information, but also to be the bearer of saving knowledge’ (73). Scripture mediates to us the revelation of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and so ‘it’s uniqueness derives from the uniqueness of the Christ who is mediated and of that which is mediated by Christ (74).

In The Christian Faith Gunton argues that ‘the inspiration of scripture refers to the Spirit’s enabling those recipients of divine speech and action to compose the books which are, in response to revelation, in their own human way divine revelation to those generations who come after’ (53). (See John Webster’s Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch and Maggi Dawn’s series of helpful posts here).

Gunton’s final discussion is the place of tradition within a theology of revelation. Gunton believes tradition to be important ‘because even though Jesus is, as risen and ascended, not in the past … that Lord cannot be identified apart from the Jesus of scriptural description mediated through the tradition of interpretation which is theology’ (103). ‘Tradition in the church, then, is a process of gift and reception in which the deposit of faith - the teaching and ethics of the Christian community – is received, interpreted and handed on in time' (103). Despite this positive affirmation of tradition, Gunton warns against the authority of the content of tradition being replaced by forms of ecclesiastical authority (97).

Gunton’s concluding chapter which is subtitled ‘Towards a theology of revelation’ argues against reducing Christianity to revelation (which Barth is not adverse from doing) and ensuring that the Christian faith ‘is not to be reduced to knowledge’ (110). He goes on to claim that ‘the doctrine of revelation should be understood to be a function of the doctrine of salvation’ (111) because ‘the centre [of scripture] is not divine self-identification but divine saving action’ (111, italics Gunton’s). Thus, ‘while [Gnosticism] speaks of salvation by knowledge, [John’s gospel] speaks of salvation by incarnation, the cross, resurrection and ascension, and the subsequent sending of the Paraclete … what is revealed is primarily not knowledge, but salvation in Christ, though that includes epistemic dimensions’ (117).

Lastly, in Gunton’s (trinitarian) theology of revelation, we find the key to be pneumatology. He writes, ‘wherever there is revelation of any kind, there is the work of the creator and redeemer Spirit’ (121); ‘The Spirit reveals Jesus as the truth: as the revelation of God the Father’ (121); ‘the mediatory office of the Spirit is to point to, and in that sense, reveal the Son; that of the Son to reveal the Father’ (122); and ‘without the revealing action of the Spirit, we shall not know Jesus as the way to God’ (122).

He ends with:

‘When we speak of revelation, we are speaking first of all of Jesus Christ, who thus forms the focus of all that we have to say. The centre of our attention is the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and that glory is mediated in all kinds of ways: through the Bible, church traditions and confessions, through the creation that is from and to Christ; and even sometimes through the propositions of theologians, those scribes of the kingdom whose calling is to bring forth from their treasures things both old and new’ (125).

Implications of Pistis Christou

The implications of reading pistis Christou as the faithfulness of Christ are huge.  Let me provide the highlight's from Douglas Campbell's paper I referred to at the beginning of the previous post.

'The meaning of ‘faith’ in Paul is deeply contested, essentially, between two quite different interpretative paradigms ... To make matters worse, these questions of ‘faith’ ... are involved inextricably with questions concerning the nature of salvation itself, and so the stakes are high and the discussions rather intense and convoluted.'

He claims that 'most interpreters of Paul agree on a fundamentally anthropocentric approach to the theme of ‘faith’ in his thought' and this 'is grounded in the statistically dominant discussions of ‘faith’ in Paul that occur in Romans and Galatians.'  These faith texts also comprise of 'Paul’s famous ‘justification’ discussions that supposedly speak primarily of salvation in the sense of ‘justification through faith’, so I dub them JF texts, and this soteriology the JF model.'

The JF model is described as: '... a transfer from one state to another, a transfer that individuals activate. The first state is ‘legalism’, within which people try to work their way to heaven. It presupposes a judgment according to works ... But a sensitive conscience soon realizes that this scheme is hopeless and that, far from obtaining salvation, it only ensures one of a certain eventual fate of eternal damnation ... At this point, the proclamation of the gospel must be greeted by great delight. If individuals only believe in the gospel then they are forgiven all their various sins and transferred to a new state of salvation ...

... All that is needed for the transaction to take place is faith on the part of the individual. Faith is therefore the trigger or catalyst for the receipt of salvation by the individual ...

The entire movement from sin to salvation is usually described ... in metaphors drawn from the law court. God presides as the judge, and the sinner, cast in the lot of the defendant, walks free from the serious charges of wrongdoing thanks to faith in Christ ...

... In short, the meaning of faith in Paul tends to be swallowed up within a more fundamental conception of salvation, as the JF construal of Paul’s gospel dominates the interpretation of the apostle’s most densely-populated ‘faith’ texts ...

The next stage of Campbell's argument, having described the JF model, is to discuss the problems with it. These are the (1) The implications of Abraham; (2) The arrival of  ‘faith’; (3) The gift and/or revelation of ‘faith’; (4) The content of ‘faith’; and (5) The capacity for ‘faith’. There is not the space here to do more than note the headlines.

Having made the claim that the JF model is unsatisfactory, Campbell sets out an alternative explanation.
He says, 'I suggest that a coherent and comprehensive explanation of ‘faith’ in Paul is possible if it is approached from a different angle from the one suggested by the JF model and its key texts (i.e. Rom. 1:16-5:2; 9:30-10:17; Gal. 2:15-3:29).'

In this explanation, Christians receive their key beliefs, trust, and fidelity, from the Spirit, but also thereby with reference to Christ. The Spirit enables them to participate in Christ’s prior and definitive ‘possession’ of these actions and characteristics' ...

'This process is clearly quite appropriately described in terms of an unconditional revelation or disclosure, and in terms of a gift' ...

'The end result of Christian participation in Christ is, in essence, a new orientation towards God that encompasses truth in the sense of true beliefs, personal trust, and unwavering fidelity, like Abraham and, if necessary, through shame and suffering, until the Eschaton or death (whichever comes first)' ...

The final stage of Campbell's paper is to ask what do we do with the JF texts?

'JF advocates, as we have seen, derive most of their theoretical leverage from the very dense pist- discussions in Romans and Galatians. Hence, the christocentric advocate must answer two questions if they are to be ultimately successful: What is Paul arguing in his ‘faith’ discussions in Romans and Galatians, if he is not arguing what we have usually been told he is?, (i.e. justification through faith: see esp. Rom. 1:16-17; 3:21-5:1; 9:30-10:21). And what is he suggesting in his ‘works of law’ texts as well, that seem to prepare for his later ‘faith’ discussions? (cp. esp. Rom. 1:18-3:20).'

'Let us assume for the sake of argument that Romans was written for much the same reasons as Galatians—surely a plausible suggestion. That is, Paul fears that ‘the Teachers’ will proclaim their rival gospel, ‘that is really not a gospel at all’, at Rome (cp. Gal. 1:6-9). Their gospel is, at least in some respects, a sort of Fundamentalist Judaism: ‘turn to the law or burn’' ...

... 'Rom. 1:16-5:2 is then a two-fold attack on this gospel. In its first phase, argued in 1:18-3:20, Paul cleverly develops a series of reductions that are rooted in the preaching of the Teachers ... He argues that, in terms of its own premises, the gospel of the Teachers neither benefits through conversion to Judaism, which is shown to be meaningless in an impartial system based purely on merit, nor saves anyone, including the Teachers themselves, given the Scriptures’ attestation to universal sinfulness! It is, in short, a thoroughly self-defeating exercise. In the second phase of his attack, elaborated in 3:21-4:25, but anticipated in 1:16-17, he suggests that the Scriptures—carefully defined to include both the Law and the Prophets—witness to his version of salvation' ...

'Now this is clearly a highly contingent reading, that also thereby removes much of Paul’s JF argumentation from the realm of his own theology ... Paul’s ‘faith’ discussions consequently no longer function in sequence with his discussions of ‘works of law’, thereby creating a discussion of salvific conditions and a resulting two-phase, prospective soteriology. They function in parallel to them, thereby disrupting that soteriology. (Indeed, the model really now collapses.) His ‘faith’ discussions are an argument in their own right (and one that no longer has to address soteriological conditions). Hence I would suggest that a plausible rereading of Rom. 1:16-5:2 is indeed possible, that removes the JF model from this, and parallel, texts, allowing the christocentric paradigm to explain all the ‘faith’ data in Paul.'

To summarise, pistis Christou has huge implications for Paul's gospel and for our understanding of atonement. Salvation comes through participation in Christ by means of the Spirit, not through our belief in the facts of the gospel.  We share Christ's faith, not manifest our own. Salvation is a gift from God and not an act of human faith.   

Pistis Christou

I first got introduced to the pisits Christou debate by Douglas Campbell's classes on Paul. What follows is a version of a 2nd-year undergrad essay I wrote arguing from Douglas' work that we should read pistis Christou as the faithfulness of Christ. See this recent paper from Douglas called ‘Faith’ in Paul with particular reference to questions of divine and human agency. The debate I think is very important because it affects how we present the gospel and understand salvation.   

In recent years the pistis Christou debate has become very famous within Pauline circles. It is a debate that still remains unresolved and is characteristically divided, with both sides ‘sticking to their guns’ and giving nothing away. This is because, as Douglas Campbell has pointed out, a great deal rests on the outcome. The debate is grounded in a wider context of whether ‘justification by faith’ as an atonement model is Paul’s theological centre. Thus pistis Christou has a determinative role in the ‘justification by faith’ argument. Paul Achtemeier’s comment, then, that ‘what we have is merely an interesting exegetical exercise’ (1997, 82) seems to entirely underestimate what is at stake. The larger question of what is Paul’s gospel, rests, in part, on the outcome of how we translate pistis Christou.

Pist- words, in the ten-letter canon (Rom, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 & 2 Thess, Col, Eph, Philem), appear roughly 150 times. The noun pistis, with which we are most concerned, appears 108 times and the verb pisteuo, the remaining 48 times. However, the location of pist- language is concentrated to just a few of Paul’s letters. Moreover, it appears principally in two sections of two letters, where it is densely deployed: Romans 1-4 and Galatians 2:16-3:29. This obviously raises some provenance questions, to which we will return later.  The disputed pistis Christou occurs seven times: Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16 (twice), 20; 3:22;Phil 2:9.

The reason pistis Christou is such a disputed phrase is it is a genitive construction. This means it can be translated either 'faith in Christ' (an objective reading) or 'faith of (a subjective reading). Paul gives no clear grammatical signifier to either reading and ‘the issue can only be settled by exegesis’ (Hooker, 1989, 321). In other words, ‘our interpretative decision about the meaning of Paul’s phrase . . . must be governed by larger judgments about the shape and logic of Paul’s thought concerning faith, Christ, and salvation’ (Hays, 1997, 39). In the objective reading Christ is the object of faith the means of obtaining salvation is a human action of ‘having faith.’  In the subjective reading interprets Christ is the subject of the faith. It is a christocentric understanding, as it is Christ’s act of faith - his faithfulness that justifies, this act of faithfulness is most obviously a reference to the events of Easter - Christ’s passion, death and resurrection.

There are, I believe, four main determinative reasons why ultimately we must endorse the christological reading as the most plausible interpretation of pistis Christou: 1. Paul’s use of Hab 2:4; 2. the singularity of pistis; 3. an alternative reading of Romans 1-4; and 4. the difficulties of the traditional reading.

Firstly, Paul’s use of Hab 2:4.  1. Hab 2:4, along with Gen 15:6 and Isa 28:16 are all quoted by Paul in Romans in the three critical pistis sub-sections (Rom 1:17, 4:3, 9:33, cf. Gal 3:6, 3:11), and all these OT quotes use pist- language centrally. 2. Hab 2:4 seems to supply the dominant prepositional phrase in these arguments, namely, ek pisteous. It functions, according to Campbell, ‘as the fundamental linguistic template from which’ (1992:101) Paul’s use of the pistis genitive derives. That is, the phrase ek pisteous, or its alternative dia pisteous, found so extensively in Romans and Galatians, have their origin in Hab 2:4: ‘the one who is righteous ek pisteous will live’. As a result whenever Paul uses the phrase ek pisteous he has in mind Hab 2:4. In Paul’s version of Hab 2:4 the text ‘has been textually trimmed by Paul to this exact phrase ...’ (1997:713). This implies a distinct relationship between Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 and the ek pisteous phrase – Paul uses the construction ek pisteous to echo repeatedly Hab 2:4.

So far, we have argued that Hab 2:4 is the template behind Paul’s extensive pistis use. The result being if we are to interpret pistis Christou and other pistis genitives, we must look to Hab 2:4 for the answers. This, Campbell contends, is possible in the context of Rom 1:17, where Hab 2:4 is used as Paul’s first scriptural support for his ‘gospel’. (In the context of 1:2, where Paul says the gospel was ‘promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures’, this gives Hab 2:4 an important place. It is perhaps Paul’s key proof text for the validation of his gospel.) Campbell’s proposal is we read Hab 2:4 christologically, as ‘a messianic proof-text’. Jesus is the ‘righteous one,’ who ‘through faithfulness,’ that is faithfulness to the ultimate point of shameful death, ‘will live,’ meaning be resurrected and so vindicated by God (1997b) Rom 1:17 then is not about how one is saved, but a declaration of what has happened: ‘[Hab 2:4] is not a scriptural attestation of how the gospel is appropriated . . . its focus is substantive, rather than instrumental, and christocentric rather than anthropocentric’ (1994, 284). As a result, whenever ek pisteous or its equivalents are used, it is a reference to the faithfulness of Christ and not the believer.   

Our second determinative reason for a christological reading is the singularity of pistis. By this I mean, Paul’s specific use of pistis language in Galatians 3 requires us to read it singularly. In Galatians 3:23-25 Paul refers to a singular pistis three times with ‘the frequent association of the notion of ‘coming’’ - ‘[the] pistis came’, ‘[the] pistis would be revealed’, ‘pistis has come’.  A reading that claims pistis means human ‘faith’ seems fundamentally odd and at odds with the notion of ‘coming.’  If, though we were to read pistis as a reference to Christ, Gal 3:23-25 make clearer sense. Paul, in these verses, tables a once-only event - a single relevatory act - which liberates those under the law, from the law (v.25). ‘This emphasis is really incommensurate with acts of belief and trust occurring throughout human history’ (1997:717). Rather, pistis is more simply understood christologically - ‘the faithful one’. So Gal 3:22-26 would be translated:   

      v. 22:  through [the] faith[fulness] of Jesus Christ [the promise is given to those who trust.]
      v.23a: Before the ... coming of [the] faith[ful one] ...
      v.23b: the coming faith[ful one] is revealed.
      v.24:   ... until Christ came, so we might be set free through faith[fulness]
      v.25:   [the] faith[ful one], having come ...
      v.26:   through [the] faith[ful one], in Christ Jesus you are all children through faith[fulness]

Furthermore, as Campbell points out, this is further corroborated both by the equations the argument draws earlier on between Christ, ‘the seed’ (3:16), and [the] pistis (3:16-25), and by the theme of Christ’s arrival that Paul speaks of elsewhere in his writings (see esp. 1 Cor. 1:30 and context) (2004).

However, the argument for a christological reading cannot rest simply on these exegetical issues. There is a need to provide an explanation for why Paul writes Rom 1-4 and Galatians 2-3. If we can suggest a plausible and ultimately a more likely reason for reading these passages alternatively to the traditional ‘justification by faith’ model, it places the christocentric reading of pistis Christou in a stronger position. Campbell believes an explanation can also be found  solving the provenance issues (why Paul wrote Romans and Galatians). Earlier we said that pist- language is deployed in the greater part in the letters to the Romans and to the Galatians. Campbell’s argument is the contingent circumstances behind these letters gives rise to Paul’s use of pist- language. This suggests the antithesis between pistis and nomos (or faith and law) is not where Paul’s underlying centre is to be found, but rather it is Paul seeking to undermine the gospel of his opponents (in this case Jewish Christian teachers) and establish the supremacy of his own.

Let us sketch in some biographical details: first the letter to the Galatians. This deals with ‘troublemakers’ - traditionally called the Judaizers - who have come to the Galatian community and preached a different gospel (Gal. 1:6-7). Paul’s letter is essentially an attack on their ‘gospel’ and a defence of his own. Second, the letter to the Romans. This is, I want to argue, a few ‘rounds’ later in the same battle. Paul, having now be dealing with this alternative ‘gospel’ and its proponents for probably about a year, writes ahead to the Romans to warn them of this possible incoming threat. This explains the systematic and basically better argued nature of the letter; that is,  Paul, after a few ‘rounds’ has obtained a better understanding of the weaknesses of their gospel. 

The traditional approach to the arguments in Galatians 2:16ff and Romans 1-4  is to read them biographically. That is to say, there is ‘some prior phase in which failure to be justified by works takes place’ (1999b, 247, n. 46) and then the realisation that salvation can only be attained by faith. The alternative reading suggested is not to see them as biographical, but instead as merely antithetical. Paul is tabling the two gospels - one, justification by works belonging to the Judaizers, the other, justification by pistis Christou which is Paul’s gospel. (This appears to make a lot more sense, when we realise in both Galatians and Romans, Paul is writing to communities who are already Christians. He is not trying to convert them!) Paul is presenting the two gospels, giving a criticism of his opponents and an endorsement of his own. In the particular case of Romans, Paul’s argument from 1:18 has traditionally been interpreted as Paul wishing ‘to construct a suitable context for the gospel’s proclamation’. Campbell contends rather that it ‘is a critique’ of the Judazier’s gospel and therefore not a description of Paul's gospel. Paul presents the Judazier’s gospel and then ‘drives it through to its absurd conclusion that this proclaimed soteriology will ultimately save no one, not even its own advocates’ (1999b, 244). 

What this means for the pistis Christou debate is there is an alternative to reading both Galatians and Romans as Paul’s own biographical journey from works to faith. If this is the case, the traditional reading of pistis Christou does not make coherent sense, because Paul does not go on to explain what ‘faith in Christ’ means. However, if we read it christologically, there is an another place we can look for Paul’s own understanding of atonement by the ‘faith of Christ’, namely Rom. 5-8 and Gal. 3:21-4:7, which both present a model of atonement that supports a christocentric reading of pistis Christou. Campbell believes ‘Paul’s emphasis on faith should be understood primarily as counter-argument to the claim of the Judaziers that full law-observance is necessary for salvation . . . we should not necessarily look for its proper definition and role within his polemics against the Judaizers’ (2001).

Supporters of the objective reading, like Dunn, tend to point to the lack of a definite article in all disputed cases as ‘almost sufficient’ evidence for their reading. The arguments runs that if pistis Christou was preceded by a definite article, there would no doubt that it was an indication that Paul meant the phrase subjectively. That is, because Paul leaves out the definite article this suggests an objective reading. Although this argument has no real decisive weight, the christological reader can direct attention to Gal. 2:20. Here Paul uses a definite article with pistis and goes on to explain what pistis means: ‘who loved me and gave himself for me’.

Although in danger of an over-generalisation, I suggest, that advocates of the traditional reading do so because they read the text through the ‘justification by faith’ paradigm (Campbell, 2005). The implications of this are their arguments for an ‘objective’ reading rely on the preconceived notion that Paul’s theological centre is ‘justification by faith’. Thus, often it appears, they do not even attempt to acknowledge the coherence of the arguments for a christological reading. Dunn’s 1997 article appeals more often or not to the idea that Paul cannot mean a christocentric reading because that would render ‘justification by faith’ as unworkable and fundamentally un-Pauline! They appear to be unwilling to admit ‘tradition’ may have got it wrong. In the end, Campbell seems right in suggesting, ‘traditional advocates must rise to meet the new challenges to their explanatory coherence formulated by christological advocates, or their advocacy may ultimately risk the fate of ‘the flat-earthers’’. In other words, the burden of proof lies with the traditional readers.   

Texts Used:

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1997. ‘Apropos the Faith of/in Christ: A Response to Hays and Dunn’. In Hay and
Johnson [eds.], Pauline Theology.Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On, Atlanta GA: Scholars. 
Campbell, D. A. 1992. ‘The meaning of PISTIS and NOMOS in Paul: A Linguistic and Structural
Investigation’. Journal of Biblical Literature 111: 91-103.
_____1994. ‘Rom. 1:17 - A crux interpretum for the PISTIS CRISTOU debate’. Journal of Biblical
         Literature 113:
_____1997a. ‘False Presuppositions in the PISTIS CRISTOU debate: A response to Brian Dodd’.
Journal of Biblical Literature 116: 713-19.
_____1997b. 'An interpretative ugly duckling? - the christological construal of PISTIS in Romans.' An unpublished paper.
_____1999a. ‘The coming of PISTIS in Galatians, chapter three [vv.22-26]’. An unpublished paper.
_____1999b. ‘Natural Theology in Paul? Reading Romans1:19-20’. International Journal of
Systematic Theology 1.3: 231-252.
_____2001. ‘Perspectives on the atonement in Paul’. A Notebook on Paul. London: D. A.
Campbell.
_____2004. '‘Faith’ in Paul with particular reference to questions of divine and human agency'. An unpublished paper.
_____2005. The Quest for Paul's Gospel, London: T & T Clark International.
Dodd, Brian. 1995. ‘Romans 1:17 - A crux interpretum for the PISTIS CRISTOU debate?’. Journal of Biblical Literature 114: 470-3.
Dunn, James D. G. 1997. ‘Once more, PISTIS CRISTOU’. In Hay and Johnson [eds.], Pauline   
Theology. Volume 4.
Hays, Richard B. 1997. PISTIS and Pauline Christology: What is at stake?. In Hay and Johnson [eds.].
Pauline Theology. Volume 4.
Hooker, Morna. 1989. ‘PISTIS CRISTOU’, New Testament Studies 35: 321-42.

Gunton (ii) on Creation

The Triune Creator (1998) is a masterly account, (based on the doctrine of creation course Colin taught at King’s for many years) of a trinitarian doctrine of creation. It has not (yet) been bettered. The articulating of a proper theological doctrine of creation is a key theme that pervades through much of Gunton’s work, especially from the early 1990s onwards. In the preface to The Triune Creator he argues that in a history of the doctrine of the creation ‘serious mistakes were made which led to highly problematic outcomes, among them the effective de-christianising of the doctrine and the effective divorce of theology from science’ (TC, ix). Gunton’s achievement is to follow others (like Barth, Torrance, Pannenberg) in the recovery of the doctrine of creation in Christian theology; to emphasize, like Barth, the connection between creation with redemption.

The book takes a historical journey from biblical beginnings and its interplay with Greek philosophy, through the Early Church’s description of mediation and its claim of creation ex nihilo, via the rise of science in the Middle Ages, where the doctrine was all but lost, to its more recent recovery in theologians like Barth, Pannenberg and Moltmann. The last three chapters explore providence, the imago dei and the question of eschatology and ethics.

Gunton argues that the features of the doctrine of creation are as follows: 1. creation 'out of nothing'; 2. creation is a project, that is, it exists for a purpose, derived from the love of God; 3. God relates to creation through his 'two hands' - the Son and the Spirit, who enable creation to be itself; 4. 'conservation', 'preservation', 'providence', 'redemption' are ways in which God works in and towards the creation; 5. the term 'redemption' reminds us that we cannot escape the question of evil - evil is that which prevents the created order from fulfilling its proper purpose; 6. no theology of creation is complete without proper attention being paid to the place of humankind in the project - this cannot be understood apart from christology. Genesis makes the human race both the crown of, and uniquely responsible for, the shape creation takes. By speaking of Jesus Christ as the true image of God, the New Testament shows that this responsibility takes shape through him; and 7. ethical dimensions - ethics, as encompassing not simply principles of action but a whole way of being in the world (see 'The Doctrine of Creation' in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. Gunton, 1997 and chapter 1 of The Triune Creator)

There is not the space to discuss everything Gunton says on the doctrine. I refer you to the texts mentioned for a more detailed description. There is much I've missed out. Instead, here are some choice quotes from Gunton, which give a flavour:

'It is remarkable how deep the assumption that the Christian doctrine of creation is in some way the same thing as some version of the truth of Genesis' (DC, 61)

'The doctrine of creation has to do . . . with the establishment of the other in its own distinctive reality: not divine self-communication, but divine constituting of the world to be truly other, and so itself' (DC, 81-82)

For Gunton, the doctrine of creation requires a strong doctrine of mediation. He writes, 'there is a great deal of difference between saying that all things were created in God, simpliciter, and that it happened and happens in Christ. The reason is ... that the Son is the principle of the distinction between God and the world. It follows that to create in the Son means to create by the mediation of the one who is the way of God out into that which is not himself' (TC, 142-143)

'The Spirit is shown to be the mediator not only of God's creation, but also of his recreating and transforming action ... the Spirit is God's free and unpredictable power of life and renewal in action. The Spirit is not the Spirit of the 'spiritual' or 'religious' part of the human person, but of life in all its dimensions' (CF, 9)

'On the one hand, science, as the study of the created order in its own right, is a proper human activity, as are technology, art and other human activities we call culture. God makes a world that, unlike him, has a beginning and an end, and it is therefore of interest in and for itself as contingent reality ... But on the other hand, particular scientific discoveries are, at the very least, of limited relevance to the doctrine of creation ... however far we back we trace the processes of cosmic evolution after the big bang we shall in principle not be able to trace the hand of God (TC, 87).

According to Gunton, he traces 'the effective exclusion of the doctrine of the Trinity from the structuring of the Christian dcotrine of creation is ... at the root of both its Babylonian captivity and of the apparent mutual exclusion of theology and science' (TC, 116).

'When God is not confessed as the Lord of creation, either titanic man or deified gene take the floor, with the result that both understanding and the world are distorted' (TC, 145).

'The doctrine of creation is not a piece of natural theology, but the first article of the church's confession of faith' (TC, 157).

DC = The Doctrine of Creation (1997, ed. Gunton)
CF = The Christian Faith (2002)
TC = The Triune Creator (1998)

Brueggemann

If 2004 was a year I got to grips more clearly with Tom Wright's work on the New Testament and Jesus and Stanley Hauerwas on theological ethics, 2005 is probably going to be the year I get reading Walter Brueggemann. I'm already working my way through The Prophetic Imagination and Cadences of Home, his commentary on Isaiah 40-66 is on my bookshelf and The Message of the Psalms is on order from Amazon. Brueggemann, much like Wright, writes for the church and not just the academy. He doesn't do biblical studies for the sake of biblical studies, but always with the question, what does this mean for the church today? Like Wright and Hauerwas, he is a (prophetic) voice that the church must listen to and learn from.

Yes

You are the God who is simple, direct, clear with us and for us.
You have comitted yourself to us.
You have said yes to us in creation
yes to us in our birth,
yes to us in our baptism,
yes to us in our awakening this day.

But we are of another kind,
more accoustomed to ''perhaps, maybe, we'll see,''
left in wonderment and ambiguity.

We live our lives not back to your yes ,
but out of our endless ''perhaps.''

So we pray for your mercy this day that we may live yes back to you,
yes with our time,
yes with our money,
yes with our sexuality,
yes with our strength and with our weakness,
yes to our neighbor,
yes and no longer ''perhaps.''

In the name of your enfleshed yes to us,
even Jesus who is our yes into your future. Amen.

Walter Brueggemann, Summer school/July 15, 1998, from Awed to Heaven, Rooted in Earth: Prayers of Walter Brueggemann

24 hour Famine

Tomorrow evening I begin the World Vision 24 hour Famine. We're doing with most of our young people. It's the first time I've ever done it and it's the first time I've ever fasted! So it's going to be quite a challenge, but we're planning lots to keep us occupied and we're hoping we'll sleep for some of it.

I'm glad it's happening in the middle of Lent, with it's association with Jesus' 40 days/40 nights in the wilderness.

Check out the lent blog '05 on konnected. An idea I got last year from jonny baker and grace. It's written by young people (and youthleaders) who are somehow connected to the website.

Being Transformed

I've completed quite of bit of travelling over the last few days - London, Bicester and Bath. During these travels I've picked up some new books, which I'm reading or have now read - Cadences of Home: Preaching to Exiles (Brueggemann), Self and Salvation (Ford) and Cross-Shattered Christ: Mediations on the Last Seven Words (Hauerwas).

Self and Salvation: Being Transformed is a fascinating book, published back in 1999, it was then the first book in the Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (ed. by Dan Hardy and Colin Gunton). Synopsis:

This eagerly awaited book by David F. Ford makes a unique and important contribution to the debate about the Christian doctrine of salvation. Using the pivotal image of the face, Professor Ford offers a constructive and contemporary account of the self being transformed. He engages with three modern thinkers (Levinas, Jüngel and Ricoeur) in order to rethink and reimagine the meaning of self. Developing the concept of a worshipping self, he explores the dimensions of salvation through the lenses of scripture, worship practices, the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and the lives of contemporary saints. He uses different genres and traditions to show how the self flourishes through engagement with God, other people, and the responsibilities and joys of ordinary living. The result is a habitable theology of salvation immersed in Christian faith, thought and practice while also being deeply involved with modern life in a pluralist world.

Download free chapter here.

Much of the book is unfriendly to the non-academic reader and I found the chapters which engaged with Levinas, Jüngel and Ricoeur hard to get through. Despite this, the chapters on worship, the eucharist and 'facing Jesus Christ,' were great and a brilliant source for doing alt.worship. I'm planning to try some of it out at the service-type-thing I'm doing on Good Friday called 'windows on the cross.' Ford argues that when we encounter the face of Christ we are transformed (2 Cor 3:18 obviously being important).

Gunton (i) On the Trinity

Colin Gunton once remarked that ‘suddenly we are all trinitarians . . . the doctrine of the Trinity is now discussed in places where even a short time ago it would have been regarded as an irrelevance’ (PTT, xv). The twentieth century, like no other century before, saw the rekindling of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. This must in part lie at the door of Karl Barth, who’s ‘achievement . . . showed that the doctrine of the Trinity is not the abstract theory which it is often said to be, but the spelling out of the implications of the living presence of God in our world’ (Schwobel, TTT, 2).

Gunton said of Barth: ‘[he] . . . is the pioneer of a way of doing theology whose day has still not yet fully come’ (BB, 245). However, Gunton does not view theology as simply an interpretation of Barth and has his own unique theological programme. It is perhaps better to think of Gunton in a theological conversation with Barth, who is often the starting point, but not necessarily the finishing point. Alongside this respect for Barth, the other key characteristic of Gunton’s work is the contribution of the Cappadocian Fathers. The formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity and the insights into person language by these theologians is a reservoir of theology for Gunton and he admits in his book, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, he ‘was tempted . . . to call it, Homage to Cappadocia’ (PTT, 204). Connected with his appreciation of Cappadocian theology, there is a contrasting critique of the traditional Western doctrine of the Trinity, especially of Augustine, to whom Gunton perceives as the theologian most responsible for the relegation of the doctrine of the Trinity in Western theology.

What then has Gunton to say about the doctrine of the Trinity? In The Christian Faith (2002), we find one of his clearest treatment of the Trinity. One of Gunton’s primary concerns is to show that the doctrine of the Trinity matters and the charge that it has ‘no point other than a fruitless attempt to reconcile apparently contradictory numbers’ (CF, 179f.), leaves us with no confidence and no basis for anything. For ‘if Schleiermacher is right’, Gunton argues, ‘God in his inner being may be, for all that we know, radically different from the God we meet in experience’ and this leaves us without a basis for knowing anything, because ‘our experience may be finally deceptive’ (CF, 179). The Christian Faith, then, is ultimately an attempt to give an ‘account of divine action in the world conceived in thoroughgoing trinitarian terms’ (CF, 180). Gunton wants to show that every action of God in the world is a trinitarian action - the Father, Son and Spirit are all involved. We understand ‘the Spirit never works independently of the Son, for it is the latter to whom he is sent to bear witness’ (CF, 180) and as all ‘the Son’s work is that of the Father’ (CF, 180), the Spirit refers everything to the Father through the Son.

Gunton frequently in his work refers to Irenaeus’ analogy of the two hands of God as the best way to understand how the economic Trinity works. The two hands referring to the Son and the Spirit. For Gunton, the Father’s action ‘is mediated in a twofold way, by his Son and Spirit’ (Cf, 181). This of course might suggest that Gunton is making the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father, i.e. only the Father is fully divine and the other two persons are something less than fully God. Gunton defends himself from this by separating what he sees as an economic subordination - the Son and Spirit are sent by the Father - from a essential subordination. In other words, that the Son and Spirit are economically subordinate, does not mean there is ‘a subordination in the eternal being of God’ (p. 181). Gunton refers here again to Irenaeus’ two hands: ‘when our hands doing something, we ourselves do it. So, when the Son and Spirit act in time and history, their acts are the acts of God the Father performed through them’ (CF, 181).

With the economic Trinity established, Gunton asks the question, ‘Is there any point in asking about an eternal or immanent Trinity, in some way distinct from the God made known in the economy?’ (CF, 184). He believes we do: ‘This is the eternal God in action, and, because that is so, we are bound to distinguish between the action and the agent, at least to the extent of answering the question of who it is who so acts in our time’ (CF, 184). This is not to make random speculations about the immanent Trinity for ‘the point of the doctrine of the immanent Trinity is to provide a ground for the theology of the economy, but to go no further than is licensed by his revelation’ (CF, 185).

In understanding how God can be - ontologically speaking - three in one, Gunton utilizes the Cappadocian phrase of perichoresis, which 'refers to the mutual indwelling and coinherence of the persons of the Trinity' (FSS, 44). Perichoresis then describes how God is one and three - the relatedness of the persons to one another in unity (being-in-communion).

Gunton’s treatment now draws our attention to person language. Here Gunton is indebted to the Cappadocian trinitarian revolution, which detached the term hypostasis from ousia and identified it instead with prosopon. John Zizioulas sums up neatly the consequences:

‘This meant that from now on a relational term [prosopon] entered into ontology [hypostasis] and, conversely, that an ontological category such as hypostasis entered the relational categories of existence. To be and to be in relational becomes identical’ (Being in Communion, 1985, 88-89).

Gunton, supporting this says, ‘God is a fellowship of persons whose orientation is entirely to the other’ (Cf, 186). This relational understanding of persons allows Gunton on the one hand, to emphasise the oneness of God, ‘God is only what he is as three persons whose being is so closely bound up with one another that they together constitute the one God’ (CF, 186). And on the other hand, also to stress the threeness of God, ‘the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and all three of them are essential to God’s being as God’ (Cf, 187).

Gunton demonstrates the importance of the immanent Trinity for ‘to say that God is already, and eternally, an order of love prevents us from having to say that it is in some way necessary for God to create a world’ (Cf, 187). The doctrine of the Trinity defends God’s freedom, ‘it maintains the utter self-sufficiency of God’s being’ (CF, 187). He is not somewhat incomplete without the world, but perfectly complete in the triune relationship of Father, Son and Spirit. It also allows ‘the world to be itself’ and not some ‘function of his being’ (CF, 187).

Gunton is unquestionably a trinitarian theologian, a description that Christoph Schwobel calls ‘a summary label for doing theology that affects all aspects of the enterprise of doing theology in its various disciplines . . .’ (TTT, 1). Gunton has articulated a dogma that stays true to scripture, gives respect to the tradition, but is also coherent for a postmodern world. Few other theologians have tackled the Trinity and fully recognised its chief place within systematic theology. Whether Gunton’s treatment will stand the test of time is still to be seen. He acknowledged that it is the case that ‘the fate of all dogmatic systems to be dismembered and used in the construction of other systems’ (BB, 245). What we find is a doctrine of the Trinity that deserves to have it’s place alongside that of Barth.

TTT = Trinitarian Theology Today, ed. C. Schwobel, 1995
PTT = The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, 2nd Ed., 1997
BB = Becoming and Being, 2nd Ed., 2001
CF = The Christian Faith, 2002
FSS = Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 2003

For a recent assessment of Gunton's doctrine of the Trinity see Paul Molnar's Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity (2002)

Good Theology for All

Just found this today from C. S. Lewis on Maggi's blog and its spot on.

Everyone has warned me not to tell you what I am going to tell you…They all say “the ordinary reader does not want Theology; give him plain practical religion.” I have rejected their advice. I do not think the ordinary reader is such a fool. Theology means “the science of God,” and I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available. You are not children: why should you be treated like children? Theology is practical. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones—bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today, are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected. To believe in the popular religion of modern England (or America) is retrogression—like believing the earth is flat.
C S Lewis, Mere Christianity, 135-136

It's partly why I want to do some stuff on Colin Gunton. Very few people in the church will have read him and I think unlike some theologians Colin wrote in a highly accessible way - communicating sometimes complicated ideas in a readable and engaging way.