There is an obvious pretext for this subject. But we don’t need a lot to make it relevant, as we are all aware of it, especially preachers. But a good deal of uneasiness is what brought this subject out into the open. My talk or discussion starter, and I hope a response that will be profitable. Note the double title– a statement and a question. Both are important.
First of all, there are problems in theology. Anyone who thinks it is easy does not know what he is talking about. It follows that good, well intentioned people can get wrong answers. A child that thinks 2+2=5 is not wicked, though you will not agree with that child. Similarly, in theology one needs patience and tolerance. Consider Wesley’s sermon on Catholic Spirit. Of course there are indeed destructive errors. When we have grasped this, the question follows. Tolerance does not prevent us from seeking answers to great problems. So let us look at some (but not all).
- Where does theology come from? It is the ground of what we say in sermons (for sermons are an exercise in theologizing). Nothing can be Christian theology if it is not focused on Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christian theology is based on the Bible for nothing else really tells us about Him. This does not yet involve the issues of inspiration and authority. It does involve the interpretation of both the OT and the NT for Christ and Jesus. And we are indeed interpreters for simply to repeat the word of the NT is not enough. And in fact none of us does it, offering just the Scripture lesson and no sermon. This means seeing Biblical thought in contemporary terms. While this is always necessary, it is also always dangerous. Thus in the 4th and 5th centuries bout Christian theology and the eucharist were interpreted in terms of substance, ousia in terms of Greek philosophical thought. This led to a Christological impasse and sacramental error. If you leap to the 20th century there is existentialism. From one point of view this is an improvement, but it loses on the objective side (cf. also traditional Methodism?). This leads to…
- Who was Jesus? What was Jesus? The NT is clear that he was a man. Is that all? NO! What then? This is the hard question. The NT’s answer is perspectival moving toward essential (recognizing the importance of variety). Concepts developed by the Son (starting from ABBA and moving to ‘I and the Father are One; No one knows the Father except….’ and by Word (the message moving to personal revealer). Jesus gives what only God can give— Forgiveness of sins against God and new life. So is he God? That at present we have to ask.
- What do we mean by God? Of course no one can fully define God, for this is the entity which by definition there is only one. a) I am surrounded by things for which no human being is responsible, due either to chance or to a Creator. For example any and all of the material creation and the very universe itself. The Creator theory cannot be proved but it certainly makes more sense. b) Of these things the most interesting are persons. It makes sense to see a Supreme Person behind them. c) of all these persons the most crucial one is Jesus and he believed in one he thought of as Abba. d) the danger of all this is it tends to make God in our image, which is why some (e.g. Tillich) prefer to speak of ‘the ground of being’. The truth is (for the reason given above) we are bound to use images. These always need correction by one or another (Father, leader, judge etc.). and by finite/infinite.
- What is the result? If there is such a being as God, nothing is more important than to be rightly related to Him. If He created us, we can be rightly related only by doing what He intends us to do. This we see in Jesus, and we are not doing it. God then has two choices– either to wipe us out, or put things right. According to Jesus, He chooses the latter option, and we come back to the offer of forgiveness and new life. This leads us in many directions e.g. to the future life since we are manifestly not yet fully renewed.
- Here then are some basic concepts. Let us then in the light of them look at the questions which have been so much debated— the virgin birth and the resurrection. a) What do the Gospel actually say? How do we understand the Gospels? What final truth do they wish to convey? A biological or a theological saving truth? Did the LXX rendering parthenos reading of the Hebrew almah affect them? What have we lost if the Virgin Birth is given up? In Matthew do we gain anything? Can the historical question be historically settled either by assuming the answer or from an anti-supernatural a priori? b) What does the NT say? That Jesus is alive, he appeared to many, the grave was empty. Here there must have been something different or the whole case would collapse– thus this differs from a).
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In