Sketching an alternative proposal

What options then may be open to readers who share Clayton’s and Knapp’s concern for a dynamic Christology, but who want to retain a more traditional theological framework?

Here I can of course only offer the briefest of sketches, but you might call my tentative proposal ‘semi-adoptionist’, for want of a better term, drawing on Philip Clayton’s former Doktorvater Wolfhart Pannenberg. What if we retain the pre-incarnate Logos – it is absolutely the Second Person of the Trinity who takes flesh -, but radicalize the kenosis of Philippians 2 by taking seriously the free acceptance by the Logos of subjection to physical and mental developmental processes (from conception to Cross) including all they entails in the light of our limited but real scientific knowledge of human physicality. Jesus as divine Son is united to the Father ontologically throughout his earthly life, but is not necessarily consciously aware of it; the Logos rather ‘starts again from zero’ in accepting the limitations imposed by inherited human DNA, neurological structure, cognitive development, development and obedience to his earthly parents (Luke 2:51-52), having to learn a human religious tradition in its particularity, and the unavoidable reality of spending around one-third of his life snoring (yes, Jesus slept as well as wept!).

In this scenario Jesus is not ‘adopted’ at Baptism or Resurrection in the sense of crossing a threshold between a ‘non-divine’ and a divine nature, but certainly attains to a new intensification of his Sonship in a ‘functional’ sense. He is anointed with the Spirit at Baptism, raised through the Spirit at Easter and exalted as Kyrios  at his Ascension by virtue of having defeated the Powers in his self-emptying death on the Cross.  Appropriating The Predicament’s language of emergence theory, these are real events in Jesus’s life where a new ‘emergent level’ is reached. In this scheme there is therefore authentic becoming without the radical discontinuity suggested by all-out adoptionism. At the same time this ‘becoming’ is not restricted to the humanity of Jesus; as long as we regard Christ as one person and not two and remember that his indwelling by the Spirit, his earthly life is simultaneously the experience of a human being and the life of humanity experienced by God.

To use Irenaeus’s framework of seeing Jesus’s life as a recapitulation of what it is to be a human being, I would like to suggest that the mission of his earthly existence is in some way to become in time, through a life of self-giving love and perfect obedience to the Father, the Son that he is from all eternity.

As to how it is possible to keep the notion of the eternal Son while admitting real development in Jesus’s life, I would suggest that the idea of ‘Sonship’ has two aspects which, while obviously related, are conceptually separable. This was already explored by Pannenberg in Jesus, God and Man when trying make sense of Paul’s affirmation on the one hand of Christ’s pre-existence found in expressions such as ‘God sent his Son’ (Galatians 4:4) and formulations such as Romans 1:3, where Jesus is ‘designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead’, which has sometimes been interpreted in adoptionist fashion.  Pannenberg’s position is that while adoptionist language is undoubtedly Biblical, ‘the idea of Jesus’ adoption by God says too little’ and that – quoting Paul Althaus – ‘Jesus was what he is before he knew about it’.

One aspect of the Divine Sonship is filiation, i.e. the Son as the ‘only-begotten’ of John 1:18, a status which obviously cannot be ‘renounced’ kenotically. If we are using the title ‘Son’ in this way, it seems wholly reasonable to assert that Jesus was God’s ‘Son’ even in Mary’s womb. However, once the word ‘Sonship’ is used in its second sense, invested with real content in terms of the outworking of Jesus’s character rather than merely denoting filiation, things look different; if what we talking about is Jesus’s path of self-emptying love, this inevitably requires the trajectory of a life lived. It simply can’t happen by magic.

Being a composer, let me conclude with a musical analogy. Imagine the Son’s eternal Divine nature ‘vertically’ in terms of harmony, as a chord you could strike on a piano or a guitar. Now take those same notes into the world of ‘melody’ where things happen in time, i.e. horizontally, and play them in succession from the bottom up. But don’t dampen the strings of the guitar, and leave the piano pedal down. What happens is that you arrive at the same chord. In our temporally-structured world of earthly existence, it is such a ‘melodic’ unfolding which is the only means of the ‘composing-out’ of Jesus’s Sonship (Auskomponierung in the German technical jargon of which music theorists are just as fond as systematic theologians). Something really happens. But the notes are the same as those of the chord, and the listener’s experience is enriched by the melody. Not only enriched, but hopefully inspired for her own melodic journey through life.

The project represented by The Predicament of Belief  is surely an excellent and important one; Steven Knapp and Philip Clayton deserve our congratulations and gratitude for the considerable service that they have rendered both to the academy and the Church in undertaking it. But I think that I am not misinterpreting the intentions of the authors themselves in saying that their book is best taken as a starting-point and not as a final destination.

To be continued.

Doubly trained in music and systematic/philosophical theology, Peter Bannister is Associate Artistic Director and Composer-in-Association of SOLI DEO GLORIA Inc., a Chicago-based organization devoted to furthering sacred music in the Judeo-Christian tradition. He also co-directs the American Church in Paris’s participation in the John Templeton Foundation’s ‘Scientists in Congregations Ministry Initiative’, and is the author of the Music and Theology blog ‘Da stand das Meer’.

 The Predicament of Belief  by Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp is a first-rate book – both highly thought-provoking and courageous. Philip Clayton has consistently shown himself to be one of the Church’s most creative thinkers and is perhaps unequalled in offering imaginative tools for re-invigorating our approach to Christian faith ‘after Google’. For catalyzing and hosting constructive debate with a combination of intellectual vigour and graciousness there simply seems to be no-one better on the horizon of the contemporary theological landscape. So I’m a fan.

The first philosophical chapters of The Predicament of Belief, making a powerful case for the rationality of believing in a personal, benevolent Ultimate Reality, are ones with which I find myself agreeing without reservation. I start getting nervous when the authors’ ‘Christian minimalist’ position is taken as more than a pragmatic expression of what can be adduced without stepping beyond rational justifiability. When minimalism becomes a preferred option in the search not merely for human consensus but for truth about Ultimate Reality, my theological nerve-endings start jangling.

Adoptionism – the only solution ?

Here I would particularly like to focus on Christology. I’m torn between admiration for the authors’ brave attempt at a minimal ‘core Christian proposal’ that can function as a rallying-point for the contemporary Church and ambivalence towards their constructive suggestion. Is it a) the only viable truth-claim available in the present climate or b) a simple working hypothesis whose interest lies in its usefulness for stemming the decline in American mainline Protestantism, an attractive proposition to those alienated by traditional dogma? While I agree that sensitivity to those suspicious of doctrine in general is highly desirable, I find The Predicament overly pessimistic about rationally justifying anything approaching an orthodox theological viewpoint: their assumption that such a position cannot stand in the 21st century seems a little hasty. Especially as my experience is that the ‘spiritual but not religious’ constituency which minimalism hopes to attract is just as resistant to the ‘left-brain’ logical argumentation represented by The Predicament as to an insistence on literal adherence to ancient creeds.

In the book, adoptionism is presented as an option ‘that does not include the claim that the same person who became the man Jesus already existed in divine form before Jesus was born’.  Instead, ‘after Jesus’s death, God somehow took this individual’s subjectivity into the divine subjectivity, commingling them in such a way that they came to dwell within each other and even to become identical to each other.’ This supposedly offers a way out of the ‘dichotomy that either Jesus continues as the identical person within the godhead or Jesus is a merely human model for others to emulate.’ This ‘may be attractive to those contemporary Christians who can’t quite believe (even if they have no way of definitively denying) the complicated assertions of classical Trinitarian thought, but who nevertheless find themselves believing in Jesus’ continuing personal presence’.

Towards the end of his concise Emergent Village presentation of the book  (around the 30 minute mark on the HBC podcast), PC puts his theological hands up and admits that his preference goes to ‘adoptionist’ Christology because the alternative of an eternal preexistent Logos is not persuasive now that static Greek metaphysics have landed in the trash can of history. Not unless you believe in a ‘three bears with three chairs’ Trinity (don’t worry, you’ll understand if you listen to the audio…).

The pre-existent Logos: an obsolete accessory ?

For PC, the preexistent Logos simply has to go. But what takes its place? I find myself having mixed sentiments towards his constructive proposal. I can certainly understand his argument and agree as far as the utility of a Spirit Christology is concerned. I also very much find myself drawn to his view (shared by many of the participants in the Claremont discussion) that the resource of process thought makes a better bridge between theology and contemporary science than Greek metaphysical discourse. And I don’t want to exaggerate the extent to which Philip Clayton has taken a position that can’t be accommodated within an orthodox Christian framework given some judicious alterations in vocabulary.

It should be admitted

1.  that his welcome affirmation of the post-Resurrection unity of Jesus and God has bigger practical implications for the Church today than the issue of the pre-incarnate Logos and that
2.  it is historically undeniable that adoptionism was certainly a valid option within the very earliest Christian period. For those on the fringes of Christian belief who looking for an entry-point to Christian theology, an adoptionist Christology can perhaps be of value.

However, it must be said that Philip Clayton’s solution of his conundrum is not without cost, and that the price (exegetical, theological and ecumenical) is maybe higher than either The Predicament of Belief or the Emergent Village Theological Conversation seem to suggest.

Conclusion – Part 1: 

Firstly, an adoptionist position arguably leads to problems with Scripture which are difficult to solve even with a black belt in exegetical judo.

Secondly, the theological price. Get rid of the preexistent Logos and you also kiss farewell to the Immanent Trinity, Trinitarian theology of creation and Trinitarian theological anthropology. Hasta la vista to the Cappadocian Fathers – and Eastern Christian tradition more generally (as well as Celtic Christianity in the West), for which the threeness of God is as just as much theological bedrock as the Divine Unity. Philosophically, if God is not eternally Triune, then grounding otherness ontologically becomes impossible unless you go the route of ontologizing the God-world relationship (which creates other problems). If the Son is not eternal, then logically neither is the Father.

 Thirdly, the view that belief in the eternal Logos is just Greek metaphysical mumbo-jumbo has been challenged by recent research on Philo (identified in The Predicament as the conduit for Logos theology), not only by Christian scholars such as Larry Hurtado and Margaret Barker but also within Jewish studies on the part of Alan F Segal and more recently Daniel Boyarin. If their thesis of the pre-Christian incorporation of the Logos and other mediating concepts within a Jewish framework of salvation history is correct, then the notion that the Logos is a static concept derived purely from Hellenistic sources becomes questionable. If Judaism at the time of early Christianity proved capable of translating the Logos into its own conceptualities, thereby seriously tweaking the Greek concept, this raises the possibility that a creative theological appropriation of the Logos idea may equally be a way forward for us today. It’s not automatically a theological albatross.

 Fourthly, an overtly ‘adoptionist’ position risks alienating some theological constituencies (I’m thinking particularly of Social Trinitarians, admirers of Stanley Hauerwas, and ‘post-conservatives’ drawn to the work of figures such as Roger Olson or NT Wright) which might otherwise be attracted to this conversation and would certainly be welcome contributors to it. If PC wants a Big Tent approach, then prodding the roof with a sharp object may not be advisable. As even superstar theologians such as Hans Küng in the 1970s and more recently Elizabeth A Johnson have discovered to their cost, embracing an adoptionist Christology is not necessarily a way to win friends and influence people in certain circles: there are simply too many people out there willing to hit the ‘THIS IS HERESY!!!!’ button, and life is too short to have to deal with them.

in part 2: an alternative proposal. 

Doubly trained in music and systematic/philosophical theology, Peter Bannister is Associate Artistic Director and Composer-in-Association of SOLI DEO GLORIA Inc., a Chicago-based organization devoted to furthering sacred music in the Judeo-Christian tradition. He also co-directs the American Church in Paris’s participation in the John Templeton Foundation’s ‘Scientists in Congregations Ministry Initiative’, and is the author of the Music and Theology blog ‘Da stand das Meer’.

As one of the behind the scenes helpers of Big Tent Christianity, I can honestly say that I feel like last week’s Phoenix event was very successful. I know that others are weighing in on things that they would have liked to have seen or things that we can do differently next time – and I agree with many of these suggestions; I think we all do.

But before we focus on the 10% that could use adjustment, I want to highlight four things that I think were done right and which made this an overwhelming hit: partnership, dialogue, facilitation and leadership.

Partnership: we partnered with people. The Arizona Center for Contemporary Theology, The Desert Emergent Cohort and the Beatitudes Church were wonderful hosts and friends to Big Tent.  We didn’t pick some random city off the map, we responded to an invitation. We didn’t book some conference center or large hotel to stage the event, we were hosted by a congregation.

This shift in theological dialogue is not primarily about ideas but about relationship – not about impressiveness but about connection. If the main concern was to stage a big event with nationally known speakers then you would do that differently than what we did in Phoenix. I loved the connections that we made and the way that they were made.

Dialogue: we had conversations. Carol Howard-Merritt was the first speaker and set the perfect tone. David Felton spoke with an honesty that carried weight because of his position and location.

Eliacin Rosario-Cruz in conversation with Brian McLaren about the practices and rhythms of faith and life.

Nadia Bolz-Weber in dialogue with Richard Rohr about conflict and reconciliation.

Anthony Smith in dialogue with Tripp Fuller about Pentecost and post-Colonial realities.

Rachel Held-Evans taking on Marcus Borg in the Evolution break-out session.

Brian Ammons’ letter to the Bishop.

Mark Scandrette’s spoken word prayer-benediction-exhortation.

This is the upside to a conference like this. There are always limitations to this sort of event, but one of the advantages it that we get to listen in on conversations that we would never get to hear otherwise.  When Shane Hipps, Spencer Burke, and Barry Taylor were talking about technology and spirituality, I was so happy to be in that room.

Facilitation: we organized and empowered. There were many moments where I thought to myself “I love this moment”.  We had Main-Liners, Emergents, Evangelicals, Neo-Monastics, Pentecostals, Conservatives, and ‘Nones’  talking about Prayer, Evolution, Technology, the Bible, Sex, the Church, Demons, Intentional Communities, and Race.

This happened in break-out sessions, over coffee breaks, in main sessions, over meals and at late-night mixers.

Leadership: The simplest way to say this is that Big Tent is one branch on a big tree. When you have an internationally acclaimed Theologian like Philip Clayton who gets a vision and a subsequent grant to “Transform Christian Theology” and he does this – not by writing a 3 volume systematic theology – but by being in dialogue with others and facilitating conversation between others … I think that is really saying something.  Something that is probably too easily overlooked or taken for granted in this age of cynicism where it is easier to make sarcastic quips from the back row than to make substantial contributions on the front line (I am preaching to myself here).

I loved Big Tent Phoenix – and not just because I was on the planning team. I was on the planning team because I love what this is and what it represents and what it can become.

There will be things that will be different at Big Tent NY or Big Tent San Fran or Big Tent Portland-Seattle.  (I am making those up because I am hoping for them)

In addition to the Denominational diversity there is always an eye toward Gender and Race representation. The theological and ecumenical voices will be increasingly complimented by the thoughtful practitioner.

One thing is for sure: Big Tent Phoenix was a moment – a living moment. Heads and hearts were enlivened, lives and communities were influenced. Seeds were planted. I am grateful for the opportunity to have been a part of it and I look forward to seeing where it  goes from here.

you can connect with Bo at his blog http://aneverydaytheology.blogspot.com/ or on FaceBook

The Great Work was published at the dawn of the 21st century. In it, Berry, who uses the title of geologian, eloquently tells the story of the planet’s 3.4 billion year history, describing all of the ‘moments of grace’, when life flourished and unfolded. He passionately encourages us all to find our own time as another moment of grace when the Cenozoic era ends and we enter into what he hopes will be an ‘Ecozoic’ era, rediscovering a mutually beneficial relationship with nature. His words will continue to inspire us to search for a new cosmology – one in which humans are the consciousness of the universe and exist for the perfection of the universe rather than the other way around.

Berry’s thinking has influenced me quite a bit, obviously. Probably the most apparent way is that I never use the word ‘stewardship’ when talking about our relationship with creation. I prefer words like ‘kinship’ and ‘partnership’ because in these terms, a mutually beneficial relationship and intrinsic worth is implied. As Berry puts it, ‘the universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects.’

So I encourage you to check out some of Berry’s writings or revisit them; they will prod you to want to participate in the great work of planning for a new universal community. His writings are a huge reason why I don’t do things that normal 27-year-olds do; instead I saunter off into the wilderness for 5 months at a time and sit around and dream about how to create communities that will improve our relationship with Creation.

I’m grateful for Tom’s great work, a work that continues.

You can download the first 50 pages of the book on the website.

Michael’s blog is definitely worth reading: thankgodforevolution.com/category/blog

The post we translate into piratespeak in the introduction is ‘God is NOT a Supernatural Terrorist.’

San Antonio is well-represented this week with calls from Paul Soupiset and Pete Zimmerman. Great to hear from you two.

Next week we’ll be back without the pirate and flu voices.

Email: podcast[at]homebrewedchristianity.com

Call in: 678-590-BREW (Click to Skype us.)

Tripp posted some new videos on the Transforming Theology YouTube Channel, so we thought we’d take this opportunity to do a little Darwin recap.

John Cobb discussing Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the trouble with the traditional debate it creates in the church

Discussing the problem of genetic determinism and materialism in neo-darwinism and offering an alternative from a process perspective

Discussing the religious critique of evolution, the emergence of ID, and how process thought moves past the impasse

Pastor Bob Cornwall:

Charles Darwin on Religion

An interesting article by Professor John Hedley Brooke of Oxford University, which offers a look into Darwin’s thoughts about religion and science.

Evolutionary Explanation of Religion

As a Christian (and as a pastor) I confess faith in a creator. At the same time, I accept the findings of science that suggest that we have evolved from a common ancestor of all that exists.

Tony Jones:

Mrs. Darwin Would Be Proud

Charles Darwin’s wife, Emma, famously disliked her husband’s theories, and he actually wrote On the Origin of Species in a way that he hoped wouldn’t be offensive to her.  Well, it seems that a sesquicentury later, the two are still locked in a struggle for the hearts and minds of Americans.

NPR:

Taking Darwin Personally

Why do Charles Darwin‘s ideas generate such strong resistance? Maybe because it hurts people’s feelings. But does accepting our place in the animal kingdom make us any less miraculous?

Students Reconcile Darwin’s Theories with Faith

The state of Kansas has been publicly wrestling with how or whether to teach Darwin‘s theory of evolution in the public schools. At the University of Kansas, some students are studying biological sciences despite devout Christian faith and a strong belief in the biblical story of creation. They face internal struggles similar to the ones Darwin himself must have felt as he wrestled with his scientific theories about evolution.

Drew Lumpkin:

Evolution of Religion

Is there an evolutionary benefit, among early humans, that could explain biologically and psychologically why religion perpetuated itself? Oversimplified, how and why did religion emerge?

and ‘one big omnipost covering several facets of Darwin’s birthday.’

Tripp Fuller

Response to Drew’s Evolution of Religion: Darwin and the Evolution of Religion

James McGrath

‘A Closed Challenge to Neo-Darwinists’ and his report from Sunday School on being ‘Fearfully and Wonderfully Evolved.’

John Shuck

Shares his Evolution Sunday sermon, ‘Solar Living.’

For fun:

Ways Charles Darwin Could Jump the Shark

For fun another perspective:

Al Mohler

Efforts to resolve this challenge generally involve a misunderstanding of biblical Christianity, a misunderstanding of evolution, or a misunderstanding of both.

Annotated list of Al Mohler’s articles on Darwin.

Finally: HBC 37, 43, 44, and 45 (wait for it…coming soon)

Tripp’s conversation with Daniel is very engaging and thought-provoking. Don’t miss this one.

Also check out:

Reviews from Scot McKnight, Bob Cornwall, and Mike Clawson

And it’s a big podcast week for Daniel: TheNickandJoshPodcast.com (ep 104)

Let us know your thoughts on evolution and faith so we can continue the conversation. Leave us a message at 678-590-BREW.

Hey, you know that old conflict between religion and science? Remember the Scopes monkey trial in 1925 or the 1960 film about the case? How about the legislative battles of the last few years in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Kansas over the mandatory inclusion of intelligent design alongside evolution in public schools?

Waiting for worldviews to change to accommodate new science is like watching the emergence of multicellularity. Keep in mind that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species is only 150 years old. Copernicus’s On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres was published in 1543. That book wasn’t completely dropped from the Vatican’s list of banned books for another 300 years. (I wonder if foundation-shattering books would fly under heresy radars if the titles didn’t start with “On the…”)

Chuck, on the other hand, just got fast-tracked! On Darwin’s 200th birthday, the Vatican is officially on board with evolution! Also, more than 800 pastors and rabbis are celebrating “Evolution Weekend.”

NPR reported that even in The Bible Belt there is a quiet shift away from biblical literalism. Henry Green, a Southern Baptist minister in Maryland is one of the pastors now preaching about evolution in the pulpit.

“Well, guess what, I believe God created,” says Green, “but I also believe that the scientists have it right in understanding that creation.”

This shift that’s taking place integrates contemporary science with spiritual insights in religious texts. As a minister myself, I think this piece is a necessity when it comes to getting our flocks on board with healing the Earth as an integral part of faith.

When we can no longer remember when religion and science were at odds with one another – when as one species we recognize that we have only been here for a blink of an eye in the history of life on Earth – we’ll be unified in seeing the seriousness of the violence against Creation/Earth that we’ve done in our short lifespan. Maybe then we’ll have the common will needed to restructure our institutions and businesses in life-giving rather than destructive ways. Maybe we’re ready to pick up the shovels now.

Evolution Weekend gives me hope for that kind of future.

You can find all of my Sustainablog posts here. As we get closer to Lent, check out my Green Lent series from last year.

What Does Lent Have To Do With Sharpening Green Habits?

Spanish Literature and Religious Environmentalism: A Green Lent Update

Eco Palm Sunday: A Green Lent Update

No Easter Faith Without Environmentalism

Our talk covers:

disenchantment in the modern era
a new cosmology that encourages a deeper relationship with God and creation
viewing the gospel through an evolutionary, ecological lens

Bruce is the pastor of Canadian Memorial United Church in Vancouver, British Columbia and author of Darwin, Divinity, and the Dance of the Cosmos and The Emerging Church: A Model for Change and a Map for Renewal.

We also have a little fun with the legendary band Devo…in honor of Darwin’s 200th birthday (on Thursday) and 150th anniversary of On the Origin of the Species. Listen to find out the connection.

Thank you Deacon Kevin for calling the Homebrewed Hotline (678-590-BREW) and sharing how HBC has brought you closer to your brother. The entire Homebrewed Diaconate is invited to call us and share your story of how the podcast has improved your relationships.

Also check out Episode 26 with Bruce Sanguin and Tripp’s review of The Emerging Church on Emergent Village.