tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post5883197833953002411..comments2023-12-08T04:43:40.135-06:00Comments on The Fire and the Rose: On the new universalism: a response to James K. A. SmithUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-84291007309064340332015-01-30T17:18:56.469-06:002015-01-30T17:18:56.469-06:00Hi David,
Fellow suburbanite in Chicagoland here....Hi David,<br /><br />Fellow suburbanite in Chicagoland here. This is an old post of yours, so I don't know to what degree you are still interested in this topic. I look forward to seeing the books you have written when they come out. In the meantime, on this issue of a Christocentric theology of "Universal Reconciliation" and the consensus of Church history, you might find this post interesting (along with a number of others at the same site): https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/the-canons-of-the-synod-of-constantinople-543/<br /><br />An interesting difference between the Eastern Orthodox world to which I belong now and the Evangelical one I used to belong to, is that, for the most part, the most conservative Evangelicals were ready to declare Rob Bell a heretic after the publication of "Love Wins," whereas Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac of Ninevah are officially Saints in the Eastern Orthodox communion, despite its equally official rejection of at least one particular version of Universalism ("Origenism").<br /><br />Karen<br />ofgracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15472912900056438243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-42939334067640013992011-06-13T15:38:51.031-05:002011-06-13T15:38:51.031-05:00David -- good post. I too was disappointed in Jam...David -- good post. I too was disappointed in Jamie's post, and I am not even a universalist. What really bugged me is that he completely ignored the "middle" positions that many (most?) Christians of every sort (evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) have found persuasive and that are part of the Tradition -- e.g. some kind of inclusivism. The arguments he makes against universalism also apply against any sort of inclusivism. In fact, his arguments seemingly would apply against any sort of claim to "know" anything about God from personal experience or from increasing experience with the broader world.dopderbeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08464721595750013279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-90311533213102897812011-05-13T14:42:02.043-05:002011-05-13T14:42:02.043-05:00Thanks for your thoughts.
From the sounds of it, ...Thanks for your thoughts.<br /><br />From the sounds of it, you don't seem to think that the history of the church has relative authority, but that it has no authority. Fair enough. Thanks for the time you've offered to answer my question.Stephen Kroghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10000165989213732857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-25242020909818501082011-05-11T09:01:48.589-05:002011-05-11T09:01:48.589-05:00Thanks, Stephen, for the clarification. I guess I&...Thanks, Stephen, for the clarification. I guess I'm not convinced that any historical consensus counts as "evidence." I take my previous comment to be a response to your clarification as well. Let me try to flesh this out a bit more.<br /><br />I am perfectly willing to say that the biblical writers, at least in the NT and perhaps certain Second Temple texts, believed in the reality of a hell or a future separation between the righteous and the damned. This kind of view is, however, not at all unique to Judaic-Christian thought, and in fact it's highly likely that it was imported into Hebraic theology during its period of exile along with the conception of the "satan." These views were radicalized and revised among the various Jewish groups, and the Christian church was born in the midst of a highly apocalyptic period in Jewish thinking.<br /><br />The question is this: is this view about some future separation between the righteous and the damned consonant with (i.e., does it follow from) the logic of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Now, this requires that we gain clarity regarding what the gospel actually is, and that is of course the crucial question. But what I want to say, in agreement with the likes of Barth and many others, is: no, it's not consonant. Put differently, the gospel as transcendent norm <b>stands over against scripture itself</b>, even is scripture is itself the normative witness to this norm. What I am getting at is that the hermeneutical key to Christian self-understanding is not identifiable with the biblical text but is rather a kind of "canon within the canon" or "norm within the norm." I've written about how I define this inner norm, and I can go into more detail about it if you want. But I just want to clarify first the methodology or the logic by which I am operating.<br /><br />The key question, again, is this: does such and such a view follow from the scandalous logic of the gospel, that is, the kerygma of the crucified and risen Christ as testified to (primarily) by the Pauline epistles? That is the question that basically determines how I approach matters. If it runs counter to the entirety of the tradition, then so be it. God's Spirit is not bound to what has been said. The Word is living and active today.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-20611756443695742712011-05-10T20:16:20.225-05:002011-05-10T20:16:20.225-05:00I am sorry for the formatting issues on that last ...I am sorry for the formatting issues on that last question, by the way. I am not sure why it all came out as one difficult to read paragraph.Stephen Kroghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10000165989213732857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-70688682174201591232011-05-10T17:18:02.209-05:002011-05-10T17:18:02.209-05:00Hi David,
Thanks for your response. I realize tha...Hi David,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. I realize that you are currently quite busy writing a dissertation and, from the sounds of it, a book; nonetheless, I hope you will indulge me a bit.<br /><br />I think I may have set up my question in the wrong way. I did not intend to imply that a historical consensus from within ecclesial history concerning a position implies that one ought to accept that position from the consensus alone; rather, I think the historical consensus serves as evidence in favor of the position (assuming a hermeneutic of charity when approaching church history, something I assume all honest people of good will apply to their inquiries). Thus my question was how you respond to the evidence of the proposition that all will not be saved viz. the consensus from within ecclesial history. Thus, I hope you will agree that claiming that the tradition has only a relative authority does not answer my intended question. Even relative authorities (by which I take you to mean as opposed to firm, or perhaps even absolute or final authority), it seems, can contribute to evidence for a proposition. I hope that makes my question clearer. I am sorry for the initial ambiguity.<br />You response raises another question I hope you might clarify for me. You say, "I also strongly believe in the hermeneutical nature of theology, by which I mean that the task of theology is to interpret and understand the gospel anew in each particular context" My question regards the nature of the relationship between the "hermeneutical nature of theology" and the gospel, and has two horns. The first is: how do you ensure that the gospel is guiding your hermeneutic and not the other way around? One seems to bring so much to a text before she even opens it, that such a robust hermeneutical approach might lead to her guiding the gospel–almost like a hermeneutic Ouija board–rather than allowing the gospel to guide her hermeneutic. Of course, I am not saying that this problem is irreconcilable, and I am not accusing you of having fallen victim to it. I would just be interested to see how you ensure that your authority is higher than you are. The second is: how do you make an "infinitely translatable norm" relevant to someone? The fruits of an infinitely translatable (translated by however many hermeneutics) norm, it seems, run the risk of being anything to anyone, and thus could be nothing to someone, nothing more than the ambient background radiation of the day such that one could not only fail to miss it, but be completely incapable of realizing it, neither in a position to accept nor reject it.<br />Thanks in advance for whatever answers you give. I hope I am not taking too much of your time. I'm generally interested in these questions as a Catholic and a Thomist who has been an outside observer of this and similar recent controversies since my undergraduate days at Calvin College where I studied under the influence of Jamie Smith, and Kevin Corcoran, whose general views are sympathetic with yours. Keep on keepin' on!<br /><br />StephenStephen Kroghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10000165989213732857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-69870915333936470192011-05-09T09:34:57.596-05:002011-05-09T09:34:57.596-05:00Stephen,
That's a good question. Unfortunatel...Stephen,<br /><br />That's a good question. Unfortunately, my official response to this issue is still being written; it will be part of a book that I'm under contract for, which will hopefully appear in a few years.<br /><br />My short (and thus a bit simplistic) answer is that the tradition has only a relative authority. Scripture alone is our norm and guide. Theology can and should begin again at the beginning. This doesn't mean that church history is completely unimportant, but it does mean that no perceived consensus is binding for the future work of the church.<br /><br />In this sense, I am a radical Protestant. I also strongly believe in the hermeneutical nature of theology, by which I mean that the task of theology is to interpret and understand the gospel anew in each particular context. Put differently, I reject the notion that there is such a thing as a single, universal Christian worldview. While I hold on to the notion of a transcendent norm, I also believe that this norm is infinitely translatable and can never be fixed and universalized as a timeless worldview. So even if the church consistently held to a certain view of hell and damnation, that does not mean the gospel is bound to this interpretation. It has to be understood anew today.<br /><br />In short, I have no problem saying that the church fathers were wrong about a number of things. For example, I believe the church was wrong in its belief in God's impassibility. The historical consensus about this was largely governed by philosophical presuppositions imported into their interpretation of the biblical narrative of Jesus. Scripture compels me to say different things about God than the tradition.<br /><br />Read this <a href="http://fireandrose.blogspot.com/2011/03/beyond-binaries-response-to-mark-galli_18.html" rel="nofollow">recent post</a> of mine in which I propose an "orthoheterodoxy." That will give a taste of what I am after.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-91554667739403560192011-05-08T20:33:44.116-05:002011-05-08T20:33:44.116-05:00Hi David,
I am curious as to how you might respo...Hi David, <br /><br />I am curious as to how you might respond to what I take is the historical consensus of the church against universalsim. Of course, one can read scriptures however she pleases, and one can even read the history of the church however she pleases, but it does seem that universalism (of any stripe) runs in the face of what most Christians have believed, including many of holy memory (e.g. St. Augustine and those present in the second Council of Constantinople). Do you deny that this is the case? Or, do you accept it, and argue that they were incorrect? If the latter, then perhaps you could point me to some of your work justifying this claim (I assume you've written on it). Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!<br /><br />Pax Christi,<br /><br />StephenStephen Kroghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10000165989213732857noreply@blogger.com