Tomorrow I am launching full force into my 6 post series on Pagitt and Pelagius. Before I post this series I want to make a few things clear.
- I’m sure to some of your surprise, Doug and I are friends. We’re still that way even in light of this series. We had a good conversation a few days ago in which I explained my sadness with the theology of this conversation, yet desire to be in relationship with those on the inside. My issues are theological, not relational.
- I’ve heard it said around the ‘sphere that my goal is to unfairly “attach a thorough Pelagianism to Pagitt and others.” I have done nothing of the sort. I walked into this examination wondering if Pagitt’s and Pelagius‘ writings mirrored each other. For years people have labeled him a Pelagian, so I wanted to see if it was true. This series will report and analyze what I found.
- I use Pelagius and Augustine as theological dialogue partners in order to analyze and critique Doug’s writings. You’ll see that Doug actually differs from Pelagius in three important areas: Pagitt does not go as far as Pelagius does in his understanding of sin, the cross, and judgment. Augustine is used to provide some concluding critique. I am not doing an exhaustive historical theological analysis of Doug’s theology. I am using these two in conversation with Doug. That’s it. Perhaps more can flow from that initial conversation point.
- Doug himself wrote in his book
that you don’t have to be an Augustinian in order to be a Christian ((Pagitt, Christianity, 49)) (creating a very interesting, puzzling dichotomy…) and that he doesn’t like the 1500 years of Christian theology that has stemmed from him ((Pagitt, Christianity, 2)). While Doug may not consciously identify with Pelagius, he certainly has consciously, deliberately rejected Augustine. I think that’s a problem, and I’ll show your why.
- As I said before: this is not personal; it’s academic. I am pursuing the theological ideas put forth by leaders within the emerging church, leaders who have taken it upon themselves to write theology. While they may claim they aren’t writing it on purpose, let’s be real: they are theologizing. It is therefore appropriate to interact with and bring criticism to their theological proposals. So deal with the ideas of Doug and Pelagius and Augustine, please. It could actually be an interesting discussion if that happens!
- In moving beyond Emergent theologically and offering these theological critiques, I am NOT leaving one camp (Emergent) to join another (e.g. Calvinism). I am not pulling a Kevin DeYoung, who’s book
should have been titled “Why We’re Reformed and Why You Should Be Also.” I am NOT a Calvinist nor do belong to a particular theological camp, though my theology is evangelical in flavor. I understand the critique, but that’s just not me.
- I am ultimately doing this for my hometown, Grand Rapids. Ever since returning here almost 3 years ago, I have become disturbed and deeply saddened by what I see happening among my generation who has become incredibly disillusioned by the Church because of the type of Christianity offered here. This disillusionment has pushed many to embrace non-Christian spiritualities or “other” Christian theologies that appear more vibrant, cool, tolerant, inviting, and permissive, yet in the end warp God’s Story of Rescue. Both deeply sadden me.
- In the end, I am passionate about God’s Story of Rescue—which exalts Jesus Christ as both Lord and Messiah as the worlds single Rescuer—and passionate about (re)connecting people to that Story. I hope the manner in which I write and the content of my writing honor and do justice to that Story, while spurring people on toward (re)connection with their Creator through our risen Rescuer Jesus the Christ.
In the meantime you could check out my first series of theological interactions that didn’t get as much traffic as I expect to happen tomorrow. In a similar fashion, I used Karl Barth as a theological dialogue partner to Peter Rollins and Samir Slemanovic to challenge their understanding of the doctrine of revelation. You can find the series below. Enjoy!
The Emerging Church, Karl Barth, and the Doctrine of Revelation
1—Introduction
2—“God Speaks”
3—“God’s Revelation is Jesus Christ”
4—Conclusion
I look for ward to seeing where this will lead you to. I remember reading some of these same things in Mike Wittmer's book.
Emergent Theology =/= Reformed/Augustinian Theology Therefore, Emergent must be avoided.
About right?
Thanks for the question, if there was one in that 🙂 I just revised the post to add: In breaking with Emergent theologically and offering these theological critiques, I am NOT leaving one camp (Emergent) to join another (e.g. Calvinism). I am not pulling a Kevin DeYoung, who's book should have been titled "Why We're Reformed and Why You Should Be Also." I am NOT a Calvinist nor do belong to a particular theological camp, though my theology is evangelical in flavor. I understand the critique, but that's just not me.
I read Dr. Wittmer's book and was disappointed that EVERYTHING was filtered through a Reformed lens. That's not what I'm intending to do. Though my theology does tend to flow from Augustine, I myself happen to believe that the Holy Scriptures and Tradition behoove us to believe in original sin. Doug (and others) do not. I think that's a problem, theologically and scripturally.
Hope that saves me from being written off as supplanting one camp for another 🙂
-jeremy
Whew!
Glad to hear it. One thing GR has plenty of is Reformed Theology! I will attempt to read your evaluation of Pagitt/Emergent without assuming your theological "camp." Pelagianism, however, is one of those subjects where that can be difficult, though.
Jeremy, have you thought about reading some Jewish thought on Genesis 3 (what we Christians have labeled "The Fall")? I highly suggest "How Good Do We Have to Be? A New Understanding of Guilt and Forgiveness" by Rabbi Harold Kushner. It gives some possible "pre-Augustinian" insight:
"We can read the story of the Garden of Eden as an inspiring, even liberating story, a story of what a wonderful, complicated, painful, and rewarding thing it is to be a human being…the story of the Garden of Eden is a tale, not of Paradise Lost but of Paradise Outgrown, not of Original Sin but of Birth of Conscience."
I really don't know why people seem so afraid of at least learning what theology Christians shared with one another BEFORE it was incorporated into the Empire.
Jeff, I am not familiar with Rabbi Kushner at all, and maybe I am reading genesis 3 too much through my own reformed lens, but I have a hard time seeing that. the contrast between the goodness before genesis 3 and the destruction after, along with the curses given by God in the narrative seems to show that this was not a positive event in our history. i am just not sure how having a conscience in a world full of sin is better than no conscience in a world without it.
I, too, had a hard time seeing it differently until I read this book (and other Jewish explanations of this passage). I, too, had read it as "curse and destruction" because it fit the "total depravity" and the "angry, punishing God in need of payment" theology from the Augustinian and Calvinist tradition. I HIGHLY encourage you to read Kushner's book to at least give you a fresh possible alternative.
Kushner sees it as a mythical description of how the first human beings left the world of animal existence behind (evolution?) and entered the problematic world of being human. In THIS light, God's might not have been giving Adam a "rule" or a "law" against eating the fruit – perhaps it was a warning: are you sure you WANT to leave the simple, non-complicated life similar to the animals and enter the emotional world of humanity? Think about it: WE have to deal with loss, dread, worry, frustration, jealousy, betrayal, but also love, joy, hope, achievement, faithfulness, and creativity. Do animals struggle (or rejoice) with those things to the degree humans do?
It makes total sense when you look at as a parent. A couple of years ago, our oldest daughter left for college (our youngest daughter is leaving this fall). Could they EVER become the adult they are created to become by staying in the safety and comfort of our home? NO! (We can see the effect of coddled 40-something, video-playing basement-dwellers, can't we?) We worry about our kids every day – that they will make the best (and safest) choices, but they WILL make mistakes…they WILL do things we would rather they not do – that is all part of maturing. But will we ever STOP loving them? Will we ever BANISH them from our home? Would I ever TORTURE them forever for making mistakes (the reformed theology of hell)?
Anyway, the Hebrew Bible that Jesus would have known did NOT have a "heading" called "The Fall" ahead of this story and I think we owe it to ourselves to at least consider this passage through Jewish eyes (that Jesus had).
Jeff, I've read Kushner's argument for an evolutionary approach and found it wanting. The reason being is simply that the story doesn't allude to a shift out of animalism (if that is a word) in any way.
I would argue a number of points where I see this evolutionary progression. First, where God warned Adam "you will die" if you eat from this tree. Only humans are aware of their mortality – that one day we will die. Animals have no sense of this. Second, where they discovered they were naked. Animals have no sense of shame or nakedness – only humans (welll, humans over 4!). Third, where God made garments of animal skin, perhaps as a reminder (this is a God of "remembering", after all) of what they advanced from – no more on level with animals but now with a responsibility to watch over them.
As you continue through the Genesis story, you see a shift from gardening to herding to city dwelling (and all the problems THAT causes!). Sounds like humans are evolving from a relationship with one, to family relationships, to community relationships. Now where Kushner says the real entry of "sin" is where Cain kills Abel. This is actually the FIRST place in the Hebrew Bible where the word "sin" is used. And what is this "first sin"? A sibling jealousy over possessions or love that culminates in murder. While animals will kill one another, it is done for food and not out of jealousy or hatred.
So, I see a progression in the complexities of what it means to be human in an ever growing and challenging world that continues to play out in Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and into the prophets, into the New Testament, and a world that conitues to grow and challenge us today!
Oh, Jeff … that's a deep and wonderful well you're tapping into there. There is a lot of Jewish thought and tradition that give so much more depth and texture to who and what Jesus was that I really consider it a enormous failure of the church to not have more of it assimilated into our knowledge base. Indeed, the Hebrew way of thinking helps explain the parables and even gives Paul a much deeper context. We have lost sooo much in not attending to our deep history.
I've spoken with a number of Jewish colleagues here at Harvard, and can say with at least limited confidence that this is a strong view for many folks on the ground too- whether or not one takes Kushner's evolutionary idea, there are strong critiques out there of original Sin from very Jewish, covanental theology. Mclaren picks up on this in his own book, the "curses" of Genesis are actually more merciful than the promise given (immediate death)– and there are clear evolutions of different civilization style.
The "snake" of Genesis 1, as well as Satan within Job are both very fascinating and nuanced characters, far different from later 1st Century Jewish and Christian conceptions of Satan. Both actually fit well into a "Trickster" model of many near-Eastern, as well as other mythologies around the world, figures who, animal or divine (only in Job is Satan, a member of the Divine court clearly identified — in Genesis 1 one can argue, as many Jewish figures still do, that its simply a snake!). Its actually been interesting to study similar trickster/transgression stories from a number of traditions — many Native American mythologies, in fact have some sense of human or higher beings making mistakes at the dawn of time, messing creation up somewhat — but there is little to no sense of "sin" or moral backlash. It simply messes things up, but humanity often gets new instructions or almost convenental relation to the Creator afterward. (this is why, for so many Native American communities the Christian imposition of sin-thinking was so alien, and in many ways damaging to them. There are figures today in Christian indigenous theology, like Randal Balmer who argue for recognition of these earlier covenants with the Creator, and repentence for the ways Christian missionaries attacked their spirituality blindly instead of seeing the potential for a truly incarnated Gospel- see his piece in "Emergent Manifesto of Hope").
BTW – I lived in GR in the '80s when I was in my 20's and the conservative reformed (Dutch) church there basically destroyed my faith. I am SO glad to see what Mars Hill Bible Church is doing!
I would still be curious to know if you plan to, as several people have asked, include at least some acknowledgment of the Eastern Orthodox positions in relation to Original Sin. It seems impossible to ignore their own critiques (as well as Jewish positions) even if you are focusing on Latin figures like Augustine and their effects on the Western trajectory of the faith.
I've been doing some of my own studies, albeit casual, on Pelagius and the Celtic churches…it is, of course a huge black-out as far as what we actually know, but there IS evidence of numerous references to attempts to "root out Palagianism" among British (celtic speaking peoples in what is now England/Wales) and Irish Churches. They seem to have lasted centuries after Palagius, and one has to seriously wonder what lay beneath those vague descriptions– were we simply looking at actual use of his writings, or a deeper Irish or British thought-stream which was being simplified by heresiologists?
Its interesting that one of the few fairly accepted descriptions of Columcille (Columba), founder of Iona and one of the most influential monastic empires of Ireland/Scotland/Northern Britain includes reference to him being a scholar of John Cassian- who a few people have referenced as a counterpoint to Augustine on Original Sin. The Iona Abbots were well known for openly clashing with Rome over Easter and other matters, in ways very parallel to the Eastern churches, Columba's Abbocy almost resembles, as does Patrick and Brigid's, an Irish Patriarchate of sorts (Rome actually had to APPEAL to the Iona churches on the grounds of unity, it wasn't until they won over an Abbot at Whitby that anything changed),
We'll probably never know exactly what happened in the early Celtic church with any certainty… but there is evidence both of interest in the Eastern fathers AND an enduring commitment to ideas around free will which one could even, albeit speculatively build some case that it may have had some indigenous roots.
J. Philip Newell (not the most scholarly/a bit pan-Celtic in this thought, but very well read and a modern day former leader at Iona) pointed me to the works of John Scotus Eriugena in the 9th century. An Irish theologian and neo-platonist well read in the greek fathers, especially Pseudo-Dionysius, he came to teach in France and was actually at one time asked by the Catholic church to defend free will against some VERY extreme forms of predestination (sounds almost like a prelude to later Calvinist/Armenian debates). Seems he went too far for the liking of some– and his later works echoed Origin, though I'd be curious how he's received in the East, he worked extensively from their Fathers. But it is interesting that an Irishman was asked to defend the Catholic church's value of a balance of free will, despite ongoing fears of Palagianism out of Ireland too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Scotus_Eriu…
As a funny aside, in a comment I'm sure Peter Rollins would enjoy, he is quoted as responding to a King's anti-Irish racist question (my ancestors were "barbarians" for much of history) about what differs an Irishman from a drunkard: "Only a table." 😛
Need to look more into his actual writings. It is interesting that his early works in Greek thought presaged later Reformation debates. I honestly have to wonder where the Reformation might have gone if there had been more knowledge of the Greek Fathers.
To me, what needs to be acknowledged is the influence a "state religion" that was hierarchical and patriarchal might have on forming creeds and doctrines. In other words, might the doctrine be aimed towards a desired outcome? Augustine's writings suggest that the state should sometimes enforce religious truth.
Elaine Pagel's book, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent" offers some interesting insight on the history of this doctrine. Read a book review here:
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/14/pagels.htm
*nods* Constantine's role in consolidating Christian doctrine is pretty well documented… its not to say useful theological points weren't ironed out, but from 313 on, the Christian faith would never be the same.
Of course, the role of state-enforced religion is hardly only under Constantine. The power of religious authorities led to Jesus' death, but has a long precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures as well (albeit often with a prophetic counter critique back and forth).
Quite simply, for most of human history belief and state power were closely interwoven. The time we live in really is pretty unprecedented… as seen so clearly in hot issues around marriage and the last few vestiges of state-overseen sacraments in our society.