Category: Blog

You must be wondering why I don’t just do a re-direct from this blog to the Vatican. The reason I want to hear from Benedict again and again is that he tirelessly sets out this gospel for us. I have to have the words of the gospel dinned into me, and the power of the gospel got into me, direct via eucharistic transfusion. These two go together: preaching – the laying out of this gospel – is essential to the eucharist, for the eucharist is not an act without words.

Benedict never speaks over the head of the church, addressing just city and world (urbe et orbi). First and last he speaks to the church, teaching it about its Lord, and therefore about its own identity, and about its calling and its luck.

Now I want to receive this eucharist-and-gospel with my own people here in my own church, and in an English accent please. I want this combined dose for head and body, dispensed to me and the people I pray with here in London. I know I stand no chance as a merely individual Christian, receiving my nourishment via the library or internet, intellectually – words, unaccompanied, are not enough. I want to be a member of a church happy to be under the authority of Christ, led by clergy who dispense that full words-and-power eucharist with the generosity and authority of Christ, and who are therefore able to exercise discipline and tell us not to go snacking from any other worldly sources. My salvation depends on this church and clergy.

So this gospel laid out by Pope Benedict (and Archbishop Rowan, and Patriarch Bartholomew) is what I want to receive also from bishops Richard (of London) and Stephen (of Stepney, my part of London) and from my priest. I want my church, and these clergy, to feast on this gospel-and-eucharist and then to pass it on to us, all of it. If it is Benedict laying out the feast, that’s fine, isn’t it? We are Anglicans, so surely not too proud to snatch food from Christ’s table even if it is chiefly Benedict who is bringing it out of the kitchen at the moment, right? I want the full gospel, some of which always has to be imported, and I want it served up here for us in England.

So for the clergy and people of Stepney and London I am pointing to Benedict. When they and I have learned everything there is to be learned from Benedict, we will look elsewhere. Of course the clergy of London are the last to read and receive any of this. Which leaves the rest of you with a little intercessory job to do.

Sorry. What with the grind of term and the excitement of events this autumn I never got around to doing any actual blogging. I haven’t posted anything of my own since August. It takes me much longer to post something I have written that to post a couple of paragraphs, already polished and published, by someone else. There is no limit to the number of times I can change what I have written, and a day later it will still look like gibberish to me – to you too probably. I wasn’t born to blog, being neither spontaneous nor self-controlled enough.

But I have enjoyed everything I have posted here, in particular that Regensberg moment, but also all the rest of Pope Benedict’s wonderful teaching that the secular or public sphere depends on the church, and reason and the possibility of truthful discourse depends on the gospel. I was amazed that the British media, and British evangelicals, failed to see what was at stake here. So once again:

Fellow members of the British public square: Benedict is arguing for the public testing of ideas and all the other good practices required for rationality and society.

Fellow evangelicals, Benedict is a Christian. It may be that this Christian is being hammered by the media because the world sometimes opposes the gospel; the extent of the world’s opposition may even be indication of the depth of the gospel he is holding out to it. When the mob is giving some Christian a kicking, joining that mob may endanger your salvation.

You phenomenologists, Benedict is intellectually far more rewarding than all of the the epigones of Heidegger put together.

Benedict produces wonderful, insightful evangelical teaching. His output, written and apparently off the cuff is extraordinary. I enjoyed his visit to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Constantinople for a brief reprise of the ‘two lungs’ of the Church. The unity of the Church is all the evidence of his power and love that God offers the world. No part of the church catholic will grow without finding the humility to examine the teaching and perhaps even accept the discipline of the rest of the Church.

There have also been a good number of pieces from Archbishop Rowan Williams, on the church, public sphere, university and Christian calling, and from Oliver O’Donovan at Fulcrum on how to we may learn the skills of judgment, and so learn how to make decisions on the vexed questions of church order and sexuality, and how to live together within those decisions. I am staggered by how slow we are in the UK to take up the material provided by Williams, O’Donovan, and even more provided by the Church’s own councils. About the discussions of the future of the Anglican church and covenant, I refer you to the Windsor process and covenant discussion documents. I find it extraordinary that there is no theological discussion of these thoroughly theological documents in any academic theological setting, in London or the UK. Let me know if you hear of any.

There is a mountain of work in front of me, almost none of it paid, but I am going to enjoy it anyway. There are books on their way, and still more rumours of books, that will delight readers of Colin Gunton and of John Zizioulas. It is good to see the emergence of some serious scholarship on the theological revolution represented by Zizioulas’ eschatological ontology. Of course, since this is a theological revolution, is also just a recovery of what we should never have forgotten. So get yourself a copy of Communion and Otherness for a happy new year. Meanwhile brother webmaster is building a content management system for a renewed ‘Resources’ website, with new buttons to click on, but one that I will be able to work this time, he thinks. When that is done, I will mend broken links to Zizioulas’ work.

I have created some new links –

to Sandro Magister at Chiesa for intelligent theological commentary from the Vatican. For more gossipy Vatican news stories see John Allen.

to Janet E. Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at Sacred Heart Detroit and a superb commentator on Evangelium Vitae and much else – see her ‘Articles’

to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America for a serendipity

and to the Pope Benedict XVI fanclub – see their ‘Links’

Knight went to the AAR. He was briefly allowed to leave his desk, London, and the whole UK for the Annual Conference of the American Academy of Religion and Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Washington DC.

Highlights were:

Volf Krötke (Berlin) at the Barth Society, ably introduced by Philip Zeigler.

Luke Bretherton (KCL – English, one of ours) awed the Systematic Theology seminar, but then so did David Haddorff (Saint John’s NY).

The Ecclesiological Investigations ‘s impressive discussion of the Porto Alegre 9th Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) document Called to be the One Church. It was good to find fellow-Zizioulas readers Fr Paul McPartlan and Paul Collins making an impact. I think that the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Zizioulas would be an ideal subject for a session of this seminar next year.

The Christian Theology and the Bible seminar (Webster, Telford Work and many others), though I managed to miss all sessions of Theological Hermeneutics of Christian Scripture Group, which had an equally strong cast.

It was great to importune publishers, particularly at the swanky Eerdmans reception, to be wowed by Brazos’s Theological Theological Commentary on the Bible series, and to meet Amazon reviewer Halden Doerge
.

But above all it was wonderful to catch up with the old Kings College London crowd – those pictured above (Left to right Paul Janz, Oliver Crisp, Luke Bretherton, Chris Roberts, Eric Flett, Randall Rauser and Ryan Murphy), but also and in particular Justyn Terry, Paul Metzger and George Ille.

I am very grateful to Chris Roberts and to Lincoln Harvey. I understand that neither of them want to room with me ever again so I shall be sleeping on the beach at San Diego in 2007.

(left)

Alan Spence is the author of The Promise of Peace: A Unified Theory of Atonement

The Promise of Peace offers a defence of a mediatorial interpretation of the atonement, that is one in which Christ is held to have become as we are, so that he might on our behalf make peace with God. It is argued that such an interpretation is not one of a number of valid descriptions of Christ’s saving work, but the normative redemptive account. The erosion of this classic view of the atonement can be explained partly by a number of developments that have taken place in theological thought during the past two hundred years. These include the emergence of a christology in which Christ’s divinity is linked to his saving ministry; a new interpretation of Pauline theology in which issues of justification are held to be secondary to those of participation; a return to the more dualistic world-view of the Church Fathers; difficulties with the concept of divine judgement; and a culture of relativism in which a unified or coherent account of the atonement not only no longer seems possible, but is generally not even considered desirable. The book achieves its purpose by engaging critically with these various theological ideas. It is as much a clearing of the undergrowth from the foundations of soteriology as it is the construction of a coherent account of Christ Jesus as the one mediator between us and God. It goes on to consider the relation of such an account to the proclamation of the gospel and the response required of its hearers.

The Promise of Peace has won some powerful endorsements:

‘Seasoned by years on the front lines of ministry, both in missions and human rights work, the author’s profound insights into the logic of redemption bear a sense of urgency and pastoral depth. The Promise of Peace is not simply another summary of Christian doctrine; it is a judicious and passionate – at times even polemical – defense of the heart of the gospel for our time. This is the clarity and wisdom that the church desperately needs in our day if we would turn from fads to faith in the promise-maker of peace.’ Professor Michael Horton, Westminster Theological Seminary, California.

‘Alan Spence’s new book is a very welcome addition to the literature on the doctrine of atonement. Dr Spence has read widely and deeply, and engages seriously and sympathetically with many others in developing his own distinctive proposal. More than that, however, any book so well written will gain a heart-felt welcome from scholars so used to wading through impenetrable prose. With the style and urgency of a true preacher, and the knowledge and insight of a true scholar, Dr Spence offers us a book of genuine interest and worth. I am very happy to commend it.’ Dr Steve Holmes, St Andrews.

‘Alan Spence advocates and practises a non-nonsense approach to Christian theology: clear, accessible, passionate, not afraid of controversy, but always pastoral, and, above all, eager to be faithful to the Christian Gospel. Even those who do not agree with his conclusions will enjoy engaging in conversation with him.’ Professor Christoph Schwöbel, Tübingen.

Alan taught theology in Zimbabwe, was Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa and is now minister of the United Reformed Church in Ealing in London.

Alan is the most incisive, passionate and pastoral teacher of Christian doctrine I know, and invariably galvanises every seminar he turns up at. He has been coaching postgraduates who find him through his work on England’s great puritan theologian John Owen. Alan’s book on Owen appears from T & T Clark next year. He is powerful proof that you can still find Christian theology in London.

Two of the seminars Calvin is offering next summer look interesting. They are not conferences, since they run over several weeks.

Liturgical Identities: Global, National, Ecclesial

Michael L. Budde and D. Stephen Long
June 25-July 20, 2007

Liturgies form identities. They set forth what is important, focus our attention, shape our bodies through particular practices, and bear communal memory in ways that form who we are, whose we are, and what matters most in life.

Liturgical practices bear in themselves an intentionality about how to live. This is true not only for the church, but other associations such as the nation-state and economic entities. The nation-state, for example, has its own hymns, ritual practices, saints and martyrs, and sacred calendar. Corporations increasingly construct â??liturgiesâ?? that create brand loyalty and allegiance, and shape the affections, dispositions and desires of people.

This seminar will draw upon traditional patterns of Christian worship in order to highlight similarities and difference, points of convergence and conflict, among formative communities â?? ecclesial and secular. It will provide participants the opportunity to explore how Christian ecclesiologies and forms of worship interact with other powerful practices that shape allegiances, identities and loyalties in our world.

Biblical Studies Across the Curriculum: Discerning Scripture for the Disciplines

James K.A. Smith and J. Richard Middleton

July 9-27, 2007

Over the past decade, a vision of integral Christian scholarship across the disciplines has flourished. But curiously absent from much of this discussion is any robust role for Scripture. While Christian scholars across the disciplines mine the resources of the Christian theological tradition for constructive work in their field, they often donâ??t dig down to the level of first-hand, rigorous engagement with the Bible. Or when Christian scholars do invoke Scripture, too often it is in the mode of â??proof-texting,â?? drawing on a less-than-sufficient acquaintance with the Bible that tends to de-contextualize Scripture, wresting passages from their canonical and historical context, or simply reducing them to propositions for logical operations.

The paucity of biblical engagement in Christian scholarship stems from a lack of opportunity for faculty development in this area. (In fact, it first stems from a certain failure of churches to provide solid formation in biblical interpretation.) Scholars are formed in ways that donâ??t provide opportunities to learn how to read Scripture well, and how to read it as scholarsâ??and along with scholars in biblical studies. The goal of this proposed summer seminar is to provide a faculty development opportunity that will rectify this situation. We aim to bring together a team of 12 scholars from across the disciplines who are eager to acquaint themselves with the best of critical, confessional scholarship on Scripture with a view to its impact for thinking across the curriculum. As such, we believe the seminar will have both scholarly and pedagogical impact.

It is by means of this thinking â?? and not without irony â?? that we arrive at secularism and the concept of the secular public square. The word â??secularâ??, originally from a Latin word meaning â??generationâ?? or â??ageâ?? was adopted in early Christian writings to mean â??this ageâ?? or, more precisely, â??confined to this present age that is passing awayâ??. The secular was Christianityâ??s gift to the world, denoting a public space in which authorities should be respected but could legitimately be challenged and could never accord to themselves absolute or ultimate significance.

This was something the early Church understood well. In Peterâ??s letter to Christians scattered around the eastern Mediterranean, he told them they were â??a people belonging to Godâ??, but that didnâ??t mean they owed nothing to the earthly rulers under whom they lived. On the contrary, they were to â??submit â?¦ to every authority instituted among men: whether â?¦ king â?¦ or â?¦ governors, who â?¦ punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.â?? (1 Peter 2.13-14) But this, in turn, does not mean that such kings and governors are, by definition, right, and Peter proceeds to advise his readers what they should do when injustice is done. Similarly, the anonymous second-century writer of the Letter to Diognetus, explains to his reader: Though [Christians] are residents at home in their own countries, their behaviour there is more like that of transients; they take their full part as citizens, but they also submit to anything and everything as if they were aliens â?¦ their days are passed on earth, but their citizenship is above in the heavens. They obey the prescribed laws, but in their own private lives they transcend the laws. The Old Testamentâ??s nervousness about a single individual mediating Godâ??s rule for the people crystalises into the Christian denial that any particular political order is sacred, and, in doing so, produces the concept of a secular public square of which we are inheritors.

But we are only inheritors of it, as Rowan Williams has argued, because we are inheritors of the Judaeo-Christian intellectual foundations on which it is built. A belief in the provisionality and impermanence of political power, which forms the basis of political liberalism, is Christendomâ??s legacy to the modern world. Accordingly:

Western modernity and liberalism are at risk when they refuse to recognise that they are the way they are because of the presence in their midst of that partner and critic which speaks of â??alternative citizenshipâ?? â?? the Christian community â?¦ the distinctively European style of political argument and debate is made possible by the Churchâ??s persistent witness to the fact that states do not have ultimate religious claims on their citizens. Societies that forget this seminal Christian vision of â??dual citizenshipâ?? stumble towards absolutism, (Archbishop Rowan Williams)

either in the form of religious theocracy or state totalitarianism, in such a way as dehumanises its own people. This is an error into which theophobic secularism can fall.

God and Caesar

When the Church is regarded as an enemy to be overcome or a private body that must be resolutely excluded from public debate, liberal modernity turns itself into a fixed and absolute thing, another pseudo-religion, in fact â?¦

Unless the liberal state is engaged in a continuing dialogue with the religious community, it loses its essential liberalism. It becomes simply dogmatically secularâ?¦ (Archbishop Rowan Williams)

By concluding in this way we have consciously moved from a negative argument â?? defending Christianity against the largely baseless accusation that it is an inherently private phenomenon â?? towards a positive one â?? that the secular public square, properly understood, is a Christian legacy and one that requires an ongoing Christian presence to remain true to itself.

Theos – Doing God: A Future for Faith in the Public Square