LeRon Shults

Chicago Announcement

The conference around which the book project "Christology and Ethics" will be developed (see left sidebar below) has just been announced on the Garrett-Evangelical Seminary webpage, with a promise of more details soon.

The lectures/ book contributors are:

Jan-Olav Henriksen
Lois Malcolm
Kathryn Tanner
J. Wentzel van Huyssteen
Bernd Wannenwetsch
Brent Waters
John Webster
me

It promises to be an exciting event, and of course -- a great book!

My contribution will deal with the way in which the philosophical turn to alterity creates new opportunities for tending to difference and otherness both in and between the reciprocally related disciplines of Christology and ethics.

"Theology and Ethics"

This fall I am responsible for the core class "theology and ethics" (KR403) in Agder's master's program in Christianity Studies.  The course begins this next week.

One of the first things I plan to point out is that the title of the course itself already tells us something about the difference between the way these disciplines are treated in the US and Europe.  In the former, theology and ethics are typically treated in separate classes.  This dichotomy is related to ways of thinking about other distinctions such as theory and practice, truth and application, descriptive and normative, etc.  In my experience here in Europe so far (not only in Norway) theology and ethics are more integrated (as the course title implies).

Many liberation and feminist theologians (among others) have argued that the separation of doctrinal from ethical reasoning has hurt both the discipline of theology and the church.  For example, atonement theories have often dealt with abstract reasoning about what was logically necessary for the satisfaction of human sin, relatively untied to practical, embodied concerns of those who are oppressed.  In much western soteriology, the latter concerns are not essential for the task of theology.  Conversely, theology does not seem (to many) to have much relevance for daily moral living.

This fall the book project on "Christology and Ethics" will start gearing up in preparation for a conference on that theme in early March in Chicago.  I plan to provide occasional posts on this topic as we get going (see sidebars).

1. In your academic (or ecclesial) experience how have doctrine and ethics been related, and how has this affected your attitude toward either or both?

2. What about "christology" and ethics?  Is it possible to move beyond a simple unilateral relation between them; e.g., first believe the right thing about Jesus and then do the right thing.

Problem of Good(s) II

Yesterday I finished the NIME paper, so now I can begin to focus on my chapter for the "Christology and Ethics" book (and conference next spring). [See sidebars for more information]

My strategy is to use the story of the "rich young ruler" as a kind of organizing context for a discussion of ways in which the reciprocity of Christology and ethics can be reinforced after the philosophical turn to alterity (otherness, difference). 

After all of the introductory, context-setting sections, the first point will be how the young man's question "What must I DO?" and Jesus' response to it challenges the popular notion that salvation does not involve our DOING anything, i.e., is not directly or immediately connected to our concrete agency in the world. 

Some atonement theories have been so eager to avoid the appearance of promoting "salvation by works" that they depict salvation as an event that occurs wholly apart from us, e.g., based on a decree or payment that is made over our heads, so to speak.   

It seems to me that this habit in atonement theory is one of the main reasons that soteriology and ethics have slowly drifted apart over the last few centuries.

What if we start the other way around?  In other words, begin with Jesus' call to give up everything for the sake of participating in the kingdom of God, in the reign of divine love that manifests itself as radical compassion for others, and then ask what this means for our understanding of "salvation."

What does the story of the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17-31) suggest about the relation between the "work of Christ" and our own agency?

The Problem of Good(s)

The "Nothing More Lovely" paper is now finished and I plan to move on to the NIME paper next week, but the comments on justice from several of you on earlier posts led me to reflect on the Christology and Ethics project...

I'm thinking of sticking with the title "The Problem of Good(s)" and using the story of the rich young man in the synoptics as a kind of narrative guide for reflection on these issues.  I want to emphasize the importance of the philosophical and theological shift toward attending to difference or "the other" for both disciplines, so perhaps the subtitle "Christology, Ethics and Alterity."

Introduction

Why and how the concepts of good, goodness and goods are relevant for both disciplines.  Rationale for using rich young man story to organize reflections (focus on Markan version).

What Must I Do?

Contrary to the early modern tendency to separate Christology (including atonement theory) from ethics (a critique leveled by feminists, womanists and liberation theologians inter alia), this story is not afraid of the link between salvation and doing. In other words, it encourages us or provides conceptual space for us to integrate atonement theory and questions of justice in community.

No One is Good

This astonishing comment by Jesus is swept aside by many biblical commentators, who appeal in Nestorian fashion to the idea that this is his "humanity" speaking.  Beginning with a holistic anthropology and Christology, I want to explore the implications of taking this comments seriously... what does it imply for the "difference" between God and Jesus, God and us, us and others?

Looking Around

The Markan text uses the language of "looking" quite extensively, not only in this story but in the previous story about children coming to Jesus, and in the following interactions between Jesus and the disciples.  Jesus looks at the "others" in various ways, inviting them into the arriving reign of divine peace.  He invites the rich man to "look" at others at not simply his own agency in relation to the commandments.

How Hard It Is

Why is it especially hard (or impossible) for rich people to enter the kingdom, while small children are lifted up as a model for such entering?  It has to do with the way in which we hold onto the lovables of the world, the material and social commodities that structure our life together.  Participating in eternal life now clearly has something to do with distributive justice... which is painful to the haves, who define themselves in opposition to and in dependence on the alterity of the have-nots.

Who Can be Saved?

Here I will return to the doctrine of atonement, pointing to the problems with separating it from the doctrine of the incarnation and the whole ministry of Christ. Salvation is not just something that has to do with a single event of the cross, but with the whole passion of the whole Christ into which we are invited, a way of being in relation to the "other" and the "Other."

The Last Will Be First

This whole passion of the whole Christ includes the resurrection and the presence of the life-giving Spirit, the "eschatos," that is now breaking in and transforming the way in which we order the goods of our lives together as the "body" of Christ.  I will conclude with comments on the implications for the integration of Christology and ethics in concrete, communal, late modern globalized life.

________________________

I'm not sure if using the narrative as an organizing scheme, rather than a conceptual framework, will work, but I'm leaning toward trying it.

1. Any comments on the methodological approach (or vision for the book)?

2. Any comments or questions on the material issues (e.g., interpretation as the rich young man story , relation of justice to salvation, philosophical turn to alterity)?

No One is Good but God Alone

This was Jesus' response to the rich man who addressed him as "good teacher," and asked him how to inherit eternal life. (The story appears in slightly different form in all three synoptic Gospels).

I am thinking about using this phrase as the title for my contribution to the book on Christology and Ethics that Brent Waters and I are editing for Eerdmans (see left sidebar below).

On the one hand, taking this statement by Jesus seriously would have implications for our Christology, implications that I have not found explored in the theological literature or biblical commentaries on this story.  On the other hand, it has serious implications for ethics, which always presupposes some conception of the Good and of the relation of human agency to it.

If the claim that God alone is good appears in the mouth of Jesus, this suggests a strong sense of differentiation from God.  Jesus is explicitly responding to the man's attributing goodness to him, which he rebuffs, insisting that no one is good but God alone.  If only God is good, then how can we be good?  Here Jesus' reference to the commandments seems less a suggestion that the man "be good" than an indication of the way to life, which is obeying God.  This obedience can be summarized in the command to love, which takes form as distributive justice. 

No One is Good but God Alone.  The whole ministry and message of Jesus, and his vindication ("justification") by the Spirit, manifests the way in which human agency can participate in the good life of God, namely, "following" the way of Jesus by giving all to those in need.

1. How is the man Jesus' related to the One who alone is Good?

2. Must we really "give all" in order to enter the kingdom of God?

Both of these questions make me uncomfortable too... but perhaps we should allow ourselves to be deeply disturbed by this story rather than too quickly explaining it away by appealing to a Nestorian Christology or comforting ourselves by weakening the radical call to discipleship. 

This passage, more than almost any other, evokes in me a sense of the "delightful terror" of theology.