**Rowland Croucher**
2009-04-17 02:35:37 UTC
Note from Rowland:
This (in spite of several spelling/punctuation errors) is brilliant.=20
Forgive the locus (Melbourne, and this city's most notorious liberal=20
preacher, Francis McNab): this piece opens the door to an excellent=20
discussion of a viable alternative to the Liberal/Fundamentalist=20
polarities which currently stimy theological debate.
*****
Francis McNab: Ahead of his time or 100 years too late?
Posted 22nd March 2009
Here is a talk I gave at Ringwood Uniting Church on Sunday 15th March 200=
9.
It draws heavily on the early chapters of Resurrection and=20
Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological=20
Consequences by Thorwald Lorenzen. The talk is vastly simplified=20
compared to the book, errors are my own.
If you are not interested in the current debate within the Uniting=20
Church in Victoria, and are more interested in the theology, skip ahead=20
to the section =93Traditional=94.
Francis McNab: Ahead of his time or 100 years too late?
by Paul Dyson
There has been much heated debate about the advertising campaign=20
launched by Francis McNab of Collins Street Uniting Church. I think much=20
of it has been people talking at cross purposes generating more heat=20
than light. So I thought today we could step back a little and have a=20
look at the theological frameworks behind the positions of the people in=20
the debate. So in a spirit of cool and calm reflection I wanted to=20
entitle this talk:
Is McNab a Nazi?
However, after taking counsel from Elva and Stan I changed the title to:
Francis McNab: Ahead of his time or 100 years too late?
Francis McNab spent $120,000 on an advertising campaign which included=20
billboards stating: =93The Ten Commandments, the most negative document=20
ever written=94. He also said that Abraham was probably a concoction,=20
Moses a mass murderer and Jesus Christ, very important, but not=20
necessarily the son of God. He calls for a New Faith, and he comes up=20
with his own new 10 commandments.
The Synod meeting last year responded criticising him for causing deep=20
offense to Christians, Jews and Muslims. I found this response somewhat=20
obtuse. It=92s a bit like getting the mafia for tax evasion =96 sure they=
=20
did it but it sort of misses that point. Isn=92t there some larger issue=20
going on here than just causing offence.
I also have problems when one side says the other is causing offence to=20
a third party. It is a great way to shut down debate, rather than=20
encourage it and have the ideas properly aired. I have not found much=20
engagement with what McNab actually said. Apparently his views are=20
either obviously good or obviously bad.
I=92ll have a look a little later on, but now back to the unofficial titl=
e=20
of this talk: Is McNab a Nazi?
On the internet there is a Law known as Godwin=92s law. It states =93As a=
n=20
Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison=20
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.=94 Any debate on the internet o=
f=20
a reasonable length will involve someone saying the other side is just=20
like Hitler. And at this point, the discussion should really end. It=92s=20
run it=92s course, because where can you go after the other side says,=20
=93You=92re just like Hitler=94.
Now I am thoroughly sick of the debate between Liberals and=20
Fundamentalists that is continuing with the latest McNab controversy, so=20
I am very keen to compare one side with the Nazis so we can declare any=20
further discussion pointless and move on. However, I have been dissuaded=20
from making such a rash comparison, so I=92m glad to see that others have=
=20
beaten me to it.
By highlighting the offence caused to Jews the Synod was getting close=20
to a Hitler comparison, but they didn=92t quite go that far. So it wasn=92=
t=20
the end of the debate. So I kept looking.
In the church we are a bit more nuanced in our discussion so you have to=20
read between the lines to find it. But I was pleased to see in February=20
Crosslight a letter from Rev Dr Dorothy Lee, lecturer at Trinity=20
Theological College. She writes:
The =91new faith=92 Macnab proposes is not new at all. Some of his=20
views go back to heretical movements in the second century. Other views=20
derive from the liberalism of nineteenth century Europe, particularly=20
Germany =96 views that the great Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, so=20
forthrightly exposed in the early decades of the twentieth century.=20
Barth showed how liberal theologians had become throughly bourgeois in=20
their values, completely conformed to the spirit of the world.
Let me just spell that out for you. Dorothy Lee talks of views:=20
Completely conformed to the spirit of early twentieth century Germany.=20
Or, to put it more plainly: McNab is a Nazi.
Hooray, someone has said it. Perhaps we can all go home now, and get on=20
with more fruitful debate.
But I=92m afraid she was being too subtle, so I=92ll have to explore thes=
e=20
issues further. So lets look at what is going on here.
I=92m going to outline four theological models or positions. These models=
=20
are in historical order and in my opinion they get better as they go=20
along. The first is the worst and the last is the best.
So a bit of concentration will be required, but as most of you grew up=20
before the invention of television I don=92t think it will be a problem.=20
For the rest of you, I=92ve made overheads that you can watch. [Successiv=
e=20
overheads contained the single words 'overheads', 'that', 'you', 'can',=20
'watch'.] I hope I have catered for everyone.
Traditional
Let=92s begin with a common enemy: the first model, which I will kindly=20
call the =93Traditional View=94. But you may know it as =93Fundamentalist=
=94,=20
=93Literalist=94, =93Conservative=94. It=92s the view, if you grew up in =
the=20
Liberal tradition like me, the view that we love to hate. It makes us=20
cringe to think that non-Christians think we are all like this. Let me=20
make a few points about it.
Start with the question: How can we make the faith intelligible to the=20
person in the street?
Answer: Ask them to read the Bible. It contains the testimony of=20
credible witnesses. They tell of the resurrection of Jesus from the=20
dead. A rational person cannot doubt these witness because they were=20
there, so what they tell is true. God raised Jesus Christ from the dead.=20
The tomb was empty, the bodily risen Christ appeared to people, proving=20
His divinity and proving the inspiration of the Bible as God=92s word.=20
Therefore the Bible is inerrant and its plain meaning is the Truth.
Faith is seen as accepting that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead,=20
meaning he came back to life, walked around. You also need to accept=20
that Mary was a Virgin, Jesus could perform miracles that broke physical=20
laws etc.
I think we are all familiar with this, so I=92ll keep moving. But let me=20
make one point about the attitude to the wider culture. In this model=20
the church is at odds with the culture and stands apart from it.
Liberal
In nineteenth century Europe the second model arose: Liberalism. This is=20
the model that Francis McNab is working out of, taken to its logical=20
conclusion. And when you take anything to its logical conclusion you=92re=
=20
looking for trouble.
Let=92s start with the same question as before: How can we make the faith=
=20
intelligible to the person in the street?
Well, the average person knows generally about science, they know people=20
can=92t walk on water, that virgin=92s don=92t give birth, that dead peop=
le=20
are not resurrected. If we want them (and ourselves) to have faith we=20
can=92t go against science. They may also know about historical criticism=
:=20
that you can=92t believe everything you read, and that actually helps us.=
=20
If we look critically at the Bible we can get rid of all the=20
superstition and get to what lies behind all that, the kernel of truth=20
of Christianity.
It also answers another criticism of the Traditional model. Should faith=20
really be about accepting an historical fact? Shouldn=92t faith have more=
=20
to do with belief in God than in history? Shouldn=92t the struggle of=20
faith concern forgiveness, repentance, belief in God, rather than=20
accepting a supernatural event? Isn=92t that just getting in the way of=20
faith in God? Our faith must appeal to reason, in particular scientific=20
and historical critical reason, if it is to have any relevance.
This sort of position was argued by Friedrich Schleiermacher at the=20
beginning of the nineteenth century and continued its development=20
throughout the 1800s. It was carried on by Rudolf Bultmann and Paul=20
Tillich in the 20th century.
So forget about the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Jesus. Rather than=20
focus on what happened to Jesus in the resurrection, which would=20
contradict science, focus on the faith of the disciples after the=20
resurrection.
Or forget the resurrection altogether and concentrate on the life and=20
teachings of Jesus. Perhaps we could remove all superstition and find=20
the true =93historical=94 Jesus.
This has been liberating for people who find that they can be Christians=20
without having to deny science and accept a pre-enlightenment world=20
view. Particularly people who are questioning their Fundamentalist faith.
And Liberalism is strongly adopted by the Jesus Seminar, whose members=20
feature prominently in the series =93Saving Jesus=94 that we studied in o=
ur=20
faith sharing groups. And you probably also know that Francis McNab has=20
been honoured by the Jesus Seminar. And so from this position he says=20
that Abraham was probably a concoction, Moses a mass murderer and so on.
Not that long ago the Jesus Seminar engaged in yet another fruitless=20
attempt to find the historical Jesus. I say fruitless because, as with=20
past quests for the historical Jesus, you end up with a Jesus who looks=20
like the people searching for him. In this case a wise sage or teacher=20
who is usually calm and measured, not unlike an academic at the sort of=20
university where the Jesus seminar people spend their time.
As the Liberal model is a reaction to the Traditional, or Literal model,=20
Liberals tend to see everyone else as a Fundamentalist. McNab=92s=20
supporters often put their arguments in this form, you are either=20
enlightened like us, or fundamentalist. McNab on Stateline: =93Some said =
I=20
shouldn=92t be allowed to be here anymore and that I should be drummed ou=
t=20
of town. I would expect that kind of reaction from people who take the=20
scriptures far too literally.=94
Its position in the culture? In this model the church tries to be at the=20
centre of culture, in order to transform it to make it more humane.
After about 100 years of this sort of talk there was a serious backlash=20
from the Traditionalists. One form this took was a series of pamphlets=20
from 1910-1915 attacking the Liberal position. They were funded by two=20
wealthy oil tycoons and, as they said, were =93sent to 300,000 ministers=20
and missionaries and other workers in different parts of the world=94.=20
These pamphlets were called The Fundamentals and from these we get the=20
term =93Fundamentalist=94. They are on the web and they have detailed=20
attacks on =93Higher Criticism=94 of the Bible on which Liberalism is bas=
ed.=20
The Liberal ideas are sensibly attacked =96 far better than things I see=20
today.
Well sometimes not so sensibly. When looking at =93The Fundamentals=94 th=
e=20
name =93Dyson=94 caught my eye.
The very first essay. Volume one, Chapter one: The History of the Higher=20
Criticism, is written by Canon Dyson Hague. He starts out with his=20
arguments undermining the Higher Criticism of the Liberals but before=20
too long says the following:
German Fancies
In the second place, some of the most powerful exponents of the=20
modern Higher Critical theories have been Germans, and it is notorious=20
to what length the German fancy can go in the direction of the=20
subjective and of the conjectural. For hypothesis-weaving and=20
speculation, the German theological professor is unsurpassed.
So what he is really saying here about the Liberals is: They=92re just a=20
pack of lying Germans. Of course, what he wanted to say was: They=92re=20
just a pack of lying Nazis.
But the Nazi party was still ten years away. So he couldn=92t say that.=20
But I maintain that he would have if he could have. And so this is the=20
point at which Godwin=92s law applies to this debate. And so 1910 is when=
=20
we all should have realized that we were just calling each other Nazis=20
and that it was time to move on to something else.
Neo-Orthodox
That something else brings us to the third model. And I want to strongly=20
emphasize that there are other models besides Liberal and=20
Fundamentalist. I was looking at a couple of Marcus Borg=92s books this=20
week and he continually frames the debate in terms of Liberal and=20
Fundamentalist. I=92m saying there are not just two ways - not just=20
Fundamentalist and Liberal.
This third model has been called =93Evangelical=94 by its proponents, but=
=20
that is confusing as now the Fundamentalists call themselves=20
=93Evangelicals=94 so I=92ll have to use the ugly term =93Neo-orthodox=94.
In 1933 Karl Barth and others founded the underground Confessing Church=20
soon after the Nazis formed the Protestant Riech Church unifying many=20
churches.
Barth felt that the Liberal emphasis on faith is correct, but that the=20
faith had become too far removed from Jesus Christ and too conformed to=20
the culture. The Neo-orthodox position on the wider culture was that of=20
Christ against Culture. They saw that the church should be radically=20
against the earthly powers, in their case the Nazi party. And to do this=20
the church had to offer something distinct, something unique. And it had=20
it. They emphasised the complete otherness of God. A God who is known=20
through revelation.
They saw the uniqueness of Jesus. He is the primary revelation of God.=20
Not just a revelation, but the primary revelation. If we follow God,=20
then we cannot follow earthly rulers - in Barth=92s case the earthly rule=
r=20
was Hitler. If you do not put Jesus at the centre of your religion, you=20
will find someone or something else. Some churches had found Nationalism=20
and Hitler. If Francis McNab does not have Jesus Christ at the centre,=20
who does he have? Perhaps it is Sigmund Freud? Or Carl Jung? None of=20
these people [shown on overhead], not Hitler, nor Freud, nor Obama, nor=20
Bono, should be at the centre of our religion, we are centred on Jesus=20
Christ.
None of this =93Neo-orthodox=94 position requires a literal view of the=20
Bible. And none of this requires throwing away science. Although the=20
Neo-orthodox did feel that the Liberals were too beholden to science,=20
allowing science to dictate which parts of the Bible were superstitious=20
and so should not be taken seriously. Rather, the Bible should be taken=20
on it=92s own terms. We shouldn=92t try and impose a scientific rational=20
world view on the Bible. That is anachronistic and will lead to=20
misunderstanding.
When a ghost appears in Shakespeare=92s Richard III, do we just ignore=20
that scene, or even ignore the whole play? Are we embarrassed by it=92s=20
pre-scientific world view? No. We understand it and even embrace it for=20
the purposes of getting into the play and fully understanding it. =93Are=20
there really eleven ghosts in Richard III! That=92s cool.=94 The same sho=
uld=20
be true of the Bible.
Q: How can we appeal to the person in the street?
A: We need to have something distinctive to say. =93Be nice to each=20
other=94, is not enough. We need to get back to the saving power of Jesus=
=20
Christ.
If we are embarrassed to say =93We love Jesus=94, to pray in public, to=20
speak of sin and evil, as well as joy and hope, what have we to say to=20
people? Most importantly, if we stop reading and engaging with the Bible=20
because we have already extracted the kernel of truth from it, how will=20
we let God change us?
Note that when someone says =93Evangelical=94 or maybe even =93Neo-orthod=
ox=94=20
to a Liberal they hear =93Fundamentalist=94. Seeing things this way makes=
=20
any sort of sensible debate, such as in the letters of Crosslight,=20
impossible. The Liberals define their opposition as Fundamentalist no=20
matter what they are actually saying. And some who call themselves=20
Evangelical are Fundamentalists, so the terms aren=92t even used clearly.=
=20
It=92s a real mess.
Liberation Theology
And that bring us to the forth model.
But first a warning from a cat. [Cat picture] Three steps into his epic=20
journey. Fluffy decided it was too much work. We have done three models=20
and there is only one to go. Please do not depart yet for the second=20
service. There is only one model to go.
The fourth model is Liberation Theology.
While the Western theological world was getting in a mess, theologians=20
in the third world were rejecting all these theologies as they didn=92t=20
really include them. How can you give alms to the poor when you are the=20
poor? It doesn=92t make any sense.
They looked at the Bible and found stories about poor people like=20
themselves and decided that the first world had appropriated these=20
stories and told them bad theology. The theologies weren=92t so much=20
wrong, as irrelevant. Irrelevant to the person in the street, if you=20
lived in the third world. So, the question now becomes
Q. How to do we appeal to the person in the street, given we are in the=20
third world?
A. =93Believe in Jesus Christ=94 doesn=92t cut it when the church is part=
of=20
the wealthy and powerful who are the reason you don=92t have enough food=20
to eat. Look in the Bible and you=92ll see a Jesus who was poor, a=20
refugee, like yourself. A Jesus who spoke of liberation, a God who=20
raised Jesus as a sign of hope and an act of liberation. That is an=20
answer for the third world.
Even Barth hinted that this was the way to go in saying that we cannot=20
really know Jesus =93if we do not know Him as this poor man, as this (if=20
we may risk the dangerous word) partisan of the poor, and finally as=20
this revolutionary=94.
It was not far from here to =93God=92s preferential option for the poor=94=
=20
developed by Peruvian theologian Gustavo Guterriez in his =93A Theology o=
f=20
Liberation=94 (1972). Finally something after I was born!
God is not a God of the rich, nor of the rulers, not a God of the=20
managers nor the middle class, he is a God of the poor. And where the=20
books of the Bible are written by poor people to poor people, it is the=20
poor, and those in dialog with the poor, who have the best insights into=20
what it means.
So when it comes to the Resurrection, the question is not whether some=20
event happened 2000 years ago. The Resurrection should not be discussed=20
without the cross, and the cross cannot be discussed without discussing=20
the crosses in this world and that implies the church=92s mission of=20
justice and liberation. Faith in the resurrection is shown by working=20
for justice and liberation here and now.
In the West this theology has been developed by Jurgen Moltmann, first=20
with his =93Theology of Hope=94 (1967) and then =93The Crucified God=94 (=
1973)=20
and many other works continuing to this day.
The current pope, while working for John Paul II, silenced Brazillian=20
liberation theologian Leonardo Boff in 1985. Just 2 years ago Jon=20
Sobrino in El Salvador was declared in error by the pope for his=20
teaching on this matter. Now there is a relevant debate about what=20
should be allowed to be taught =96 unlike the McNab controversy which=20
hardly anyone outside the church cares about.
So what is Libration Theology=92s attitude to the World? As with the=20
Neo-orthodox position it is Christ against culture. And not content to=20
sit on the outside like the Fundamentalists, but demanding and enacting=20
liberation.
So we moved from the Traditional position of needing to accept the proof=20
of miraculous events in history. To the Liberal emphasis on faith not=20
proof, to the Neo-orthodox emphasis of specific faith in Jesus Christ,=20
to the Liberation model, of faith in Jesus Christ the liberator of the po=
or.
The governing paradigm is no longer science. Not that we are against=20
science it is just largely irrelevant. As well as using historical=20
criticism of texts, we also use sociology, economics, politics to=20
understand our situation and work out how to change it. We use narrative=20
techniques to place ourselves inside the stories of the Bible and have=20
the stories read us and our lives. In this we find them extremely=20
relevant to our lives. This is a faith we can take to the streets, to=20
the people, if they have ears to hear it.
This model influenced many at Ringwood Uniting in the struggle against=20
Apartheid in South Africa. There the Black churches wrote the Kairos=20
document: Third world churches speaking to the first world, saying you=20
are like Paul on the road to Damascus =96 repent, stop what you are doing=
=20
and turn around.
You talk of reconciliation without justice or repentance. And when you=20
do talk of justice it is reform not fundamental change. You address your=20
appeals to those at the top. The change we need is radical change of=20
structures. This will only come from the people, not the top. Condemning=20
all violence while trying to remain neutral. Yet, calling actions of=20
blacks =91violence=92, while calling police actions =91misconduct=92 or e=
ven=20
=91atrocities=92 but never violence. Your talk of fault on both sides and=
=20
calls for reconciliation do not help us. Your condemning of violence=20
while ignoring the causes does not help us. To help us, you need to take=20
sides.
It is interesting to have this in mind and consider the Assembly=92s=20
response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza recently. I don=92t have time to=
=20
look at it now, but you can see how these ideas have help shaped the=20
response.
This is where I see theologians like Thorwald Lorenzen (from whom I got=20
these four theological models), Dorothy Solle (from whom I got the=20
positions on culture) and Ched Myers. I see them continuing that=20
discussion, working out what is means for us in the West or North. Ched=20
Myers suggests that we are like Peter denying who Jesus is, while=20
warming our hands by the imperial fire. We are in denial that we are=20
aligned with empire.
Conclusion
So I in Crosslight I see debate between Traditionalists and Liberals=20
that is over 100 years old and had moved on, before all of us were born.=20
The Evangelicals in the debate know they aren=92t Liberals or Literalists=
=20
but don=92t seem to be able to articulate this in a way that the Liberals=
=20
can hear it. But the Evangelicals are often conservative not=20
progressive. And where are the Liberation theologians? Probably=20
somewhere else as this debate is largely irrelevant to them and to the=20
person in the street.
I see the Uniting Church in Victoria and Ringwood Uniting as largely=20
operating out of the Liberal model with influences of the Liberation=20
model. The actions of the Liberation model have influenced the church,=20
but very little of the theology that goes along with the action has made=20
it through our middle class filters.
Our theology, (as opposed to our actions), seems overly concentrated on=20
psychology rather than politics, giving it an individualistic personal=20
flavour, rather than a corporate eccelsiology that is politically=20
located. Finally, we could learn something from the Neo-orthodox about=20
the importance of continuing the faith. When someone says they love=20
Jesus and have accepted him into their hearts, they may not be a=20
Fundamentalist, they may be a Neo-Orthodox Evangelical or a Liberation=20
Theologian, a model or two ahead of Liberals as far as history goes.
Finally, I leave you with the question behind all of these models:
Q. How do we appeal to the person in the street?
http://paulswritings.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/four-theological-models/
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/
Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/
This (in spite of several spelling/punctuation errors) is brilliant.=20
Forgive the locus (Melbourne, and this city's most notorious liberal=20
preacher, Francis McNab): this piece opens the door to an excellent=20
discussion of a viable alternative to the Liberal/Fundamentalist=20
polarities which currently stimy theological debate.
*****
Francis McNab: Ahead of his time or 100 years too late?
Posted 22nd March 2009
Here is a talk I gave at Ringwood Uniting Church on Sunday 15th March 200=
9.
It draws heavily on the early chapters of Resurrection and=20
Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological=20
Consequences by Thorwald Lorenzen. The talk is vastly simplified=20
compared to the book, errors are my own.
If you are not interested in the current debate within the Uniting=20
Church in Victoria, and are more interested in the theology, skip ahead=20
to the section =93Traditional=94.
Francis McNab: Ahead of his time or 100 years too late?
by Paul Dyson
There has been much heated debate about the advertising campaign=20
launched by Francis McNab of Collins Street Uniting Church. I think much=20
of it has been people talking at cross purposes generating more heat=20
than light. So I thought today we could step back a little and have a=20
look at the theological frameworks behind the positions of the people in=20
the debate. So in a spirit of cool and calm reflection I wanted to=20
entitle this talk:
Is McNab a Nazi?
However, after taking counsel from Elva and Stan I changed the title to:
Francis McNab: Ahead of his time or 100 years too late?
Francis McNab spent $120,000 on an advertising campaign which included=20
billboards stating: =93The Ten Commandments, the most negative document=20
ever written=94. He also said that Abraham was probably a concoction,=20
Moses a mass murderer and Jesus Christ, very important, but not=20
necessarily the son of God. He calls for a New Faith, and he comes up=20
with his own new 10 commandments.
The Synod meeting last year responded criticising him for causing deep=20
offense to Christians, Jews and Muslims. I found this response somewhat=20
obtuse. It=92s a bit like getting the mafia for tax evasion =96 sure they=
=20
did it but it sort of misses that point. Isn=92t there some larger issue=20
going on here than just causing offence.
I also have problems when one side says the other is causing offence to=20
a third party. It is a great way to shut down debate, rather than=20
encourage it and have the ideas properly aired. I have not found much=20
engagement with what McNab actually said. Apparently his views are=20
either obviously good or obviously bad.
I=92ll have a look a little later on, but now back to the unofficial titl=
e=20
of this talk: Is McNab a Nazi?
On the internet there is a Law known as Godwin=92s law. It states =93As a=
n=20
Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison=20
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.=94 Any debate on the internet o=
f=20
a reasonable length will involve someone saying the other side is just=20
like Hitler. And at this point, the discussion should really end. It=92s=20
run it=92s course, because where can you go after the other side says,=20
=93You=92re just like Hitler=94.
Now I am thoroughly sick of the debate between Liberals and=20
Fundamentalists that is continuing with the latest McNab controversy, so=20
I am very keen to compare one side with the Nazis so we can declare any=20
further discussion pointless and move on. However, I have been dissuaded=20
from making such a rash comparison, so I=92m glad to see that others have=
=20
beaten me to it.
By highlighting the offence caused to Jews the Synod was getting close=20
to a Hitler comparison, but they didn=92t quite go that far. So it wasn=92=
t=20
the end of the debate. So I kept looking.
In the church we are a bit more nuanced in our discussion so you have to=20
read between the lines to find it. But I was pleased to see in February=20
Crosslight a letter from Rev Dr Dorothy Lee, lecturer at Trinity=20
Theological College. She writes:
The =91new faith=92 Macnab proposes is not new at all. Some of his=20
views go back to heretical movements in the second century. Other views=20
derive from the liberalism of nineteenth century Europe, particularly=20
Germany =96 views that the great Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, so=20
forthrightly exposed in the early decades of the twentieth century.=20
Barth showed how liberal theologians had become throughly bourgeois in=20
their values, completely conformed to the spirit of the world.
Let me just spell that out for you. Dorothy Lee talks of views:=20
Completely conformed to the spirit of early twentieth century Germany.=20
Or, to put it more plainly: McNab is a Nazi.
Hooray, someone has said it. Perhaps we can all go home now, and get on=20
with more fruitful debate.
But I=92m afraid she was being too subtle, so I=92ll have to explore thes=
e=20
issues further. So lets look at what is going on here.
I=92m going to outline four theological models or positions. These models=
=20
are in historical order and in my opinion they get better as they go=20
along. The first is the worst and the last is the best.
So a bit of concentration will be required, but as most of you grew up=20
before the invention of television I don=92t think it will be a problem.=20
For the rest of you, I=92ve made overheads that you can watch. [Successiv=
e=20
overheads contained the single words 'overheads', 'that', 'you', 'can',=20
'watch'.] I hope I have catered for everyone.
Traditional
Let=92s begin with a common enemy: the first model, which I will kindly=20
call the =93Traditional View=94. But you may know it as =93Fundamentalist=
=94,=20
=93Literalist=94, =93Conservative=94. It=92s the view, if you grew up in =
the=20
Liberal tradition like me, the view that we love to hate. It makes us=20
cringe to think that non-Christians think we are all like this. Let me=20
make a few points about it.
Start with the question: How can we make the faith intelligible to the=20
person in the street?
Answer: Ask them to read the Bible. It contains the testimony of=20
credible witnesses. They tell of the resurrection of Jesus from the=20
dead. A rational person cannot doubt these witness because they were=20
there, so what they tell is true. God raised Jesus Christ from the dead.=20
The tomb was empty, the bodily risen Christ appeared to people, proving=20
His divinity and proving the inspiration of the Bible as God=92s word.=20
Therefore the Bible is inerrant and its plain meaning is the Truth.
Faith is seen as accepting that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead,=20
meaning he came back to life, walked around. You also need to accept=20
that Mary was a Virgin, Jesus could perform miracles that broke physical=20
laws etc.
I think we are all familiar with this, so I=92ll keep moving. But let me=20
make one point about the attitude to the wider culture. In this model=20
the church is at odds with the culture and stands apart from it.
Liberal
In nineteenth century Europe the second model arose: Liberalism. This is=20
the model that Francis McNab is working out of, taken to its logical=20
conclusion. And when you take anything to its logical conclusion you=92re=
=20
looking for trouble.
Let=92s start with the same question as before: How can we make the faith=
=20
intelligible to the person in the street?
Well, the average person knows generally about science, they know people=20
can=92t walk on water, that virgin=92s don=92t give birth, that dead peop=
le=20
are not resurrected. If we want them (and ourselves) to have faith we=20
can=92t go against science. They may also know about historical criticism=
:=20
that you can=92t believe everything you read, and that actually helps us.=
=20
If we look critically at the Bible we can get rid of all the=20
superstition and get to what lies behind all that, the kernel of truth=20
of Christianity.
It also answers another criticism of the Traditional model. Should faith=20
really be about accepting an historical fact? Shouldn=92t faith have more=
=20
to do with belief in God than in history? Shouldn=92t the struggle of=20
faith concern forgiveness, repentance, belief in God, rather than=20
accepting a supernatural event? Isn=92t that just getting in the way of=20
faith in God? Our faith must appeal to reason, in particular scientific=20
and historical critical reason, if it is to have any relevance.
This sort of position was argued by Friedrich Schleiermacher at the=20
beginning of the nineteenth century and continued its development=20
throughout the 1800s. It was carried on by Rudolf Bultmann and Paul=20
Tillich in the 20th century.
So forget about the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Jesus. Rather than=20
focus on what happened to Jesus in the resurrection, which would=20
contradict science, focus on the faith of the disciples after the=20
resurrection.
Or forget the resurrection altogether and concentrate on the life and=20
teachings of Jesus. Perhaps we could remove all superstition and find=20
the true =93historical=94 Jesus.
This has been liberating for people who find that they can be Christians=20
without having to deny science and accept a pre-enlightenment world=20
view. Particularly people who are questioning their Fundamentalist faith.
And Liberalism is strongly adopted by the Jesus Seminar, whose members=20
feature prominently in the series =93Saving Jesus=94 that we studied in o=
ur=20
faith sharing groups. And you probably also know that Francis McNab has=20
been honoured by the Jesus Seminar. And so from this position he says=20
that Abraham was probably a concoction, Moses a mass murderer and so on.
Not that long ago the Jesus Seminar engaged in yet another fruitless=20
attempt to find the historical Jesus. I say fruitless because, as with=20
past quests for the historical Jesus, you end up with a Jesus who looks=20
like the people searching for him. In this case a wise sage or teacher=20
who is usually calm and measured, not unlike an academic at the sort of=20
university where the Jesus seminar people spend their time.
As the Liberal model is a reaction to the Traditional, or Literal model,=20
Liberals tend to see everyone else as a Fundamentalist. McNab=92s=20
supporters often put their arguments in this form, you are either=20
enlightened like us, or fundamentalist. McNab on Stateline: =93Some said =
I=20
shouldn=92t be allowed to be here anymore and that I should be drummed ou=
t=20
of town. I would expect that kind of reaction from people who take the=20
scriptures far too literally.=94
Its position in the culture? In this model the church tries to be at the=20
centre of culture, in order to transform it to make it more humane.
After about 100 years of this sort of talk there was a serious backlash=20
from the Traditionalists. One form this took was a series of pamphlets=20
from 1910-1915 attacking the Liberal position. They were funded by two=20
wealthy oil tycoons and, as they said, were =93sent to 300,000 ministers=20
and missionaries and other workers in different parts of the world=94.=20
These pamphlets were called The Fundamentals and from these we get the=20
term =93Fundamentalist=94. They are on the web and they have detailed=20
attacks on =93Higher Criticism=94 of the Bible on which Liberalism is bas=
ed.=20
The Liberal ideas are sensibly attacked =96 far better than things I see=20
today.
Well sometimes not so sensibly. When looking at =93The Fundamentals=94 th=
e=20
name =93Dyson=94 caught my eye.
The very first essay. Volume one, Chapter one: The History of the Higher=20
Criticism, is written by Canon Dyson Hague. He starts out with his=20
arguments undermining the Higher Criticism of the Liberals but before=20
too long says the following:
German Fancies
In the second place, some of the most powerful exponents of the=20
modern Higher Critical theories have been Germans, and it is notorious=20
to what length the German fancy can go in the direction of the=20
subjective and of the conjectural. For hypothesis-weaving and=20
speculation, the German theological professor is unsurpassed.
So what he is really saying here about the Liberals is: They=92re just a=20
pack of lying Germans. Of course, what he wanted to say was: They=92re=20
just a pack of lying Nazis.
But the Nazi party was still ten years away. So he couldn=92t say that.=20
But I maintain that he would have if he could have. And so this is the=20
point at which Godwin=92s law applies to this debate. And so 1910 is when=
=20
we all should have realized that we were just calling each other Nazis=20
and that it was time to move on to something else.
Neo-Orthodox
That something else brings us to the third model. And I want to strongly=20
emphasize that there are other models besides Liberal and=20
Fundamentalist. I was looking at a couple of Marcus Borg=92s books this=20
week and he continually frames the debate in terms of Liberal and=20
Fundamentalist. I=92m saying there are not just two ways - not just=20
Fundamentalist and Liberal.
This third model has been called =93Evangelical=94 by its proponents, but=
=20
that is confusing as now the Fundamentalists call themselves=20
=93Evangelicals=94 so I=92ll have to use the ugly term =93Neo-orthodox=94.
In 1933 Karl Barth and others founded the underground Confessing Church=20
soon after the Nazis formed the Protestant Riech Church unifying many=20
churches.
Barth felt that the Liberal emphasis on faith is correct, but that the=20
faith had become too far removed from Jesus Christ and too conformed to=20
the culture. The Neo-orthodox position on the wider culture was that of=20
Christ against Culture. They saw that the church should be radically=20
against the earthly powers, in their case the Nazi party. And to do this=20
the church had to offer something distinct, something unique. And it had=20
it. They emphasised the complete otherness of God. A God who is known=20
through revelation.
They saw the uniqueness of Jesus. He is the primary revelation of God.=20
Not just a revelation, but the primary revelation. If we follow God,=20
then we cannot follow earthly rulers - in Barth=92s case the earthly rule=
r=20
was Hitler. If you do not put Jesus at the centre of your religion, you=20
will find someone or something else. Some churches had found Nationalism=20
and Hitler. If Francis McNab does not have Jesus Christ at the centre,=20
who does he have? Perhaps it is Sigmund Freud? Or Carl Jung? None of=20
these people [shown on overhead], not Hitler, nor Freud, nor Obama, nor=20
Bono, should be at the centre of our religion, we are centred on Jesus=20
Christ.
None of this =93Neo-orthodox=94 position requires a literal view of the=20
Bible. And none of this requires throwing away science. Although the=20
Neo-orthodox did feel that the Liberals were too beholden to science,=20
allowing science to dictate which parts of the Bible were superstitious=20
and so should not be taken seriously. Rather, the Bible should be taken=20
on it=92s own terms. We shouldn=92t try and impose a scientific rational=20
world view on the Bible. That is anachronistic and will lead to=20
misunderstanding.
When a ghost appears in Shakespeare=92s Richard III, do we just ignore=20
that scene, or even ignore the whole play? Are we embarrassed by it=92s=20
pre-scientific world view? No. We understand it and even embrace it for=20
the purposes of getting into the play and fully understanding it. =93Are=20
there really eleven ghosts in Richard III! That=92s cool.=94 The same sho=
uld=20
be true of the Bible.
Q: How can we appeal to the person in the street?
A: We need to have something distinctive to say. =93Be nice to each=20
other=94, is not enough. We need to get back to the saving power of Jesus=
=20
Christ.
If we are embarrassed to say =93We love Jesus=94, to pray in public, to=20
speak of sin and evil, as well as joy and hope, what have we to say to=20
people? Most importantly, if we stop reading and engaging with the Bible=20
because we have already extracted the kernel of truth from it, how will=20
we let God change us?
Note that when someone says =93Evangelical=94 or maybe even =93Neo-orthod=
ox=94=20
to a Liberal they hear =93Fundamentalist=94. Seeing things this way makes=
=20
any sort of sensible debate, such as in the letters of Crosslight,=20
impossible. The Liberals define their opposition as Fundamentalist no=20
matter what they are actually saying. And some who call themselves=20
Evangelical are Fundamentalists, so the terms aren=92t even used clearly.=
=20
It=92s a real mess.
Liberation Theology
And that bring us to the forth model.
But first a warning from a cat. [Cat picture] Three steps into his epic=20
journey. Fluffy decided it was too much work. We have done three models=20
and there is only one to go. Please do not depart yet for the second=20
service. There is only one model to go.
The fourth model is Liberation Theology.
While the Western theological world was getting in a mess, theologians=20
in the third world were rejecting all these theologies as they didn=92t=20
really include them. How can you give alms to the poor when you are the=20
poor? It doesn=92t make any sense.
They looked at the Bible and found stories about poor people like=20
themselves and decided that the first world had appropriated these=20
stories and told them bad theology. The theologies weren=92t so much=20
wrong, as irrelevant. Irrelevant to the person in the street, if you=20
lived in the third world. So, the question now becomes
Q. How to do we appeal to the person in the street, given we are in the=20
third world?
A. =93Believe in Jesus Christ=94 doesn=92t cut it when the church is part=
of=20
the wealthy and powerful who are the reason you don=92t have enough food=20
to eat. Look in the Bible and you=92ll see a Jesus who was poor, a=20
refugee, like yourself. A Jesus who spoke of liberation, a God who=20
raised Jesus as a sign of hope and an act of liberation. That is an=20
answer for the third world.
Even Barth hinted that this was the way to go in saying that we cannot=20
really know Jesus =93if we do not know Him as this poor man, as this (if=20
we may risk the dangerous word) partisan of the poor, and finally as=20
this revolutionary=94.
It was not far from here to =93God=92s preferential option for the poor=94=
=20
developed by Peruvian theologian Gustavo Guterriez in his =93A Theology o=
f=20
Liberation=94 (1972). Finally something after I was born!
God is not a God of the rich, nor of the rulers, not a God of the=20
managers nor the middle class, he is a God of the poor. And where the=20
books of the Bible are written by poor people to poor people, it is the=20
poor, and those in dialog with the poor, who have the best insights into=20
what it means.
So when it comes to the Resurrection, the question is not whether some=20
event happened 2000 years ago. The Resurrection should not be discussed=20
without the cross, and the cross cannot be discussed without discussing=20
the crosses in this world and that implies the church=92s mission of=20
justice and liberation. Faith in the resurrection is shown by working=20
for justice and liberation here and now.
In the West this theology has been developed by Jurgen Moltmann, first=20
with his =93Theology of Hope=94 (1967) and then =93The Crucified God=94 (=
1973)=20
and many other works continuing to this day.
The current pope, while working for John Paul II, silenced Brazillian=20
liberation theologian Leonardo Boff in 1985. Just 2 years ago Jon=20
Sobrino in El Salvador was declared in error by the pope for his=20
teaching on this matter. Now there is a relevant debate about what=20
should be allowed to be taught =96 unlike the McNab controversy which=20
hardly anyone outside the church cares about.
So what is Libration Theology=92s attitude to the World? As with the=20
Neo-orthodox position it is Christ against culture. And not content to=20
sit on the outside like the Fundamentalists, but demanding and enacting=20
liberation.
So we moved from the Traditional position of needing to accept the proof=20
of miraculous events in history. To the Liberal emphasis on faith not=20
proof, to the Neo-orthodox emphasis of specific faith in Jesus Christ,=20
to the Liberation model, of faith in Jesus Christ the liberator of the po=
or.
The governing paradigm is no longer science. Not that we are against=20
science it is just largely irrelevant. As well as using historical=20
criticism of texts, we also use sociology, economics, politics to=20
understand our situation and work out how to change it. We use narrative=20
techniques to place ourselves inside the stories of the Bible and have=20
the stories read us and our lives. In this we find them extremely=20
relevant to our lives. This is a faith we can take to the streets, to=20
the people, if they have ears to hear it.
This model influenced many at Ringwood Uniting in the struggle against=20
Apartheid in South Africa. There the Black churches wrote the Kairos=20
document: Third world churches speaking to the first world, saying you=20
are like Paul on the road to Damascus =96 repent, stop what you are doing=
=20
and turn around.
You talk of reconciliation without justice or repentance. And when you=20
do talk of justice it is reform not fundamental change. You address your=20
appeals to those at the top. The change we need is radical change of=20
structures. This will only come from the people, not the top. Condemning=20
all violence while trying to remain neutral. Yet, calling actions of=20
blacks =91violence=92, while calling police actions =91misconduct=92 or e=
ven=20
=91atrocities=92 but never violence. Your talk of fault on both sides and=
=20
calls for reconciliation do not help us. Your condemning of violence=20
while ignoring the causes does not help us. To help us, you need to take=20
sides.
It is interesting to have this in mind and consider the Assembly=92s=20
response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza recently. I don=92t have time to=
=20
look at it now, but you can see how these ideas have help shaped the=20
response.
This is where I see theologians like Thorwald Lorenzen (from whom I got=20
these four theological models), Dorothy Solle (from whom I got the=20
positions on culture) and Ched Myers. I see them continuing that=20
discussion, working out what is means for us in the West or North. Ched=20
Myers suggests that we are like Peter denying who Jesus is, while=20
warming our hands by the imperial fire. We are in denial that we are=20
aligned with empire.
Conclusion
So I in Crosslight I see debate between Traditionalists and Liberals=20
that is over 100 years old and had moved on, before all of us were born.=20
The Evangelicals in the debate know they aren=92t Liberals or Literalists=
=20
but don=92t seem to be able to articulate this in a way that the Liberals=
=20
can hear it. But the Evangelicals are often conservative not=20
progressive. And where are the Liberation theologians? Probably=20
somewhere else as this debate is largely irrelevant to them and to the=20
person in the street.
I see the Uniting Church in Victoria and Ringwood Uniting as largely=20
operating out of the Liberal model with influences of the Liberation=20
model. The actions of the Liberation model have influenced the church,=20
but very little of the theology that goes along with the action has made=20
it through our middle class filters.
Our theology, (as opposed to our actions), seems overly concentrated on=20
psychology rather than politics, giving it an individualistic personal=20
flavour, rather than a corporate eccelsiology that is politically=20
located. Finally, we could learn something from the Neo-orthodox about=20
the importance of continuing the faith. When someone says they love=20
Jesus and have accepted him into their hearts, they may not be a=20
Fundamentalist, they may be a Neo-Orthodox Evangelical or a Liberation=20
Theologian, a model or two ahead of Liberals as far as history goes.
Finally, I leave you with the question behind all of these models:
Q. How do we appeal to the person in the street?
http://paulswritings.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/four-theological-models/
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/
Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/