Християнство епохи постмодерну

Вітчизняний богословський дискурс все ще розвивається у певній ізоляції від творчих пошуків у глобальному богословському співтоваристві. Про це свідчить той факт, що справді знакові богословські публікації іноді залишаються без належної уваги в євангельських колах пострадянського простору. Яскравим прикладом є книга «Чия спільнота? Яка інтерпретація? Філософська герменевтика для церкви» (Westphal, Merold. Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009). Книга викликала значний резонанс в англомовному світі, ставши обов’язковим текстом для всіх, хто поглиблено вивчає взаємодію богословської та філософської герменевтики. Однак на наших теренах її вихід у світ і пов’язане з цим обговорення залишилися практично не поміченими.

У цій книзі філософ Меролд Вестфал здійснює огляд історичного розвитку герменевтичних концепцій, а також аналізує потенційний внесок філософської герменевтики в розробку нових підходів до інтерпретації Писання. Основна теза його книги полягає у тому, що інтерпретація сакрального тексту – це неминучий і безперервний процес, а «можливість різноманітності не відкриває двері для (прийняття) всього, що завгодно». Вестфал констатує недовірливе ставлення євангельських богословів до філософської герменевтичної традиції, котра допускає відносність інтерпретацій, пояснюючи недовіру побоюванням неминучого потрапляння в пастку релятивізму. На його думку, ці побоювання є необґрунтованим.

Автор наводить три основні причини для відмови від підозри, що визнання відносності будь-якої інтерпретації є ідентичним релятивізму. По-перше, відносність інтерпретації ще не означає, що усі точки зору однаково близькі до істини; по-друге, критики релятивізму часто не можуть визначити, кого з богословів чи філософів можна віднести до релятивістів; по-третє, тільки Бог абсолютний, люди ж є гріховними істотами, тому їх знання зажди залишається недосконалим і обмеженим. Вестфал намагається розвіяти страх, що єдину альтернативу для постмодерністської герменевтики становлять «герменевтичний відчай» (всі точки зору годяться) або «герменевтична зарозумілість» (нам належить єдина прийнятна інтерпретація). Він вважає, що визнавши обмеженість нашого знання, ми повинні прагнути до кращого розуміння та інтерпретації, «поєднуючи інструменти науки з чеснотами скромного слухання інтерпретацій інших і, перш за все, Святого Духа».

Здійснивши стислий огляд історії герменевтики, Вестфал фокусує увагу на ключових поняттях герменевтичної концепції Г.-Ґ. Ґадамера, одного із найбільш впливових філософів ХХ-го століття, і її наслідків у контексті сучасної церкви.

Далі буде…

Short summary of the areas of disagreement

1.    Bible, Tradition and traditions

Tradition is an integral part of any religious body, including all expressions of Christianity. One of main areas of disagreement among Christians consists in the relation of Tradition and Scripture. Understood in a comprehensive and inclusive sense as the summation of the whole Christian faith, Tradition is seen as including Scripture. In a narrower sense, Tradition is interpreted as the “teaching and practice” of the church not explicitly recorded in the text of the Bible or, even more narrowly, as that “belief or custom which cannot claim any divine or apostolic origin”. The relationship between Scripture and Tradition became the object of disputes during the (16th-century) Reformation. Roman Catholic theologians argued that revelation is handed on both in Scripture (libriscripti) and Tradition (sine scripto traditionibus), seen as two parallel and complementary elements. For this reason, “teachings not contained in the Bible may be gathered from the Tradition alone” . Both Tradition and Scripture are interpreted by the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. A similar “two source” doctrine frequently occurs in Orthodox texts from the 17th century onwards.
The Reformers made a careful distinction between the divine revelation of Scripture and post-apostolic tradition, regarding the latter as human teachings. Scripture was declared to be the only and ultimate criterion by which all human traditions were to be evaluated as well as the only infallible guide and the final authority on matters of Christian faith and practice. On this basis, the Augsburg confession (1530) and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1562) endorsed the ancient creeds of the undivided Church since “they agree with Scripture” . At the present time, Catholic and Orthodox authors mainly use the inclusive approach (Tradition and Scripture must be taken together); “two-source” language no longer prevails. At the same time, there is a growing tendency among Protestants to recognize the need of Tradition without compromising the primary role of Scripture.

2.    Ministries and Ecclesial Structures

The existence of different views on the nature, structure and functions of the Church’s ministry is a stumbling block for visible unity since it leads to the “inability of some communions to recognize the ministerial orders of others” . Roman Catholicism and Orthodox churches support the idea of a special role for church orders as well as their distinction from the laity (based on ordination, connected to the idea of apostolic succession). Protestants believe that there is no difference between clergy and laity in regard to their spiritual status; therefore, they either eschew that distinction completely (Quakers and Plymouth Brethren) or understand it in a more functional way (Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists). For Protestant churches, congregational and presbyterian patterns of governance are more prominent. These communitarian forms of church structure are opposed to the “monarchical episcopacy” inherent in Roman Catholicism and Orthodox churches.
Another important area of disagreement is the understanding of the role of the Roman bishop. The Roman Catholic Church developed a theory that the bishop of Rome is the successor of the Apostle Peter (considered to be the “vicar of Christ”; cf. Mt. 16:18-19). This idea first appeared in the writings of Cyprian and Tertullian. Pope Leo I (440-61) shaped the theory of Roman primacy, which claimed for Rome full power over the entire Church . The Reformers (especially Calvin and the radical Protestants) wanted to return to the order set by early Christianity, but they disagreed as to what that pattern was. Anglicanism is characterized by a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism. Anglicans are Protestant in most areas of doctrine, but they retain a hierarchy based on bishops (“historical episcopate”). The issue of a threefold order (bishops, presbyters [priests] and deacons) remains one of the important leitmotifs in discussions of the nature of the Church. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches have retained this pattern as being of the essence of the Church; Protestant traditions largely embrace a “single pastoral ministry of word and sacrament” . Among churches that retain a “threefold” pattern, there are different views on what the threefold ministry consists of, the relation of the episcopate to the presbytery, and the role of the diaconate.
Another important area of disagreement in ecclesial approaches to Christian unity is the pressure towards a more democratic form of governance, i.e. “mutual and egalitarian collegiality” . The growing importance of the gender issue and its implications for the exercise of church power should not be neglected. Feminism is calling into question patriarchal and hierarchical practices within the Church . The ordination of women has a potential to split churches, especially in post-soviet evangelical denominations that still follow an exclusively male approach to ordained ministry.
In this context, it is worth noting L. Newbigin’s statement that all attempts to make absolute a certain structure developed in church history must be abandoned; there are no eternally valid structures. Structures must change but always in a way keeping with the call of the Church to embody the gospel .

3.    Sacraments

From the earliest times sacraments have been an important and integral aspect of the life and ministry of the Christian community. For this reason, different theological understandings and practices of the sacraments have caused some of the deepest divisions among Christians. Roman Catholic theology accepted the approach of Thomas Aquinas, itself based on the Augustinian notion of sacraments as the visible sign and the “visible form of invisible grace”, the definitions of Hugh of St. Victor and Peter Lombard (“sacrament” encompassed not only the sign, but also the physical medium through which grace is communicated) and the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form. For Aquinas, the sacraments are vessels of salvation and instruments of grace in the hands of God: “they have an effect independently of the worthiness of the celebrant or of the recipient”.  The seven sacraments officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation were: baptism, the Eucharist, confirmation, penance, marriage, ordination, and extreme unction.
Orthodox churches follow the tradition of the ancient Church and interpret the sacraments as “mysterious saving actions of God” . Orthodox sacramental theology is based on the idea that the Christian community is the unique mysterion, in which men’s participation in God is effected through their “synergy”. The Orthodox tradition holds a view that the material elements of sacraments become “grace-filled” by the calling of the Holy Spirit, while Roman Catholic theologians affirm that the sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts “in the person of Christ.”
The Reformers rejected the Catholic meaning of the sacraments, choosing to place the emphasis on the word of promise. They also limited the number of sacraments to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Luther’s view of the sacraments was that they are a means of grace and outward signs that accompany a promise; the purpose of the sacraments was to encourage the faith of the believer. According to Luther, two essential characteristics of a sacrament were: 1) the Word of God; 2) an outward sacramental sign . Ulrich Zwingli insisted that the sacraments, understood to be memorial-actions (symbols of saving events of the past), do not communicate grace; he understood the word sacramentum in its classical meaning as “a pledge of God’s faithfulness to men or as a pledge of loyalty between believers”. Calvin held an intermediate position: while the sacraments are signs, there is a strong link between the sacrament and that which it signifies.

Evaluation of the most pressings areas of disagreement

In considering different theological approaches, it should be noticed that one of the most debated aspects of Christian doctrine and practice is the question of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic Church insists on the doctrine of transubstantiation, according to which the accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged at the moment of consecration, while their substance changes to that of the body and blood of Christ. Luther developed a doctrine of simultaneous presence of both bread and the body of Christ in the Eucharist. According to Zwingli’s theory of “trans-signification,” the Lord’s Supper is a “memorial of the suffering of Christ and not a sacrifice” . As Stanley Grenz remarked, despite the nearly universal practice of the act, baptism (as regard to the meaning, the mode and the proper recipients of this sacrament) has also been a source of disagreement among Christian traditions . Another controversial issue is the question of infant baptism and the theological justification of this practice.

Short description of lesser but important areas of disagreement

It should be noticed that the Catholic and Orthodox traditions hold different views on the influence of Tradition on doctrines. The Orthodox Church believes that the Fathers of the Church are the supreme expositors of Scripture, and that their authority cannot be superseded. In order to justify new doctrines (like “papal infallibility” or “the immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary), Roman Catholicism developed a theory of “doctrinal development”. Areas of disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox churches also include a different understanding of the doctrine of Papal authority, the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit (filioque), and different manners of liturgical celebration. While the Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution, most Protestants continue to reject evolution in favor of creationism and intelligent design. Potentially, disagreements may also be caused by new questions of faith and morals, such as the ordination of women, the moral evaluation of abortion and homosexuality, the regulation of birth, and genetic engineering.

 Sources

• Ware, Kallistos, “Tradition and traditions” in Lossky, Nicholas et.al. (eds.) Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (2nd ed.). Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002.
• Ministry in the Church” in Lossky, Nicholas et.al. (eds.) Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (2nd ed.). Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002.
• “Church order” in Lossky, Nicholas et.al. (eds.) Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (2nd ed.). Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002.
• Adam Hood, “Governance” in Mannion (ed.), The Rutledge Companion to the Christian Church, 2008.
• Michael W. Goheen“As the Father Has Sent Me, I Am Sending You”: J. E. Lesslie Newbigin’s Missionary Ecclesiology. Thesis to obtain the degree of doctor at Utrecht University. 2000.
• McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Fifth Edition, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 2001.
• Grenz,Stanley. Theology for the Community of God, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Kees van der Kooi is an expert on modern Christian theology with special interests in the legacy of John Calvin and the work of Karl Barth. In this lecture he will evaluate the controversial book Love Wins by Grand Rapids pastor-author Rob Bell according to the view of universal salvation expounded by the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, the foremost theologian of the 20th century. Professor van der Kooi is the Director of the Center of Evangelical and Reformation Theology at the VU-University, Amsterdam.

See the video.

The main goals

We have to admit that at the present time a divided Christianity is a “pluralistic reality in a formal sense”[1]. The metaphor of Hooker illustrates that the Church is like the sea, various parts of which bear their own names and churches within themselves. At the same time, we have to remember that behind the barriers and divisions there exists a common Christian faith. There is strong Biblical support for the concept of the unity of the Church (Eph. 4:4-6), and ecclesial division is clearly defined as a sin (Gal. 5:19-21). God’s aim is to bring all things to unity in Christ (Eph. 1:10). Unity is fundamental to the nature of the Church. As Ferguson properly indicates, “unity is already provided by God in the most important things”[2]. Those things that divide Christians are less important than that which was done by God in order to produce unity among Christ’s followers. Actual unity has already been given by God; the human task is to act according to this “created unity” and to maintain it. Therefore, I agree with Haight that the main goal of all ecumenical activity consists in reaching some form of “visible communion among the churches”[3]. As they work toward that goal, alienated churches can reach more attainable purposes such as growth in mutual understanding as well as deeper insights into how issues of Church division may be overcome.  An important part of the ecumenical movement is concern for a common Christian response to social, economic and moral issues as well as a common witness. The ultimate purpose of theological ecumenism is to help Christians “to glorify Christ together in witness and service”[4].

The ways

Roger Haight affirms correctly that institutional or “juridical” authority alone cannot provide real unity. I am in agreement with the evangelical position that stresses the importance of personal faith, the free nature of the Church and the priesthood of all believers and that expresses reluctance to define Christian unity in terms of common church structures or theological consensus[5].  A better way to forge spiritual unity and some form of communion consists in “positive constructive dialogue”[6]. We need to be aware of the particularity and historical limitations of all human thinking. There is more truth in all areas (including our knowledge of the Church) than that which can be attained from any particular perspective. The concept of koininia reflects the idea that communion consists not in uniformity but in pluralism and a diversity of expressions of Christian faith. We have to engage in dialogue with those who have other positions rather than seek ways to convert them to our point of view. Churches need to open up their “theological imagination beyond denominationalism to a positive recognition of other churches, a desire to learn from them, and in some cases enter into communion with them”[7]. It is important to develop “dynamics of interchange” based on the idea that one set of theological knowledge does not exhaust the mystery of the Church. Ferguson provides the important insight that Church unity requires solidarity and locality; in other words, the commitment to stay together in spite of differences as well as loyalty to the same principles and to one another[8].

 The dangers

It is often said that while it strives for ecumenical (not spiritual) unity, theological ecumenism downplays the importance of truth and doctrinal purity. Therefore the main danger of theological ecumenism is the possibility of its losing the uniqueness and integrity of the Christian Tradition, the erosion of its theological convictions, and the relativisation of its belief(s). For example, from the evangelical perspective, the problematic areas include the explanation of salvation in social and political, rather than personal, terms; an emphasis on “liberation theology”; openness to other religions; the tendency to replace obedience to Christ’s command to evangelize the world with the doing of social work, thereby downplaying the primary importance of announcing the good news. It is difficult to reach authentic Christian unity when unity in “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) does not exist.

At the same time, it is worthwhile to pay attention to the dangers facing the ecumenical movement. I agree with the concerns expressed by William Rusch. He reasonably raises questions about the future of the ecumenical movement in the light of its tendency to be comfortable with the present level of cooperation and thereby abandon the quest for doctrinal consensus. Another threat is the polarization between the struggle for communion in life and action and the struggle for communion in faith. Such a situation does not help to define what precisely the ultimate goal of ecumenism is at the present time.

 The opportunities

Dialogue is one of the most valuable tools aiding churches to move toward their ecumenical goal and visible unity[9]. Through dialogue, churches reach a better mutual understanding, soften historical disagreements and resolve controversial issues. Theological ecumenism provides a stimulus for theological reflection, promotes deeper study of the Bible and Church history, serves as an important impulse for practical cooperation in social work, and helps to expand missionary efforts. As indicated by Geoffrey Wainwright, an important condition for future ecumenical progress is a quest for a more adequate ecclesiology that will help to overcome the present state of division and will facilitate further reconciliation[10]. We have to learn to value the unity of the Church, to accept Christians from other traditions as brothers and sisters in Christ, and realize that there is more that unites us than what divides us. It is important to build up relationships without compromising our particular beliefs and practices. Christians have to remember that we have all contributed to the scandal of division and it is our common responsibility to repent and to work toward unity, which is the will of God.

Нещодавно отримав такого листа:

“Добрый вечер Роман,

Около четырех лет назад наши друзья из Америки привезли нам DVD Nooma. По-моему, они очень классно сделаны и никого не оставят равнодушным.

Недавно мы решили сделать их перевод, который можно посмотреть здесь (не сочтите за рекламу хотя не без этого:):

http://www.youtube.com/user/appliedfaith

К моему глубочайшему удивлению, после того как мы перевели четвертый ролик, я узнал, что оказывается вокруг последней книги Роба Белла разразилась целая баталия, и некоторые считают его учение ересью. Несколько дней пришлось посвятить изучению данного вопроса, и именно так я попал на этот блог (один из немногих русскоязычных ресурсов, который рассказывает о Робе Белле). Не знаю, что там с последней книгой, но видео, которые он снял за 5 лет до этого, мне кажутся очень хорошими.

Если Вам они понравятся, можете как-то разместить их на этом Блоге.

Отдельно хотелось бы поблагодарить за статью, она мне понравилась.

Мне кажется что само Христианство не поменялось, и никогда не поменяется. Роб Белл говорит о том же, о чем говорят проповедники уже 2000 лет, но с другой стороны.

Спасибо.