Usus Politicus

The "political" or "civil use" of the Decalogue often gets little or no attention these days.  But every polis needs a legal code that will shape the way people live in relation to one another; and the ten commandments have an inexorably social dimension.  Yahweh gave the Ten Words to an amorphous Israel gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai.  It was to be the charter for their new culture, foundational words that would mold and shape them into a peaceful, productive society.  The Decalogue is not given simply to guide individuals in their religious, private piety.  They are about how the community is called to live together in marriages, families, cities, and larger communities.  Here are two ways of summarizing the Ten Words that bring out the cultural focus.

The first way highlights what God seeks to promote in human civilization. The Ten Words are intended to form a particular type of society. A community of people . . .

1.  that put their trust in the true God (“In God we trust”), 

2.  that worship God in a fitting way, 

3.  that bear the name of God in a glorious way in their daily lives, 

4.  A civilization that safeguards people from the slavery of never-ending work and frees them to gather for worship on the day of the Lord, 

5.  A culture that honors and obeys parents and others in authority, 

6.  one that protects the life of the innocent, 

7.  that remains true to their marriage covenants.  

8.  that respects the right of private property against theft,

9.  where the courts are respected and justice is the norm because people testify honestly,

10. that are content with what gifts and goods with which God has blessed them.

The second way of summarizing the Ten Words calls attention to what is prohibited and the consequences of violating God's law.  

The Triune God & Creation

Unexplored Dimensions of Our Christian Worldview

Of him, through him, and to him are all things — Romans 11:36

I.  What was God doing before he created the world?

    A.  WCF 2.2  God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things.

    B.   God’s ontological/relational independence

        1.  God neither depends upon, nor needs any other (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 5:9; Acts 17:24, 25; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11). God has/d no need for creation.  God desired to created, he didn't need to.

        2.  As Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 1 John 4:8, 16) God experiences the fulness of personal relationship apart from creation.  Out of that fulness of relational happiness the Father, Son, ad Holy Spirit created the world and humanity.

Piety & Theology

Augustine’s piety was rooted and grounded in theology.  For Augustine, masculine piety is inseparably connected with theologizing.  The separation of theology from worship, which has proved so disastrous to modern thought, was unknown to him.  The separation of theology from piety was unthinkable. Theology and devotion were fused aspects of a single faith.  

. . . no one will love what he has no prospect of making his own by understanding; faith without the hope of understanding would be no more than compliance to authority (Brown, Augustine of Hippo. 279).  

No separation of faith and reason.  No opposition.  Certainly no warning, ever, against the dangers of theology. 

The thoroughly modern, and I should say, thoroughly erroneous antithesis between love and logic, feeling and reason, heart and head, practical and doctrinal, etc. had not meaning for him.  Augustine writes no separate treatise concerning the theology of piety or devotion, simply because all of his works, from Contra Academicas to The City of God must be understood as such.  And I might add, they all should be read devotionally.  

Augustine’s devotion is theologically stimulated and regulated just as his theologizing is devotionally sustained and controlled.  Thus the authenticity of a man’s piety is properly tested by the clarity and profundity of his theology and conversely the genuineness of his theology is properly tested by the intensity of his devotion.

Rich Bledsoe's Deep City Thoughts

Go listen to the interview with theo-guru Rich Bledsoe at St. Anne's Pub. Cool stuff.

Modern Trinitarian Theology I

I'm often asked about modern trends in trinitarian theology. I spent a good many years of graduate work concentrating on the doctrine of the Trinity. In the end, after finishing all my course work, I decided to punt my dissertation. I wasn't interested in jumping through that last academic hoop because I did not intend to leave the pastorate to look for an academic position. Besides, I was getting real tired of school.

So let's put some of this knowledge to good use. I'd like to summarize some trends in modern trinitarian theology. Along the way, I'll suggest some books to read. But I mainly want to outline some interesting developments in modern theological work on the doctrine of the Trinity.

One preliminary caution is probably in order. Much of the theological work I will be discussing here has been done primarily on the “other side” of the mainline/Evangelical divide. Thus, conservative Reformed students sometimes know little about it, except that, because of its mainline associations, it must be very bad. There's evidence that the divide on this doctrine has narrowed recently, but for conservative Reformed pastors and seminarians, we still tend to live in the seventeenth century (well, maybe up to the eighteenth), which means that the world of modern Trinitarian thought often seems dangerous and strange to us.

There are all sorts of reasons for this. One is that Karl Barth started the modern Trinitarian resurgence. Oh yes. Karl Barth. And we all know that Karl Barth is bad, as every conservative Reformed pastor is taught in seminary. We can’t really read him or appreciate much of anything about him, can we? I've discussed this phenomenon here and here. In addition to Barth there are some other theologians I will be mentioning that have some bad elements in their theology, and we all know that this means that everything they have to say is bad

Of course, I'm exaggerating a bit, but just a bit. I think we ought to be mature enough to learn from people who do not line up with us on every theological point. At any rate, there has been a lot of interesting insights into and productive suggested revisions of the doctrine of the Trinity that have largely come from theological traditions outside of our own. I believe that these insights can enrich Reformed theology. I'll begin in the next post to introduce you to some fascinating developments in modern trinitarian theology.

Go to Part II