Wednesday, April 22, 2009

But for the want of a "word"

John McNeese wrote a letter to the editor on Presbyweb , on the 21st of April, about words. It was a tiny letter but it carried a huge statement. He was bewailing the letters being exchanged by others, including myself, about some words and their theological meaning. His statement was important. “Nothing here [in the argument about words] about what it means to actively follow Jesus in this time and this place.”

Now in one way he is right. After all James insists that we can’t just say we have faith but rather our actions will show that we do. But then he goes on to remind the reader that the tongue when we speak has the power to both bless and curse. James’ actual meaning is that something at the core of our being is wrong when we bless our Lord God and, at the same time, curse others who are made in his image. So words do have meaning and they do shape who we are. If we keep cursing we will be changed by our words.

But there is another part of this. The meaning of words is important to our actions as Christians. Especially the meaning of words that are found in the Scripture and the Church’s Confessions; there are historical examples.

For example, the Jehovah Witnesses have misunderstood why the article is placed where it is placed in the Greek text in John 1:1. While most translations read something like my NAS, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Their New World Translation is, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god. A lot of action follows from this misunderstanding.

The Jehovah Witnesses claim Arius as one of their Fathers. They, like him, believe Jesus to be a created being. But they step out further; he is an Archangel. He did not rise bodily from the grave. Only the 144, 000 of Revelation can say they are born again and go to be with him. They are all spirits. The later resurrected inhabit a new earth but they do not have that kind of fellowship with Jesus Christ; they may not even take the cup at communion.

Their solution for salvation is the death of a perfect human. They write, “How grateful we can be that Jesus' death makes provision for us to gain the perfection that Jehovah originally intended for the offspring of Adam and Eve!” They also write, “Yes, Jesus' death is a means of rescuing ‘everyone exercising faith’ in him from sin, disease, old age, and death itself.” Their conclusion, “True Christians are in a saved condition in that they are in an approved position before God. As a group, their salvation is sure. Individually, they must meet God's requirements. However, we can fail, for Jesus said: "If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is cast out as a branch and is dried up." (All Italics mine)

They are following a perfect human but not the Lord of life who unites us to himself and gives us abundant life. The Jehovah Witnesses’ righteousness is their righteousness. But Christians have no righteousness of their own; instead they have the righteousness of Christ. And, it is all because of the misunderstood placement of a word.

To go further, that ancient father of the Jehovah Witnesses, Arius, not only troubled Church councils and Fathers. He made disciples who went into the lands of the Visigoths and made disciples. They would trouble Catholic Europe for several more hundred years. That was action.

And that is not the end of the story. Neglecting the words of the biblical text, the liberal theologians of the nineteenth century also became functional Arians. They denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. God was a Father, Jesus our brother. And once again works became the basis of salvation.

Rebecca Ann Parker, author alongside Rita Nakashima Brock, of the heretical book Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us, points out this harsh understanding of the meaning of the cross for the liberal by quoting Walter Rauschenbush. “Salvation is the voluntary socializing of the soul.”

Parker writes of the liberal thought, “Individuals are saved by entering into a new life of self-sacrifice, with no thought for self, only love for others.” (32)

Barth lays the theology of the German Christians at the feet of nineteenth century liberal theologians and predicts it will return to shape some other disastrous movement in some other place. This is all because of words. Misunderstood, ignored or denied, words do lead to actions for good or for evil.




15 comments:

Aric Clark said...

Viola,

I absolutely agree that words are important. Not all words are equally important though. It's pretty rare that a single word has as much impact as you seem to indicate is the case with Jehovah's Witness. Many words are in fact just noise - as evidenced by the very existence of this medium. It's a blog. Words get published at an astounding rate nowadays and most of them are rather insignificant.

Furthermore, it is only true that words influence our beliefs and actions. The reverse is also true. That is our actions and beliefs give meaning to our words. I think this is what James pushes for and what most of my more conservative Christian friends tend to miss - it matters not a whit if you say you are loving or you say you hold to orthodoxy, that perfect verbal formulation of Christian belief and action, if in your actions you betray the meaning of those words. In the final analysis "fruits" do matter more than "beliefs" - even though beliefs are important.

As for Barth, he did lay the German Christian heresy at the foot of 19th century liberal theology, but he wasn't entirely right. He had a very important point, but even he later in life realized he had been reactionary (understandably given what was at stake). In "The Humanity of God", an older Barth gives a very incisive overview of his project and not only says why he thinks it was necessary, but what its limitations were, and he recants much of what he said earlier in his career about liberal theology.

Aric Clark said...

Sigh... sorry, I always forget.

Aric Clark
Fort Morgan, CO

Viola Larson said...

Aric,
I am not saying that words are important in and of themselves, but in how they are used.

And you are right about how blogging produces sometimes, "just noise." That bothers me a lot, but I try not to be noisy in that manner. I am sure I often am though.

"it matters not a whit if you say you are loving or you say you hold to orthodoxy, that perfect verbal formulation of Christian belief and action, if in your actions you betray the meaning of those words," I have no argument with that.

But this, "In the final analysis "fruits" do matter more than "beliefs" - even though beliefs are important,” I don't agree in the sense that to me beliefs and actions are the same if they are true.

I am not quite sure how to put this, but when I say I believe in Jesus Christ I lean on him, I trust my life into his keeping, etc. That is an action and everything else flows from that.

I will get back to you and Barth later :) and I will!

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Clay Allard said...

Viola,
I write as a pastor-- and I hear Rev. McNeese differently. When will we start living out what we believe in a way that makes it clear we are different from the world?

I don't disagree with a thing you've written, but I long for enthusiasm-- literally God in us-- to drive that same old/new energy that was in Paul, that was in Keith Green, that brings hope to every person who hears and believes.

Arguing over words is not a path to that goal. How do we live demonstrably differently from the world, if it is not through love? How do we live that out in this broken time, in these broken lives?

Clay Allard
Dallas, Texas

Pastor Bob said...

A couple of thoughts:

homoousious, homoiousious

That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone
of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our
Savior’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And that no
opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that
which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as
of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we
are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.

Pastor Bob said...

oops!

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

Viola Larson said...

Pastor Bob,
This, "And that no
opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that
which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as
of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we
are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it."
Is that Calvin? I know I just read it somewhere but can't remember where.

Clay Allard said...

Viola,
It's from the Westminster Confession of Faith, distilled into the Principles of Church Order in the Book of Order-- all of it except the last phrase.

Clay Allard
Dallas, TX

Viola Larson said...

Thanks Clay.

Anonymous said...

Viola,

I hesitate to write for fear this post might actually be about sexuality, but I have to ask:

Did you ever figure out if there is a difference between "believing the Word of God in Jesus Christ" and "believing in Jesus Christ the Word of God" and "in Jesus Christ believing the Word of God"?

I like this point you made: "If we keep cursing we will be changed by our words."

I suppose the same is true if we keep blessing.

Tom
KC

Viola Larson said...

Tom,

I agree about the blessing. When I think this way I think about C.S. Lewis and his essay the "Weight of Glory," where he talks about our thinking about the potential glory of those we interact with. They as he puts it, although "dull and uninteresting" may one day be "a creature which, if you saw it now now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare."

On the meaning of the sentences you have them all wrong. It was "of the incarnation of the eternal word in Jesus Christ."

And to know about the discussions you would need, if you don't, to subscribe to Presbyweb, which is not at all expensive. That's www.presbyweb.com.

Viola Larson said...

Aric, I thought I had the book you mentioned by Barth, but it is a different one. However, this is a quote which I have used too many times and it is not all Barth's quote.
"To be sure, their growth and increase [the German Christians]is a reason for anxiety. Still, I would not have "taken the floor" as if a heresy, that had never raised its head before them, had popped up. Oh dear, no! The veriest tyro in theology knows that with their thinking we are dealing with a small collection of odds and ends from the great theological dust-bins (this happy phrase is not mine; I've borrowed it) of the dispised eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."
I will eventually look at the book you are wrote of. And then write what I think.

Barth was always evolving in his thinking, and he was always kind when he disagreed. However I don't believe that he ever stopped holding his strong views on the Trinity or the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. This is where he would still be against liberal theology.

Pastor Bob said...

My point in my previous post is that words do matter. Even letters matter. The "iota" of difference between homoousia and homoiousia is critical to the Christian faith.

And as to my quote from G-1.0304 is that we cannot abandon either truth or good deeds. The truth cannot be put on the same level as a lie as if there is no difference. But if truth does not lead to holy behavior then truth is just noise.

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

Viola Larson said...

Bob,
I was fairly certain that that was what you were saying : ) But I am glad you added your explanation. I agree with all of it.

Aric Clark said...

Viola,

You wrote: "Barth was always evolving in his thinking, and he was always kind when he disagreed. However I don't believe that he ever stopped holding his strong views on the Trinity or the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. This is where he would still be against liberal theology."No question Barth definitely has strong disagreements with 19th century german liberal theology - and with good reason. But he backed off the claim that such theology was primarily to blame for German Christian cooperation with Nazism - also for good reason. He realized he was being reactionary. He even saw the roots of his own theology in the same liberalism which he was trained in and thoroughly embraced in his early days. He went so far as to suggest that aspects of the liberal theological project needed revisiting (the central premise of his essay "The Humanity of God"). Whereas Barth has primarily emphasized God's transcendent otherness in the face of Fascism, in the face of liberal democracy he felt it was crucial to emphasize God's immanent humanity. It's a fascinating essay. I commend it highly.