the greatest song ever

I had been planning to take a break from the lofty thinking and compose a top ten of the year. But it got annoying. And I've still got Bon Iver and Kate Rusby on repeat from last year anyway. So, in lieu of being able to make any kind of decision, I have at least come to one realisation recently.

The most perfect song I've ever heard? It's not Crash Into Me. Nor is it bluegrass or acoustic-alternative. It's not even at the other end of the spectrum in rock-land. Instead, oozing passion and soul from every pore, plus a kick-ass bassline, it's this.

doctrine #4 - humanity

What does the meaning of ‘Original Sin’ imply for Christian engagement with the societies we inhabit?

The biblical truths that we are created by God, both imago Dei and imago trinitus* logically lead us to perfect examples for us to aim toward – both in the perfect man (Jesus), and the perfect relationship (the Trinitarian Godhead.) We therefore have, according to Kevin Vanhoozer, three ethical imperatives: to aim for righteousness, to work and steward creation, and to rest and feast (Gunton, 165.) However, in realising that “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3:23) surely we must also accept that this is a hypothetical – and one we are doomed to miss.

But consider the Pelagian controversy (McGrath, 362-8.) As humans we are used to choice: what to wear, what to eat, who to talk to, what to buy. Choosing how to act or to relate to people falls naturally into the linear stream of decisions we make – and so, when society keeps inconveniently plumping for the most negative option every time, as Christians we find ourselves either peering down from our ivory towers in despair, or - if we dare admit it – languishing in a pit of self-pity, beating our chests in realization that surely we will never be good enough, different enough, strong enough. Pelagius taught that choose equally between good and evil. However, Augustine of Hippo disputed that this is simply not the case. Because of Original Sin, we are beings limited in our free will by our inherently sinful natures. We cannot, as Pelagius believed, just choose goodness – our stained hearts are not capable. In truth, as Luther insisted (McGrath, 374) “God is active, and humans are passive, in justification.” We are justified purely “by grace through faith” – a perspective, which when applied to how we view society around us, might not only aid us in relating to those we would seek to save, but might just help us save ourselves.


Bibliography
Holy Bible, New International Version (London: Hodder & Staughton, 1998)
K Vanhoozer, ‘Human being, individual and social’ in C Gunton, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, (Cambridge: CUP, 1998) pp. 158-88.
A McGrath, Christian Thelogy: An Introduction, fourth ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007) pp348-74.

----

*Editor's note: I couldn't find a succinct enough definition of this to link to, so I will quickly highlight that this term refers to "the image of the trinity" - and therefore, that we are not only created in God's image, but furthermore in the image of the trinitiarian relationship. So although human relationships cannot compare, through the process of sanctification our relations to each other, and more fundamentally to God, will grow to reflect how the three 'forms' of the trinity relate to each other - that relationship being perfection.

doctrine #3 - creation

Question: How does a Christian’s understanding of creation affect her/his relationship with the created order and their efforts to understand it?

Creation can often be seen as the single most divisive doctrine between rational, contemporary society and the outmoded, misinformed Christian faith. However, my most focused point of reflection this week is that this division itself is a misconception. On examination, the simple theological truth is that Christian creation gives us the Why, but never actually lays claim to the How. (Although, it should be said, history shows that the church of the past and present may have claimed to have all the answers, but digging itself into this particular hole was perhaps as much precipitated by the rush to defying heresies and threats to growth.)

However, though the Bible cannot give all the answers, it can still claim to proclaim the truth – a truth manifest in all things. For all that God created was good – a statement at odd with everything from ancient Greek philosophy to Gnosticism, which recognized matter as inherently evil (Gunton, 143.) The Hebraic creation story** differs greatly from its contemporaries: here, we have a single deity creating order out of chaos, whilst simultaneously remaining both unconfined and entirely separate from it. This is not an enforced, dualistic separation though. Yes, God created and did so from nothing: but again, Christianity differs from other faiths. God is not withdrawn and absent from His creation; no, our God is in relationship with, transcendent over and immanent in His creation – with Christ as the ultimate proof of this relationship between God and man, according to T.F. Torrance (Gunton, 154).

Moreover, the concept of ex nihilo enhances further this sense of purpose, for if God created something from nothing as an action of personal will, it must logically therefore have a purpose. Any issue between persons and/or creation must therefore be viewed in light of God’s purpose in redemption and perfection of all creation, and so - to paraphrase Spiderman - from that great power comes great responsibility for all of us as part of that created order.


Bibliography
C Gunton, ‘The Doctrine of Creation’ in C. Gunton, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), pp. 141-57.

---

** Editor's note: I was going to link to Wikipedia here for 'Hebraic Creation', but discovered that Wikipedia, like many sources, makes an assumption which I believe to be mistaken - that Genesis 1 and 2 are part of the same narrative. Many theologians would argue that the first and second chapters are, in fact, different versions of the same story - evidenced by how much they seem to overlap. Therefore, the first account ends at Gen. 2:3, and the second begins at Gen. 2:4 ("This is the account of the heavens and the earth..." (NIV)) It has been put forward that as the Old Testament canon was put together by Hebrew leaders, this first account was actually a late addition, a prologue added for clarity, as it was felt that the Gen. 2 account did not emphasise strongly enough God's hand in creating every single individual part of creation (it focuses mainly on the creation of man.)

---