Creeds and Confessions
Gregory of Nazianzus – The Theological Orations – A Nicene
Way of Doing Theology
Arguments from Philosophy
In the oration on the Father, Gregory poses many scenarios
that move our minds to inquire into mysteries that our observations cannot
penetrate. Gregory argues (p. 157) that scientific description provides a
mechanical type of knowledge, but cannot claim to provide Wisdom.[1]
In order to enter into Wisdom, a more sublime level of reflection is necessary.
Gregory’s discussion implied that if we cannot penetrate the mysteries of
creation by observation, we will certainly find ourselves frustrated if we
attempt to understand heavenly realities through the same kind of simplistic
use of observation and reason. Scripture informing reason is the approach he
advocates.
Gregory also points out several false dichotomies in his
opponents arguments. For example, the question of how the term “Beget” should
be understood when used of the Father and the Son. Is the Son begotten of the
Father as a matter of “essence” or as a matter of “action?” Eunomius seems to
posit that in either case the divinity of the Son is discounted. If a matter of
essence, then God is divided and therefore must in fact be something less than
God; if a matter of action, then the Son is a creation and not eternal – there
is a when when the Son was not. To
this point, Gregory points out that these are not the only ways the term
“Begotten” must be understood, in fact the best way is the Scriptural way of
“relationship”. Begotten describes the eternal relationship between the Father
and the Son. Even so, Gregory also postulates ways that even essence and action
both may be understood piously, and this portion of the argument hints at a
Nicene way of doing theology. The terms are not necessarily the essential
issue, but what is meant, implied, included, and excluded about God in the
terms. We saw this with the term homoousius
in the previous discussion, when originally introduced it was used to promote
Saballianism, but was incorporated into the Orthodox Nicene Creed under a new
interpretation.
In fact, Gregory cites an extensive list of terms which have
entered the Christological controversies to this point and essentially sweeps
them all into the summary statement:
“What
is lofty you are to apply to the Godhead, and to that nature in him which is
superior to sufferings and incorporeal; but all that is lowly to the composite
condition of him wo for your sakes made himself of no reputation and was
incarnate—yes, for it is no worse thing to say—was made man, and afterwards was
also exalted. The result will be that you will abandon these carnal and
groveling doctrines, and learn to be more sublime, and to ascend with his
Godhead, and you will not remain permanently among the things of sight, but
will rise up with him into the world of thought, and come to know which
passages refer to his nature, and which to his assumption of the human nature.”
(173)
Arguments from Scripture in the Fourth Oration
Along with the discussions of Proverbs 8 and Philippians 2
familiar from Athanasius’ treatment, Gregory takes up passages which use the
term “until” with relation to the Parousia, as though Christ’s Heavenly Reign
would end at that point, but as other Scriptures assert and the Nicene faith
affirms, Christ’s Kingdom is “without end”; therefore, the term “until” should
not be understood as excluding Christ’s continued reign after the Parousia, but
simply to affirm that the Son of God will not be conducting continued post
resurrection appearances as He did during the forty days between the
resurrection and the ascension, instead He must remain to reign in heaven until
the Parousia. Nicene theology guides the understanding of the term “until” and
provides teaching on what type of Real Presence Christ’s disciples should
expect during the interregnum.
Proposal for a Nicene approach to theology
In the first oration, Gregory speaks of the faith channeling
the flowing water of the thought implying that the Nicene theology provides
banks within which Orthodox Christian teaching flows. To that end, the teaching
of individual passages will affirm the Triune Godhead. Each person of the
Godhead is distinct, yet all share the essential unity of God. Further, the Son
takes into the divine Godhead the human nature received from His mother, Mary,
whereby it is proper to refer to her as the theotokos.
References to the Son which indicate any type of subordinate position or work
do not subordinate Him as regards His divinity, but instead relate to the human
nature for our sakes and for our salvation. These references indicate Christ’s
unity with us men, in our human nature, bear our sins willingly and innocently,
be our Savior, earn for us and deliver to us eternal life.
Further Considerations
In the introductory oration, Gregory elaborates on the
question of theology stemming from impiety. True Theology is only possible under
certain idyllic conditions. For the theologian’s thoughts to be aligned with
the Truth, such thoughts must be free of sin (“pure”); they must originate from
a serious mind; theology requires deliberate, thoughtful reflection; finally,
it must seek to give honor and glory to God and to His Word. This opening description
made me consider the many pastoral, evangelistic, and apologetic conversations
I have had with people who seemingly took great delight in positioning
themselves as scoffers – modern scientific people who had no intention of being
taken in by superstitious Christianity. It appeared that they were getting much
of their material from Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins by way of Bill
Maher.
More recently, this past weekend, another college Biology
professor published an opinion piece on Evolutionary Biology and Religious
Faith.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/god-darwin-and-my-college-biology-class.html?_r=0)
I bring this up simply because it is a very common conversation in our
congregations and Gregory’s discussion presents a few thoughts.
A simplistic reading of his list of questions might lead an
empiricist to equate Gregory’s mode of argument with a “God of the gaps”
approach. Empiricists love this approach because it puts the question of God
within the realm of the creation. “If we can fill in the gaps,” they argue, “we
can eliminate the consideration that God exists.” There will essentially be no
more reason to need God in order to explain the way things work. While this is
an exceptionally poor theological or philosophical argument, it is a very
effective pragmatic argument because, by and large, Lutheran Teenagers are ill
equipped to think through the shallowness of this argument. Scoffers get them
to buy into the God of the Gaps argument by citing it as a classic Christian
argument and then posit that all or most of the gaps are now gone based on
improved modes of observation through technology. However, if we were to grant
that everything about creation could be described by means of observation, how
would that actually prove the non-existence of God who stands outside of creation?
Such an argument still assumes that we are expecting to leave earth’s orbit and
find God in space; yet, Christians still allow this kind of argument to “make
them squirm.”
Further, however, is the question how to conduct ourselves
in relation to scoffers. On the one hand, if we are remotely dismissive we come
communicate arrogance; on the other hand, if we are too lenient, we give
credence to their arguments, especially as people who may be close by generally
have very short attention spans and may only listen in until the first verbal
blow is struck.
[1]
Hardy, p. 157, “For, granted that you understand orbits and periods,… and all
the other things which make you so proud of your wonderful knowledge, you have
not arrived at comprehension of the realities themselves, but only at an
observation of some movement,… But if you are very scientific on this subject,
and have a just claim to admiration, tell me, what is the cause of this order
and this movement?” Gregory then does touch on “First Cause” considerations on
the following pages.
No comments:
Post a Comment