Thomas F. Torrance on Women in MInistry

It is surely, partly at least, for that reason, that the celebrant wears vestment (which have no reference to his sex), for he does not act in his own significance, or in his own name but only in the name of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is rather in the office or “persona” with which he is clothed to act in Christ’s name that the representation of Christ is to be recognized, not in the self
of the celebrant, and certainly not in his male nature. It is actually the unseen Christ who in the real presence of his divine-human Person ministers at the Eucharist, not the person of the presbyter or bishop as such except in the name of Christ, and then only in a humble, self-effacing way. Hence the celebrant is not to be regarded as a sacrificing priest who repeats the atoning sacrifice of Christ, even though in an “unbloody” form, but is only one who serves the eucharistic proclamation of Christ’s full, perfect and sufficient, all-prevailing sacrifice, offered once for all. It is upon Christ our ascended High Priest that the Father looks and only on the celebrating priest on earth as found in him. Thus, however we look at it, to insist that man, precisely as man or as male, alone is able to represent Christ, would amount to a serious intrusion of male self-consciousness and assumed preeminence into our understanding of the priestly office of Christ, and would be tantamount to some form of psychological sacerdotalism and eucharistic Pelagianism.

We conclude that in spite of long-held ecclesiastical convention, there are no intrinsic theological reasons why women should not be ordained to the Holy Ministry of Word and Sacrament; rather, there are genuine theological reasons why they may be ordained and consecrated in the service of the gospel. The idea that only a man, or a male, can represent Christ or be an ikon of Christ at the
Eucharist, conflicts with basic elements of the doctrines of: the incarnation and the new order of creation; the virgin birth, which sets aside male sovereignty and judges it as sinful; the hypostatic union of divine and human nature in the one Person of Jesus Christ who is of the same uncreated genderless Being as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit; the redemptive and healing assumption of complete human nature in Christ; and the atoning sacrifice of Christ which he has offered once for all on our behalf, in our place, in our stead. And therefore it conflicts also with the essential nature of the Holy Eucharist and the communion in the body and blood of Christ given to us by him. As in Christ there is nether Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, so there is neither male nor female, for all sinful separation and gradation between them resulting from the Fall of mankind have been done away, while God-given distinctions have been preserved, renewed and sanctified. Through the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ humanity has thus been set upon an entirely new basis of divine grace, in which there is no respect of persons, and women share equally with men in all the grace-gifts or charismata of the Holy Spirit, including gifts for ministry in the Church (cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 88).

--T.F. Torrance, The Ministry of Women: An Argument for the Ordination of Women.

Moltmann, Barth and 3 Types of Universalism

 I've noticed a declining trend these days in regards to the identification of Universalism, and it's variants in the theological spectrum. Most people immediately leap to speculations involving "no hell" to "no atonement and no hell" and even utilizing the 'p' word; pluralism. Now there are certainly pluralists who consider all religions of equal standing, and some Universalists veer towards this viewpoint. However, within evangelicalism, there exist several stripes of this view.

For example a universalist could be an excusivist (ala Robert Peterson and the majority of evangelicals) or an inclusivist (ala Clark Pinnock). They could be Reformed or a Calvinist (Barth; yes I think Barth was a universalist) or a combination of Reformed and Arminian (Tom Talbott). When I was a universalist, I believed in the 4 points of Calvinism, with an Unlimited atonement (ala Arminianism). This logically lead me to universalism. What changed my mind is outside the scope of this post.

Needless to say, it is usually best to just ask a universalist their opinion and methodology. They will likely talk your ear off.

Jurgen Moltmann in his wonderful book "The Coming of God" lays out four varying positions in competition, with three of them being universalistic in varying ways.

1. Particularismus verus (true Particularism). Moltmann identifies this with Beza and Gomarus in 1618, and Augustine over a millennium before. He wraps it up in 'double predestination' and his critique of the view is that is made up of antitheses and juxtaposition. It is 'negative' salvation.

2. Universalismus hypotheticus (hypothetical Universalism). Jurgen suggests that Moyse Amyraut developed the idea of the general proclamation of the gospel, even though he foreknew that only some would be saved. God's intent is universal, but the outcome is particular.

3. Universalismus verus (true or real Universalism). Moltmann brings out the (in)famous Friedrich Schleiermacher, a Calvinist theologian. Schleiermacher, argue Moltmann, sees that the eschatological goal of God is universal salvation. The human being cannot eternally maintain his unbelief contrary to God's love. God rejects in order to elect.

4. Open Universalism. Here, Karl Barth fulfills Moltmann's example. God elects all men in Christ, and consequently, God's resolve is universal, whether you know it or not. However, Barth resists symmetry in his theology and does not embrace universalism because of his high view of God's freedom.

Moltmann's own theology is wrapped up in the Descent into Hell, and the need for reconciliation not only between God and humanity, but for humanity to be reconciled to itself. His experiences in the prison camps, where guards and slaves fought, would ultimately be undone in God's liberative love.

Much of this can be found in Moltmann, 235-255.

--Nick

Christians and the Identification of God

As the title may indicate, I spent a lot of time on my honeymoon reading. And doing other unimportant stuff. Mostly what I read was a book on Paul by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor and Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God. My wife compromised on the amount of literature I was allowed to bring, and believe me, choosing just two texts was like pulling several teeth.

But I digress.

Moltmann sees all Christian theology as attempting to answer why Jesus asked "my God my God why have you forsaken me?" He sees it as a glimpse into the nature of God, but also whether or not this proclamation is the end or the beginning.

Theodicy is a powerful fan of flame. It begins and spirals amidst abstractions and climaxes in a broad sense of physical -- even existential -- suffering. One's identity may be forged in the triumphs of life, but most people remember such wonderful experiences as they were: in times of being lost or forsaken. A theology without faith is a computer without a battery. One tug on the power supply and everything simply shuts down. Foundationally, when there is no such thing, it becomes a black hole.

Theology (or dogmatics) is an act of faith. According to Karl Barth, "Faith is the determination of human action by the being of the Church and therefore by Jesus Christ, by the gracious address of God to man. The summation of determination is bound up in the character of grace. Barth's point is a potent one, but Moltmann seems to see it as insufficient.

For Moltmann, suffering as a prison of war, suffering was as in your face as such a thing could be. Faith was forsaken as there was nothing there to retain. This, however, changes when a nailed forsaken Messiah is shown in his brokenness.

Identity is bound up, most often, in suffering and in trials. The mysticism of suffering is compared with other sufferings. Moltmann suggests, as did several in his prison camp, that Jesus found him in his suffering. It becomes not only a tangible reality to witness parallel suffering when one is stricken by man, but it also brings forth empathy and a genuine response; whether of anger or compassion.

In my experience, I haven't suffered in comparison to many people. I haven't had my finger nails removed by pliers, nor have I ever had boiling oil poured down my throat. Suffering has a sense of putting one in their place, but it also shifts focus to what really matters.

The brother and sister that feels forsaken. When the crucified God was hanging there, his cry of loneliness is a cry that everyone who has suffered is able to picture with ultimate clarity. God gave of himself to exemplify how God is for us and with us. When suffering is found, identity is not far behind.

When you identify with the crucified God, you identify with everyone else who has suffered. Empathy seems to be the slope towards reconciliation at that point, abstraction be damned. A world without suffering would befit only the eschaton. A world that is presently suffering showcases the need for such an end, an end to death, an end to suffering, an end to the forging of identity within pain and evil.

Thankfully, one hopes, the formation of identity within God and us doesn't cease upon the forsaken breath in our chests. Hopefully, with universal pleas, it begins thus.

Just some mere thoughts.

--Nick

Karl Barth and The Task of Dogmatics

"Dogmatics is a theological discipline. But theology is a function of the Church. The Church confesses God as it talks about God. It does so first by its existence in the action of each individual believer. And it does so secondly by its specific action as a fellowship, in proclamation by preaching and the administration of the sacraments, in worship, in its internal and external mission including works of love amongst the sick, the weak and those in jeopardy."

I love this.

Church Dogmatics I.I
§ I., pg3.