www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Calling all theologians....

Okay. I'm working on rewriting my book on the covenant of God.

I'm working on a particular section which is giving me a bit of trouble, so I would like to post what I have written and get your feedback. I am especially interested in knowing if I have made any errors in describing the Western approach to soteriology.

Here is what I wrote so far:

Ethics: As I discuss the ethics of covenant relationships, it is helpful to remember that I came out of the same Presbyterian understanding of covenant which I am criticizing in this book. Thus, while I understand the basis of ethics as being the establishment of certain laws by which the covenant is maintained, as I have grown in my faith, I find it uncomfortable to think of relationships being nothing more than a series of keeping certain rules.
As an Eastern Christian, one of the problematic features I see with Western theology, one that directly led to the Reformation, is the Roman fascination with law and law-keeping. I see this difference as the difference between a relationship of love and a state of servitude. In the former, love changes being, so that ontologically I become united in my thoughts, desires, and deeds to the one with whom I am in love. In the latter, law makes me obey more out of a constant concern and fear instead of a union of love.
It is interesting to note that the emphasis of Eastern soteriology, anthropology, and theology has to do with relational realities which appear to me to be at best muted in the Western Church. The great heresies of the Eastern Church had to do with the anthropological definitions of Christ as man. I feel these are important because the ousia (being) of man was that very thing which was corrupted by the Fall. Once corrupted, it was unable to enter into the unitive depth of the divine covenant relationship for which it was designed. The purpose of salvation in the East is the healing of a sick soul. This is why the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Eucharist as “the medicine of immorality.” In the union between Christ and the soul, they saw the whole process of salvation as one of ontological change created by the union of Christ and the soul. The more I become like Christ in my very being (ousia) the deeper the reality of salvation becomes for me. It is a therapeutic and healing process which changes one’s intrinsic being.
This does not appear to be the major thrust of Western soteriological understanding. One of the problematic issues of the Medieval time in which the Reformation took place was the issue of merit. As Rev. Ralph Smith shows in his book on the eternal covenant, the Reformers made a distinct swerve away from any hint that man could in any way merit anything from God. The idea of man somehow obeying certain laws in order to obtain merit which was salvific became a real problem. When I see how finely some of the actions of man are divided into “sin/not sin” in the Western Church, I fail to see a covenant relationship with is built on the unitive principle of love. Salvation becomes not an act of loving union with Christ, but rather a ledger in which good deeds (i.e. law-keeping for merit) is racked up. Sufficient enough brownie points may get you out of Purgatory early, but the keeping of the law will help you to grow in a unitive love for God. The law can’t do this, since it condemns. This is what drove Luther – who was training to be a lawyer – out of his mind, and eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.
It appears to me that the Roman idea of merit and law keeping, and the soteriology that developed from this, came to a point that it was putrid in the nostrils of the Reformers. But in their doing so, they swerved entirely off course in the other direction, creating a beast called “the covenant of grace” in which God does everything in the covenant for us because they see the law as having to be kept perfectly, even to the very tiniest jot and tittle. Thus, if a man cannot do this, he cannot be saved. Such a steep demand for legal perfection rather than relational grace in love, means that since man cannot keep the law perfectly, someone must do it for him. Thus the idea of a “covenant of grace” in which Christ does all the work of covenant keeping for the Father on our behalf. This in turn, leads to the false idea of “imputed righteousness,” the covering of a man’s soul by the perfect righteousness of Christ which is legally necessary to obtain salvation.
This cannot be a covenant, for in a covenant relationship, as analogized by marriage in the Bible, both sides must make their vows of love and fidelity and then live up to them throughout the course of the marriage. And no one can do this for another in a marriage as a substitute or representative. The great schism in the West began because Luther saw God as the Great Judge whose law he could not keep, even in the tiniest bit.
I see ethics not so much as a law to be kept to the finest degree, but rather a statement between to lovers in which they agree on the things which will help them grow in unitive love for one another. Ethics as law in a Suzerainty treaty is fine to define limits of acceptable actions and responses towards the one who is the Great King. Approaching a marriage in such a way seems like the kiss of death to me because you can keep law without necessarily having a relationship of utter commitment to one another. There is no sense in the treaty/contract of the two making that treaty entering into a deeply felt committed relationship with each other. Both sides see the benefit of the contract and both sides enter into it. In fact, as I think of it further, it seems that the more laws which are stipulated in the treaty, the less trust there is between the parties.
When I think of the relationship of husband and wife, their union of love, and the life lived between them of seeking an ever closer union, I have a hard time reducing the ethics of our covenant relationship with our divine Bridegroom to a series of laws which we must keep perfectly or lose our salvation. Is salvation “Don’t do that or you will go to hell” or is it “If you love me, please don’t do that because it causes me sorrow.” Do you see the difference?
According to Scripture, the only act which breaks the marital covenant is to physically unite with another. An act of covenant self-giving – adultery – is a real act of breaking covenant unity with one’s spouse.
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
All other acts, such as being a grouchy person, may strain the relationship, but they do not break that physical sign/bond which occurred in the nuptial bed. This is why our Lord said that except for the act of adultery, any one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery himself. He mentioned no other basis for divorce, which is the legal and visible sign of a broken relationship.
What then are the ethics of the New Covenant in relation to our divine Bridegroom? How is this different than the Western concept of sorting everything down to the crossing of the “T” and the dotting of the “I” which seems to be the way Western theologians have approached salvation? Perhaps it is this same constant legal nagging which drove Luther mad that has also driven many out of the Western Church who were looking not for a system of nuanced law keeping, but a lover of their souls.
Ethics has been called “the law keeping aspect of the covenant” but I really hate to see this put in such terms. Where would you find a marriage in which the spouses refer to each other through a system of laws they have set up to rule their household? What kind of intimate and loving relationship is that? Therefore, I find the Reformed approach to be problematic at best. Relationships are defined and kept by actions which are self-sacrificial and self-donative, and because of that supercede the establishment of behavior regulated by rules. The Decalogue could be seen as divided into two sections: how do you show your love to God, and how do you show your love to your fellow man? It was ten simple statements by which man could order his life. Somewhere along the way, the rabbis and teachers of the law managed to turn that into six hundred individual nit-picking laws. In the New Covenant, Western canon lawyers appear to have done the same thing. As an kind of example (yes, hyperbole, but to make a point) it gets so sometimes one wonders if an extra bite of Hagen Daz takes one from the realm of enjoyment of ice cream to the sin of gluttony. Yet Jesus broke the ethics of our relationship to God down to two simple statements: love God supremely, and love your neighbor in the same way you love yourself.
Seems to me all the rest is window dressing.

Very cogent discussion on the ethics of the New Covenant. I likewise studied Reformed theology in Seminary and marveled at the variety of various theories of Covenant and the Atonement. I eventually was influenced by Aulén and the Lundensian theologians, and eventually became a confessional Lutheran. To tell the truth, all the Western theories of the Atonement all left me feeling dry. The "Classical" or "Christus Victor" theory, as taught by Irenaeus became a preferred root of my thinking on the Atonement.

One of the criticisms leveled at Lutheran theology is that they never formulated a true system of ethics. It seems to me that this is because of the rigid separation/distinction between Law and Gospel as two antithetical statements of Divine Revelation. Whether it resulted in the rise of the culture of death in Weimar and Nazi Germany is debatable. It seems to me that the "stern preaching of the Law", especially the "third use of the Law" as a model for good works in the Christian life is in itself a reasonable substitute for a developed system of ethics. The problem in Lutheran theology is not the lack of an ethical system , but the short-circuiting of the Law-Gospel dialectic by the premature dispensation of what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace". Historical examples might include Luther's secret counsel to Philip of Saxony to commit bigamy, or his often-quoted maxim to "sin boldly". Clearly, this rigid system of Law-Gospel (among others) results in cloudy ethical behavior and questionable expedients of all kinds. This is also seen among certain types of flawed reasoning by some professional Roman Catholics which might be perjoratively called "jesuitical" (no offense intended to the Society of Jesus).

This hair-splitting can also be seen in the (medieval?) departure of the West from a pastoral approach to divorce and remarriage to a judicial morass of tribunals, adversarial proceedings, depositions, etc.

You might also want to consult Scott Hahn's scholarly works on the Covenant.

These are a few random musings of varying worth from an amateur theologian who still carries some Lutheran and Reformed baggage. BTW, your description of Luther is pretty close to the truth. His invectives and raving polemics seem to be a major embarassment to "Confessional Lutherans" nowadays. Melanchthon's revisionisms are much easier to sweep under the rug.

Anyway, I think you are on the right track with your re-write. Keep up the good work.
:-)

Thank you for your kind comments and for taking the time to look over my musings. It was the covenant that drew me out of Presbyterianism and in to the Catholic faith, therefore, like all good converts with a healthy dose of convert fever, I felt I just had to write about what I had found. Unfortunately, my first attempt was just all over the map. This one is more organized, but as I go through it, I have now had 13 years in the Eastern Catholic Church. Time and learning have considerably changed my views, as evidenced by my understanding of the difference between Eastern and Western views of soteriology and anthropology.

I'm glad that you, as a seminary trained learner, made the comment you made. As my disclaimer in my book says, theology done by converts is a dangerous precipice upon which to stand. Glad to know I appear to be on the right track.

BTW - It was Hahn who was the seminal writer to head me in the direction of conversion. Are you familiar with Ray Sutton's work on the covenant? Most of it isn't worth papering a parakeet's cage because it is founded in the Calvinist principles of TULIP, but he did a nice job of setting out the five principles of covenant. When I applied them to marriage and family, which is the true analogy from Scripture rather than the Suzerainty kingship of the AME and the Roman court of law, they fit perfectly.

I met Brother Hahn in 2003 at St. Joseph's in Mechanicsburg PA. He was giving one of his talks. During a break, I managed to get to him and asked him if he was familiar with Sutton's work. He gave me a big grin and enthusiastically said that he knew of at least two people for who it was directly responsible for them coming in to the Church.

I laughed with him and said "Well, now you know three!"

So your conversion was also a two stage conversion also?

I'm afraid I'm not acquainted with Ray Sutton. I'll have to look him up. Thanks

My OT professor, Ron Youngblood, was a mild Calvinist and was well-aquainted with suzerainty covenants of the 2nd millennium BC. It seems that that they have value in establishing the antiquity of the OT, but as to whether the covenant of the family is based on them, who knows. Family covenants are based on the Scriptural doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and the economy of the Trinity.

+Ray Sutton is a Bishop of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and is the ACNA's chief ecumenical officer.

There is some talk that he may be elected Archbishop upon ++Robert Duncan's retirement later this year.

Irish,

Thanks for posting this, it deals with some issues that are close to my heart as well.

I would contend that--by far--the number one reason why so many people have rejected Christianity is "legalism"--a mentality that leads inevitably to hypocrisy. The best explanation of the meaning of law in Scripture is found in 1Tim. 1:8-10, where we read:

As I read it, this is a clear statement that a man is not righteous "because" he obeys the law, rather, because he is righteous, the law "was not made for him." This is because he already understands--perhaps not intellectually, but in his heart--where the law came from. Sinners, on the other hand, "just don't get it." They need a law that tells them to do this and not to do that, because they have no idea as to "why?"



One reason why this was so prevalent, I think, was that the close relationship between Church and State led to the Church being run by men who saw the Church as being like the state, having authority over men and dictating what they shall do and what they shall not do. Coupled with this was a kind of machismo that saw "love" as something weak and feminine, whereas the proper manly virtues were things like courage, duty and honor.



Here, I think it's important to make a distinction, because since at least the 19th Century, Western theology has been moving more and more away from "legalism" (the term didn't even exist before the 20th Century), and towards a more relational understanding of our relationship with God. In fact, I have heard it affirmed that the principal purpose of Vatican II was to take these "new" theological trends and incorporate them into the life of the Church. (Unfortunately, in many cases this relational model was interpreted as meaning "anything goes," which led to all kinds of craziness, so now there seems to be a growing trend in the West towards more "traditional" theology ...)


From my understanding of Protestant theology, this is seen as the "key" to the entire Gospel: no merit of any kind, except by imputation.


Ah, yes--Luther's famous analogy of "snow-covered dung." The biggest problem here is that we see *nothing* of the forgiving Father from the parable of the Prodigal Son, but only a father who demands satisfaction, and only the Most Pure Blood of Christ provides that satisfaction. (Naturally, there's some truth here, but it's not hard to see how this is simplistic and one-dimensional.)


(Just a note note on terminology here: the term "Great Schism" is often used to refer to the East-West Schism and sometimes to refer to the 14th-Century "Western" Schism that had to do with rival popes, but I've never heard it used in reference to the Reformation.)


A very good insight!

The difference is that it's *impossible* to keep every facet of the law without the relationship, while the relationship makes the law *almost* unnecessary.


I see what you're getting at, but I have to admit that the phrase "it causes me sorrow" makes me think of King Herod in Mt. 2:3. I know we were always taught that sin "hurts God," but I think it's more accurate to say that sin disrupts the harmony of the cosmos--a cosmos created in love by a God who *is* Love and sustained in that love, despite all the disruptions.


I agree here completely, but I would hasten to point out that the concept of Christ as the lover of our souls has never been completely absent in the West, albeit relegated mostly to the realm of mystical theology and popular devotion (e.g. Sacred Heart).


The real problem, I think, is Augustine's concept of Original Sin as something that is shared by all, equally and individually. I understand it more as a burden that is shared communally by all of creation, with man's role in "carrying the cross with Christ" being to help relieve this burden.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Fr. Deacon Richard --

Thank you for your kind comments on my musings and your keen insights.

It was the concept of covenant which brought me into the Catholic faith from Presbyterianism. Over the years, however, I have come to a much deeper understanding (although my toe is just in the water of God's mercy and love to me) of the Gospel being about the love of God rather than our relationship to Him through keeping a set of laws.

This was part of some very interesting discussions in our deacon's candidate classes last summer, with special emphasis on how it is communion that is the heart of our very being (not law keeping).

What I'm trying to do as I re-write my book is to see how this unitive love might fit into the covenant principles set out by Bishop Sutton in his book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER. The purpose of the book is to be a witness to the faith to those who are very much of that Calvinist understanding, but in order to do so, I have to play on their playing field, which is covenant, scripture, and the five principle of the covenant.

Continuing on this theme of Covenant vs. Law, I was reflecting on this in relation to last Sunday's Gospel reading of the Last Judgment.

It was always clear to me why the unjust would protest and say "when did we see you in need, and not tend to your needs?" But what always seemed strange to me was the fact that the *just* also protest, asking "when did we see you in need, and *tend* to your needs?" Surely the just are aware of what they're doing, and that they're ministering to Christ?

However, in light of what we've been saying about covenant, it seems clear that the just have simply been living their lives as a response to the love of God, rather than keeping track of their "good deeds," and were thus focused entirely on the ones in need, rather than on themselves as meeting their needs.

Food for thought.



Peace,
Deacon Richard

I think that in keeping with our understanding of ousia, theosis, and what that means to us, if our relationship with our divine Spouse changes us ontologically, then our relationship to the world will cease to be one of counting the merits we are accruing (or think we are accruing) and instead be one of simply acting in accordance to the internal reality of our ousia.

This again is the difference I believe I see between Eastern and Western thinking.