Thursday, May 19, 2016

Jason Stellman’s New Postmodern Doctrine of God

Bryan-Cross-and-Jason-Stellman
Bryan Cross and his one-time mini-me
wannabe, Jason Stellman
Normally, I don’t read Jason Stellman. I predicted he would be a disaster back in 2008. Jason is a Westminster Seminary of California grad who first became enamored with the Called to Communion apologetic, then converted to Roman Catholicism, left his wife and children, and now he has a podcast entitled “Drunk Ex-Pastor”. In fact, I said then:
In truth, I don't see any of these folks as "settled" in Rome. Life is too unsettled, and Rome just simply has too many discrepancies for a genuinely tender conscience to come to grips with it. Maybe some of these converts will be happy being Roman Catholics for a while; many others have ended up merely visiting Rome as a weigh station on the road to something else, however.

Jason’s “something else” is turning out to involve heavy doses of postmodernism. What follows is from recent blog article:
I just returned from a Caribbean cruise (my life is hard), and I brought two books with me [one of which was]: John D. Caputo’s Hoping against Hope: Confessions of a Postmodern Pilgrim … as it turned out, I read almost all of Hoping.

Caputo is one of the leading figures in the world of so-called “Radical Theology,” and this book explores his own spiritual journey from a young boy in his pre-Vatican 2 Philadelphia parish, through his time in a religious order as a young man, to his adulthood as a philosopher and theologian.

The basic gist of Caputo’s argument stems from a line from a German mystic (those “disturbers of the ecclesiastical peace”) who wrote,
The rose is without ”why”;
It blooms simply because it blooms.
It pays no attention to itself,
Nor does it ask whether anyone sees it.
From this idea Caputo suggests that in order for something to truly be a gift of grace, it must be given unconditionally and “without why.” He sets this against what he calls the “economy of salvation,” according to which God’s gifts come with strings attached and something up the Giver’s sleeve. No, Caputo says, there is no need to “repay” God for the gracious gift of life or for anything else, since if we did, it would not truly be a gift at all, but a bribe.

How, then, do we respond to the graces we receive if not by rendering service to a divine Piper who demands to be paid?

It is here that another of Caputo’s more intriguing points comes into play. God, Caputo says, does not “exist” properly speaking, but rather he “insists.” In other words, God doesn’t stand outside of us as some external entity, but rather makes himself known more subtly and unconditionally (like the rose). Our job is to bring God’s existence into reality by acts of love for others, which is where God is ultimately known. This, Caputo says, is “risky business” on God’s part, for he is “emptying himself into the world” and depending on us to turn his insistence into concrete and loving existence.

To illustrate: We don’t see light, but it’s light that enables us to see everything else. We don’t experience life, but it’s life that provides the context for us to experience everything else. And likewise, we don’t “love God” as some extrinsic Being “out there,” but God is love, and it is by loving and wholeheartedly embracing the world that God not only is loved, but is brought into existence in tangible and sacrificial ways.

Now the connections to a more orthodox, straight-up Catholicism are not difficult to detect — the idea that God pours himself out riskily into the world is incredibly kenotic and incarnational (and I may explore these themes in subsequent posts). I am also curious to delve into the relationship between Caputo’s idea of unconditionality and Chesterton’s notion of “conditional joy” (which I really like).
Now, Stellman is clever enough to write plausible deniability into what he writes, and so he doesn’t clearly embrace the concept of “our job is to bring God’s existence into reality…” He just says that’s an “intriguing idea” and so he talks about other vague, loose connections with things that may or may not have any legitimacy.

And just so you know, Jason, I’ve posted this article merely to be click-bait. You’ll hear about it, and not hesitate to make fun of it, and in doing so, you’ll enable some of the godless listeners you attract to click over to Triablogue, encounter the Word of God, and Lord willing to bring them back to the right side of the ledger.

39 comments:

  1. A side question John since you have thoroughly studied Romanism. Is the concept of a priesthood biblical? I have searched the Triablogue to no avail in finding an adequate response. By priest I mean like the priests in the Anglican church. Also would I be wrong in leaving my Presbyterian church to go to an Anglican church because I favor the worship/liturgy?

    God bless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I write this as a 6-point Calvinist (6th - Sovereignty of God).

      Delete
    2. Hi Covenant -- The concept of priesthood is not biblical -- I'd recommend Garry Wills's "Why Priests", except that he's Garry Wills (and very liberal). But he does a good job of showing that the concept of priesthood is not biblical.

      Rome is fundamentally different from Anglicanism. They look the same on the surface, but underneath it, the concept of grace in Roman dogma is totally wrong. If you search out my series on "Gregg Allison on Roman Catholicism", there are a few blog posts on nature and grace.

      With that said, I considered a number of options when leaving Roman Catholicism, including Anglicanism. At its heart, the "39 articles" are good theology, but aside from the concept of "priesthood", I also find the concept of "bishop" to be problematic as well. If you check out one of my more recent posts, Brandon Addison talks about how this role "developed":

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/05/brandon-addisons-complete-response-to.html

      I don't think all "ecclesiastical traditions" are bad (and the episcopacy is a tradition that had something of a useful nature when it developed -- but it is not a "Tradition" in the Roman sense) -- but I also think we can do better without it.

      Delete
    3. "I'd recommend Garry Wills's "Why Priests", "
      Thanks. I will have to check it out.

      "If you search out my series on "Gregg Allison on Roman Catholicism""
      Will do.

      "http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/05/brandon-addisons-complete-response-to.html"
      I saw it before. It's one of those things I will definitely have to sit through and read.

      "I don't think all "ecclesiastical traditions" are bad (and the episcopacy is a tradition that had something of a useful nature when it developed -- but it is not a "Tradition" in the Roman sense)"
      I understand. Rome holds to 'sola ecclesia' and that tradition espoused by the Roman church is equal to God's revelation in scripture.

      Okay. I have seen people interpret presbyteros as priest and episkopos as bishop. However people in the Reformed camps argue that they are one of the same. How would you respond? Also do you think I shouldn't join the Anglican church?

      Delete
    4. Hi Covenant -- Rather than tack on "sovereignty" as a sixth point of Calvinism, it's better to think of it as at the head of the list. That is, there is a right order about how we should think of things, and "Calvinism" per se falls in somewhere down the list, whereas Sovereignty is a component of the Doctrine of God, which should be discussed earlier on. See the list at this link:

      http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-roman-doctrines-cant-be-compared.html

      Regarding presbyters and bishops, I'd say that there are different functionalities implied -- and without getting into it, take a look at Brandon's treatment of those terms in the New Testament. when you study languages, you'll find that words have a range of meanings. I'd think of maybe a house church -- where Joe is the rich guy who donates his house, but Bob is the knowledgeable one who does the teaching. Something like that.

      In terms of you joining an Anglican church, it's hard to say from where I'm sitting. I'm saying that I chose not to follow up that way; however, there are people I know who have gone that route. But you have to be careful -- there are "Reformed" Anglicans and then there are other kinds of Anglicans for whom the things that you emphasize might not be emphasized. Email me (check my profile) and I can put you in touch with a couple of folks who have gone that way, and maybe some who haven't. I'd also be happy to talk with you in more detail via email if you'd like.

      Delete
    5. That's what I mean S-TULIP. Got that from James White. Thanks for the help.

      Delete
    6. Ah, thanks for that clarification. I used to read his site all the time, but not so much lately. Do you have a link to where he makes that distinction?

      Delete
    7. John, the Addison post was excellent, and I'm with you in seeing episcopacy as tradition rather than TRADITION!, but, hanving spent some time among the Reformed, I don't see where Westminster- or PCA-style presbyterian polity is any improvement at all. Consider a bishop to be a mere permanent moderator of presbytery, and exegetical problems seem to be mitigated (I'm not sure Scripture requires periodic elections).

      Per covenant31's question, doesn't hte situration on the ground also matter; ie what if, within a reasonable radius of his domcile, the best church re: feeding sheep, fellowship/acceptance,, etc, is the Anglican one? There are more pressing matters than mere squabbles on polity to consider prior to entering a covenant of membership.

      Also, there are presbyterians and there are presbyterians just like there are Anglicans and there are Anglicans. Your thoughts?

      Delete
    8. Hi Kirk -- regarding Covenant's question about joining an Anglican church, certainly it matters about "what's on the ground" in his area. That's probably something that's not best discussed in a combox, and that's why I invited him to email me.

      As for presbyterian polity, I like it best because of the mutual accountability that the common elders reinforce for each other and for the various congregations. And I think that Calvin, at the time of the Reformation, sought to provide the most biblical model of church governance. Not that everything is perfect, but we're about 2000 years down the line from New Testament times, and we have to address our world today.

      And yes, there are good Presbyterians and bad Presbyterians, just as there are good and bad Anglicans. So it really is a matter of discernment, as well as a personal preference. Worship styles also weigh in; I do think that an Anglican service probably "looks more like" an early church service, and Calvin's RPW, while taking on the role of "sola Scriptura with regard to worship", is a bit too austere. We don't have to throw out everything that's not biblical (as Calvin and the Reformed seemed to have done). But "looking like" the early church is just not really my preference either.

      Delete
    9. Per covenat31, I just wanted to see where you stand on branding; ie The One True Church of the Blue Trinity Hymnal and the Sacred Relics of Machen et Cie Ueber Alles, or some flexibility. I'm having to face this question amidst my onw LCMS congregation's militant insistence upon a meltdown or implosion.

      Per Stellman's post, he shows a remarkable lack of understanding of God as both person and king; given his comment on Rome as a weigh station, he sounds like he's heading eastward far beyond Istanbul. What do you think?

      Delete
    10. Kirk, I don't have a firm allegiance -- I'm not even sure who you're referring to with the "Blue Trinity Hymnal" -- are you talking about those who observe the RPW? In my church, we certainly don't, and in fact, the music team there is wonderfully contemporary, with a mix of Psalms and old hymns, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

      But my real criterion for a church (and this is my second church after leaving Roman Catholicism -- the first one had a fire and never re-opened!) -- is "I'm 100% comfortable with the theology there". While I was RC, many things that were said just gave me the shudders and worse -- there is none of that in my particular PCA church.

      As for the LCMS, I've found them to be much more militant than I ever would have expected (when I've run into LCMS folks online). I think their militancy is more a result of their 19th century heritage than their Lutheran heritiage. But I don't know my way around Lutheranism well enough to make any recommendations (here's a guy you may want to talk with: https://infanttheology.wordpress.com/

      I wouldn't want to speculate about where Stellman is headed. I don't listen to him, and I couldn't say whether the Lord is pinging his conscience or not. That would have a lot to do with it.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. erratum: it's the 1650 psalter.

      Delete
    13. Kirk, I just don't keep up :-)

      Delete
    14. "Do you have a link to where he makes that distinction?"

      I am not sure actually. I remember hearing it one of his audio recordings on YouTube. I listened to many of his videos on Calvinism. I think it one on the Potters Freedom.

      Delete
    15. Thanks Covenant -- I have that book somewhere. I'll have to look it up.

      Delete
    16. Kirk I don't know to respond. My only question was to John that as a Calvinist would I be in the right in attending an Anglican church given the diversity of beliefs. I mean in a Presbyterian church the diversity is small (FV, theonomist (I am not equating theonomy with FV I am a theonomist), exclusive pslamody).

      Delete
    17. No John I meant that it was an episode of the Dividing Line where he spoke on the book. I tried ordering in his book with no luck. I haven't actually read it : (

      I can't specifically recall it

      Delete
    18. Thanks Covenant -- I can check around. It's an interesting thought -- I've never seen it put that way.

      Delete
  2. John, I remember the 2008 post and your comments about unsettledness. I have not seen anything of the CtC folks in the intervening years. I am wondering if Jason Stellman's descent into divorced "drunk ex-pastor" is cataloged anywhere or if you know it and can give us a short, non-gossip account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaron -- if you click on the "Jason Stellman" link at the bottom of the OP, that will bring up some of the other Stellman articles that I've written. There's some documentation of his progression there. As for CTC, I don't keep in touch with them at all, although anecdotally, the last "Lead Article" that went up on the front page is their assessment of Gregg Allison from last August (although other blog articles have appeared, and they also appear to have linked up with EWTN and there is something called "Called to Communion Radio"). I picked this up just from a quick click over there just now. I do know that their comments still show some life, but I'd say the enthusiasm has certainly waned, maybe because of "Pope Francis" and his "pastoral emphases".

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Ron, yes. The last I heard, the church was still providing a great deal of help for his wife and three children. That was a while ago, and I'm not sure what the status of that is.

      Delete
    2. I thought Catholics had a stricter view of divorce.

      Delete
    3. Just as their views on nature/grace put them outside of the mainstream of Christianity, so, too, their views of marriage put them outside of the mainstream. Since they believe that marriage is a sacrament, a genuine marriage can only be effected by a priest in a sacramental ceremony. Stellman was married as a Protestant, not as a Roman Catholic, and so if he divorces, they could care less about it.

      Delete
    4. Just recently I listened to a lecture by Timothy Kaufman (posted by the Annoying Pinoy I believe) who spoke on the occult and Romanism. Saying the alleged sightings of the blessed Mary were demonic apparitions (e.g. Fatima, Mexico, Bosnia). Which personally would make sense to me, what's your view?

      Delete
    5. I like Kauffmann's writings about Roman Catholicism generally, but he has also tried to map the book of Revelation to early church history (he's a futurist), and I don't find that to be very helpful. Regarding the sightings, it could be that they are demonic; Steve has written about them, and you should be able to search "Fatima" on this site and find it.

      Delete
    6. "The last I heard, the church was still providing a great deal of help for his wife and three children. " I am truly glad the church is helped them, I am sorry this happened. I do hope you are doing well John it was hard what you dealt with.

      Delete
    7. Hi Brian, I am doing all right. Thank you for asking!

      Delete
  4. I have a RC friend whose wife deserted him for a man she met on line. He was vindicated all the more by her moving 3000 miles away from their children. She sang in the RC choir while being unfaithful and I believe while pursuing divorce, and their priest I'm told would stand on a chair and speak in tongues. My friend's marriage was declared no marriage in the eyes of that communion upon his answering in the affirmative whether he considered himself married by the civil ceremony that took place months prior to their RC officiated ceremony. What's striking is that the sacrament of RC marriage became null and void because of his belief that he was already married through the sanction of the state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just one of those idiotic things that Rome puts people through, and in fact, which it enables.

      Delete
  5. I did not know that Stellman left his wife and kids. Wow.
    I thought they were still together but just went to different churches on Sundays, etc.

    Stellman's "drunk ex-pastors" is really sad; and this latest thing you have put up looks really sad also.

    Why does he keep starting new blogs, etc. ? "


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought they were together too! Upon reading the comments, I am speechless. All I can say, of which I am certain, is that Stellman has proved himself an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7).

      Delete
  6. Did he say that he divorced his wife on line at one of his blogs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken, I'm verifying this. I recall that the church was financially helping his wife and kids, and I thought that I understood that it was in the context of a divorce.

      Delete
    2. Ken, Trent and others who asked ... I have verified that Jason has divorced his wife. She has gotten a job in real estate. There is no word as to whether he is helping with child support.

      Delete
  7. Hi John,
    I think Timothy Kauffman's view is another kind of Partial Preterist view, for he views a lot of it as the RCC (or what becomes the RCC later in history) in the fourth and fifth centuries - after Nicea,

    He has an article called, "when Mary got busy" - the doctrines and dogmas of her started really happening after Nicea and especially after she was declared Theotokos in 431 AD at the Council of Ephesus.

    A futurist is one who believes most of Matthew 24 and Revelation are future to us still.

    Kauffman puts a lot of especially Daniel in the 4th-5th Century. (see his other articles on Daniel - I have not been able to read all of that - too much to keep up with) I cannot see that either, but of what I read, it is interesting.

    http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/06/29/the-rise-of-roman-catholicism/

    http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/12/14/a-significant-turning-point/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken, he had a series that I didn't like, in which he mapped large chunks of Revelation prophecies to events in the first several hundred years of church history.

      Delete
  8. Thanks John for your answers to both issues. (1. Jason S. and his divorce, (very sad) and 2. Kauffman's views of Revelation/Daniel and that he sees at least some of that (most?) as the late 3rd and 4th Centuries.) I have not had time to study all of that, but it struck me as a completely unique view that I had never heard before.

    ReplyDelete