Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia

Vol. 3 No. 2 Juli 2013

ISSN: 2088-5970

Jurnal Teologi

Reformed Indonesia Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia (JTRI) adalah sebuah terbitan berkala ilmiah teologi yang diterbitkan dua kali setahun oleh Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Reformed Indonesia (STTRI, dulu Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Reformed Injili Indonesia atau STTRII). Melalui tulisan-tulisan ilmiah yang dipublikasikan, JTRI berkomitmen untuk memberi kontribusi pemikiran yang unik dan tersendiri bagi gereja dan kekristenan di Indonesia. Dewan Penyunting Ketua Pengarah Ketua Pelaksana Wakil Ketua Pelaksana Sekretaris Pelaksana Anggota

: : : : :

Yakub B. Susabda Yuzo Adhinarta Emil Salim Ihan Martoyo Yohanes Budhi Ina E. Muljono Hidayat

JTRI didistribusikan secara cuma-cuma. Kontribusi pelanggan yang bersifat sukarela sangatlah dihargai. Kontribusi dapat disalurkan melalui Bank CIMB Niaga, no. A/C: 253.01.00298.009, atas nama Yayasan Lembaga Reformed Indonesia. Segala pandangan dalam jurnal ini merefleksikan keunikan penilaian dan pandangan pribadi tiap-tiap penulis. Pandangan-pandangan tersebut tidak serta-merta merepresentasikan pandangan dewan penyunting, dewan pengajar, maupun dewan yayasan dari institusi penerbit. JTRI merupakan salah satu bentuk manifestasi identitas Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Reformed Indonesia yang sesungguhnya, yang dibangun dengan visi Reformed Injili. Dengan semangat Reformed yang Injili inilah, JTRI berusaha hadir untuk menjadi salah satu sarana untuk mewujudkan jiwa kristiani yang utuh dan terintegrasi. Untuk menjaga mutu penyuntingan dan isi, JTRI menggunakan sistem penelaahan terhadap tiap manuskrip yang masuk secara anonim oleh mitra bestari (blind peer-review system) yang dipilih oleh dewan penyunting, yakni para akademisi baik dari dalam negeri maupun luar negeri yang kompeten di bidang keahlian yang sesuai.

Untuk semua jenis komunikasi yang berkaitan dengan Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia (JTRI), harap menghubungi: Perihal berlangganan

: Srini Yunanti (Iyun) — Bagian Administrasi Email: [email protected]

Perihal artikel dan penyuntingan : Yuzo Adhinarta — Ketua Pelaksana Dewan Penyunting Email: [email protected] Sekretariat Dewan Penyunting

: Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Reformed Indonesia Jl. Kemang Utara IX/10, Warung Buncit Jakarta Selatan – 12760 Telepon: (021) 799-0357 Faksimili: (021) 798-7437

Vol. 3 No. 2 Juli 2013

ISSN: 2088-5970

Jurnal Teologi

Reformed Indonesia DAFTAR ISI ARTIKEL Kerendahan Hati, Ketaatan, dan Kemuliaan Kristus Studi Filipi 2:6-11 Armand Barus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Reforming Reason Jonathan Edwards as An Exemplary Model Nathaniel Gray Sutanto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Perkins and Baxter on Vocation Changes in the Puritan Concept of Vocation? Yuzo Adhinarta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 What It Takes to Integrate Ihan Martoyo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

ULASAN BUKU Barrett, Justin L. Cognitive Science, Religion, and Theology: From Human Minds to Divine Minds Alfred Jobeanto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Jeffery, Steve, Mike Ovey, dan Andrew Sach. Tertikam oleh Karena Pemberontakan Kita: Menemukan Kembali Kemuliaan Substitusi Penal Nurcahyo Teguh Prasetyo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 PEDOMAN PENULISAN ARTIKEL DAN ULASAN BUKU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 PARA KONTRIBUTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia 3/2 (Juli 2013): 81-102

Kerendahan Hati, Ketaatan, dan Kemuliaan Kristus Studi Filipi 2:6-11 Armand Barus

Abstrak Studi Filipi 2:6-11, melalui telaah struktur komposisinya dalam bentuk peredaksian terakhir, memberikan pengertian segar bahwa kerendahan hati, ketaatan, dan kemuliaan Kristus harus dipahami dalam makna kerigmatisnya. Teks yang dikenal sebagai nyanyian Kristus ini menjadi dorongan moral bagi jemaat Filipi, sebagai pembaca surat ini, untuk meneladani (imitating) pikiran, kerendahan hati, dan ketaatan Yesus sebagai dasar kehidupan persekutuan jemaat.

Alkitab Perjanjian Baru (PB) merekam sedikitnya dua nyanyian (hymn) Kristen purba yakni: Kolose 1:15-20 dan Filipi 2:6-11. 1 Keduanya disebut nyanyian Kristus karena fokus nyanyian adalah Kristus. Para penafsir sepakat bahwa Filipi 2:5-11 merupakan “the most important section in the letter and surely the most difficult to interpret.” 2 Ini adalah sebuah pengamatan yang tidak berlebihan. Beberapa kata dalam nyanyian ini, misalnya, µορφή dan hapax legomenon ἁρπαγµὸν cukup menggambarkan kesulitannya. Para penafsir telah banyak memberi perhatian dan mendiskusikannya,3 tetapi hingga kini belum mencapai kesepakatan

dalam banyak hal.4 Tinta tercurah sedemikian banyak tapi hanya menghasilkan satu kesepakatan. Para ahli setuju melihat bentuk 2:6-11 sebagai nyanyian Kristus (hymn of Christ).5 Keberadaan nyanyian-nyanyian jemaat sebagai pujian kepada Kristus dalam ibadah dan kehidupan umat Kristen purba tidak perlu diragukan. Laporan Pliny yang Muda, Gubernur Bitinia-Pontus, kepada kaisar Trajan (112-113 Era Kristus) merekam kebiasaan jemaat Kristen menyanyi pujian kepada Kristus sebagai Tuhan. Pliny menulis, . . . they were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a stated day and singing alternately a hymn to Christ as to a god’.6

Pliny mencatat, jemaat Kristen purba berkumpul pada hari yang ditentukan (stated day), 1

Untuk daftar nyanyian lihat R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, revised edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 19. 2 Gerald F. Hawthorne dan Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, vol. 43 dari Word Biblical Commentary, revised and expanded edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 99. Pengamatan ini menggemakan pernyataan Lohmeyer pada tahun 1930. Senada dengannya adalah P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 186, 188. 3 Martin, Carmen Christi, 324-342, memberikan daftar literatur kepustakaan sebanyak 23 halaman mencakup periode tahun 1845 hingga tahun 1983. O’Brien merekam literatur hingga tahun 1990. O’Brien, Philippians, 186-188.

4

Perdebatan para penafsir seputar: (i) latar belakang nyanyian (Gnostisisme-Ernst Käsemann; Perjanjian Lama [Yesaya 53]-J. Jeremias; Yudaisme-Eduard Schweizer; Hikmat Yahudi-Dieter Georgi; Adam pertama dan kedua-James D. G. Dunn; jemaat Kristen purba-L. W. Hurtado), untuk diskusi lihat O’Brien, Philippians, 193-198, yang menilai latar usulan tersebut bukan sumber Filipi 2:6-11 (197); (ii) pengarang nyanyian Kristus, untuk diskusi lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 42-62; O’Brien, Philippians, 198-202. 5 Tentang nyanyian (hymn) lihat O’Brien, Philippians, 188-193. 6 Dikutip dari Martin, Carmen Christi, 1.

81

JURNAL TEOLOGI REFORMED INDONESIA

yakni hari ibadah jemaat Kristen pada hari Minggu. Sudah sedemikian banyak perhatian para ahli tercurah terhadap nyanyian Kristus. Jika demikian apa perlunya artikel ini ditulis? Tentu tidak mudah melintasi demikian banyak butir pikiran mutiara tanpa mengambilnya. Perjalanan menelusuri bentangan keindahan kompleks nyanyian Kristus, membawa penulis kepada satu pikiran segar bahwa nyanyian Kristus adalah suatu pernyataan puitis tentang peneladanan Kristus (imitating Jesus). Pikiran ini mendapatkan peneguhan melalui tulisan Richard Burridge. Richard Burridge menulis buku berjudul Imitating Jesus pada tahun 2007. Setelah Burridge membahas gagasan peniruan (imitating) Kristus dalam etika Paulus sebanyak 74 halaman, dia sampai kepada kesimpulan bahwa As Jesus’ pastoral acceptance of ‘sinners’ means that his extremely demanding teaching cannot be applied in an exclusive manner, so too Paul’s ethical teaching must always be balanced by his appeal to the imitation of Christ—and this entails accepting others as we have been accepted.7

Usulan gagasan peneladanan Kristus inilah, berbeda dengan tafsiran selama ini, yang dikembangkan tulisan berikut. Sebelum mendiskusikan teks nyanyian Kristus lebih jauh, terlebih dahulu perlu dilakukan proses stabilisasi teks dengan menggunakan penelitian naskah (textual criticism) untuk mendapatkan teks yang relatif stabil sebagai dasar penafsiran.

Penelitian Naskah (Textual Criticism) Di dalam teks Filipi 2:6-11 dijumpai 3 masalah tekstual yang memerlukan jawaban:8 (i) Dalam ayat 9 didapati 2 varian yakni bacaan to. o;noma (naskah P46 A B C) dan bacaan o;noma (naskah D). Bacaan pertama dengan kata sandang adalah bacaan asli 7

Burridge, Imitating, 154. Uraian penelitian naskah bergantung kepada B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: UBS, 2002). Lihat juga O’Brien, Philippians, 203. 8

82

karena dua alasan: silabel terakhir dari verba evcari,sato menyebabkan dihapusnya kata sandang to,, dan distribusi naskah yang luas. (ii) Dalam ayat 11 terdapat dua masalah tekstual. Masalah tekstual pertama memuat dua varian, yakni bacaan evxomologh,shtai (mengaku) dan evxomologh,setai (akan mengaku). Varian pertama dalam bentuk aoris subjuntif didukung naskah P46 Alef B, sedang varian kedua dalam bentuk kala depan indikatif (future) didukung naskah A C D F G. Bacaan varian pertama adalah bacaan asli karena teks ada dalam suasana subjuntif. Kata kerja ka,myh| yang mengikuti kata sambung i[na dalam bentuk subjuntif. (iii) Masalah tekstual kedua dalam ayat 11 memuat tiga varian bacaan naskah: ku,rioj VIhsou/j Cristo,j (P46vid Alef A D), ku,rioj VIhsou/j (F G), Cristo.j ku,rioj (K). Varian bacaan pertama adalah bacaan asli. Peniadaan kata Cristo.j dalam beberapa naskah merupakan penyesuaian dengan nama Yesus pada 2:10. Berdasarkan penelitian naskah tersebut di atas, terjemahan nyanyian Kristus 2:6-11 disajikan sebagai berikut di bawah ini.

Terjemahan teks 6.

yang berada dalam keadaan Allah tidak menganggap sebagai keuntungan berada dalam kesetaraan dengan Allah, 7. tetapi Ia mengosongkan diri-Nya dengan mengambil keadaan hamba, dengan menjadi sama dengan manusia; dan didapati rupa sebagai manusia 8. Ia merendahkan diri-Nya menjadi taat sampai mati, bahkan mati di kayu salib. 9. Dan itulah sebabnya Allah sangat meninggikan Dia dan menganugerahkan nama di atas segala nama kepada-Nya, 10. supaya semua lutut bertekuk dalam nama Yesus di langit dan di bumi dan di bawah bumi 11. dan semua lidah mengakui bahwa Yesus Kristus Tuhan bagi kemuliaan Allah Bapa.

KERENDAHAN HATI, KETAATAN, DAN KEMULIAAN KRISTUS: STUDI FILIPI 2:6-11

Bentuk/Struktur Komposisi Bentuk teks Filipi 2:6-11 di mata para pakar PB adalah suatu nyanyian (hymn). Nyanyian pujian kepada Kristus. Sebagai suatu nyanyian purba tidak dapat dipastikan siapa penulisnya. Bisa terjadi salah satu dari dua kemungkinan berikut. Pertama, Paulus mengutip nyanyian yang sudah beredar luas di kalangan jemaat Kristen purba. Paulus bukanlah penulis nyanyian tersebut. Kedua, Paulus sendiri menuliskan syair nyanyian. Apakah nyanyian tersebut telah beredar di jemaatjemaat asuhan Paulus (Pauline communities) sebelum terekam dalam surat Filipi tidak dapat dipastikan. Struktur komposisi di atas (lihat gambar) mencuatkan dua tema: Kristologi dan teologi. Dua tema tersebut dirangkai konjungsi dio. kai, (ayat 9). Tema Kristologi (ayat 6-8) menunjuk kepada perbuatan Kristus. Tiga perbuatan Kristus dinyatakan oleh verba-verba h`gh,sato (ayat 6, menganggap), evke,nwsen (ayat 7, mengosongkan), evtapei,nwsen (ayat 8, merendahkan diri). Kata kerja mengosongkan diri dijelaskan melalui dua partisip pada ayat 7: mengambil (labw,n) dan menjadi (geno,menoj). Yesus mengosongkan diri dengan mengambil keadaan hamba dan menjadi sama

dengan manusia. Kata kerja merendahkan diri dijelaskan9 melalui dua partisip: dalam keadaan (eu`reqei,j) pada ayat 7 dan menjadi (geno,menoj) pada ayat 8. Yesus merendahkan diri dengan berada dalam keadaan sebagai manusia dan menjadi taat sampai mati. Tema kedua (ayat 9-11) berbicara tentang teologi khususnya menunjuk kepada perbuatan Allah. Perbuatan Allah diekspresikan oleh kata kerja u`peru,ywsen (ayat 9, sangat meninggikan) dan evcari,sato (ayat 9, menganugerahkan). Perbuatan Allah bertujuan atau mengakibatkan dua hal: semua lutut ka,myh| (bertekuk) dan semua lidah evxomologh,shtai (mengakui). Struktur komposisi di atas memperlihatkan bahwa nyanyian Kristus terdiri atas dua stanza namun tersusun atas 4 porsi: (i) ayat 6; (ii) ayat 7a-b; (iii) ayat 7c-8; dan (iv) ayat 9-11. Harus diakui kesulitan mereka-reka struktur komposisi nyanyian dalam bentuk awalnya. Struktur komposisi di atas disusun berdasarkan bentuk peredaksian terakhirnya. Tidak berlebihan bila dikatakan bahwa nyanyian Kristus ada dalam dua versi, yakni versi awal 9 J. L. Ch. Abineno, Tafsiran Alkitab Surat Filipi (Jakarta: BPK Gunung Mulia, 1982), 55, menulis “pengosongan diri sendiri dan pengambilan rupa hamba serempak terjadi.” Pandangan ini kurang tepat.

83


seperti dinyanyikan jemaat Kristen purba dan versi akhir seperti terekam dalam surat Filipi.10 Terlihat struktur komposisi teks 2:611 terbagi dua stanza11 yakni: 1. Ayat 6-8: perbuatan Kristus 2. Ayat 9-11: perbuatan Allah Terlihat juga bahwa ayat 6-8 tersusun, secara sintaktis, sebagai satu kalimat kompleks. Stanza 1 tersusun atas 3 kata kerja utama dilengkapi dengan 5 partisip dan 1 infinitif. Ayat 9-11 terbentuk atas satu kalimat kompleks dengan dua kata kerja utama dilengkapi dengan anak kalimat terangkai kata konjungsi i[na. Ringkasnya, nyanyian Kristus tersusun atas dua kalimat kompleks. Tidak perlu dipersoalkan siapa pengarang nyanyian dalam bentuk awalnya. Pilihan yang tersedia meliputi: (1) Paulus yang mengarangnya dan digunakan dalam ibadah jemaatjemaat asuhan Paulus atau (2) tidak diketahui pengarangnya dan Paulus mengutipnya ke dalam surat Filipi. Setelah mempresentasikan dan mengevaluasi argumen yang mendukung atau menolak Paulus 12 sebagai pengarang nyanyian Kristus, Martin memberi komentar sebagai berikut: When the arguments are thus set side by side, it may be felt that no clear decision one way or the other is possible. The issue is finely balanced. Both positions are arguable and neither is absolutely certain.13

10

Demikian Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 101. Perlu dicatat bahwa para penafsir memberi pembagian berbeda terhadap struktur nyanyian 2:6-11. Untuk diskusi lihat Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 100, yang melihat nyanyian terdiri dari dua bagian. Para penafsir terdahulu membagi nyanyian Kristus, misalnya, dalam tiga stanza (L. Cerfaux), enam bait (Ralph Martin, Ernst Lohmeyer). Struktur komposisi di atas berbeda dengan usulan Martin, namun dalam beberapa hal memiliki kemiripan dengan usulan Lohmeyer. 12 Untuk diskusi lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 45-62. 13 Martin, Carmen Christi, 61 Meski demikian Martin berpendapat bahwa nyanyian Kristus dalam ‘Philippians 2:611 is the product of Hellenistic Jewish missionaries working in a mainly Hellenistic gentile environment’ (317). Dan secara spesifik Martin mengusulkan bahwa pengarang 11

84

Stanza 1: Perbuatan Kristus (ayat 6-8) Sebelumnya pada 2:1-5 14 Paulus memberi perintah kepada jemaat Filipi untuk menyempurnakan sukacitanya. Sukacita Paulus menjadi sempurna bila kehidupan persekutuan jemaat Filipi ditandai dengan kehadiran 7 bentuk moralitas kehidupan jemaat: 1. Memiliki satu kasih (th.n auvth.n avga,phn e;contej) 2. Memikirkan satu jiwa dan tujuan (su,myucoi( to. e]n fronou/ntej) 3. Tidak mencari kepentingan sendiri (mhde.n katV evriqei,an) 4. Tidak mencari puji-pujian yang sia-sia (mhde. kata. kenodoxi,an) 5. Tetapi hendaklah saling rendah hati menganggap yang lain lebih utama dari dirinya sendiri (avlla. th/| tapeinofrosu,nh| avllh,louj h`gou,menoi u`pere,contaj eàutw/n) 6. Tidak memperhatikan kepentingan dirinya sendiri (mh. ta. eàutw/n e[kastoj skopou/ntej) 7. Memperhatikan kepentingan orang lain (avlla. Îkai.Ð ta. e`te,rwn e[kastoi) Tujuh moralitas inilah yang harus dikerjakan jemaat Filipi. Bila moralitas ini terjadi di dalam persekutuan jemaat Filipi, maka sukacita Paulus menjadi sempurna (ayat 2). Selanjutnya Paulus memberi perintah kedua pada ayat 5 yakni: “pikirkanlah (fronei/te) ini (tou/to) di antara kamu yang juga [ada] di dalam Kristus Yesus.” Kalimat ini eliptis karena klausa kedua tidak memiliki kata kerja. O’Brien, mengikut Moule, menerjemahkan sebagai berikut: “Adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitude that was found in Christ Jesus.” 15 nyanyian Kristus adalah Stefanus karena dia seorang Kristen berlatar Helenistis Yahudi (304). 14 O’Brien, Philippians, 205, menolak pendapat Käsemann yang memisahkan ayat 4 dan 5. 15 O’Brien, Philippians, 202, 205, menambah, mengikut Moule, kata kerja h=n (to be) pada ayat 5b. Terjemahan ini menambahkan kata τὸ φρόνηµα (sikap) di antara kata tou/to dan verba φρονεῖτε. Martin dan O’Brien menolak usulan Hawthorne yang menambah kata kerja evfronei/to pada ayat 5b (tou/to froneisqw evn u`mi/n o] kai. [evfronei/to] evn Cristw/| VIhsou/) sehingga terjemahannya menjadi demikian: “This way of thinking must be adopted by you, which also was the way of thinking adopted by Christ Jesus.” Martin, mengikut


Terjemahan ini dengan penambahan kata kerja ‘adalah’ (h=n) dapat diterima. Namun perlu dicatat bahwa kata tou/to tidak merujuk ke ayat sebelumnya, tetapi ke ayat-ayat berikutnya khususnya ayat 6-8. Kata tunjuk ‘ini’ merujuk pada ayat 6-8. Kata ‘ini’ secara spesifik menunjuk kepada 3 perbuatan Kristus yang diungkapkan melalui verba-verba ouvc h`gh,sato (ayat 6, tidak mengang-gap), evke,nwsen (ayat 7, mengosongkan), dan evtapei,nwsen (ayat 8, merendahkan diri). 16 Dengan perkataan lain, Paulus memberi perintah agar jemaat Filipi memiliki pikiran seperti pikiran Kristus. Oleh karena Filipi 1:27-2:18 memiliki muatan dominan tema nasihat moral (exhortation),17 maka kata kerja perintah ‘pikirkanlah’ tidak bermuatan kognitif atau intelektual, melainkan bermuatan moral.

1. Tidak Menganggap Sebagai Keuntungan Nyanyian Kristus diawali dengan kata sambung ‘yang’ (o]j), yang merujuk kepada kata di depannya yaitu Kristus Yesus (ayat 5). Kata sambung ‘yang’ memberi tanda bahwa nyanyian Kristus bermula dari sini dan isi nyanyian pada ayat 6-11 adalah tentang Yesus Kristus. Meskipun nama Yesus Kristus tidak digunakan pada ayat 6-9 dan baru muncul pada ayat 10 dan 11, jelas nyanyian ayat 6-11 adalah nyanyian tentang Kristus. Dengan perkataan lain, kata sambung ‘yang’ menjadi gantungan untuk mengaitkan nyanyian Kristus (ayat 6-11) dengan ayat 1-5. Kristus Yesus dalam ayat 6 dikatakan “berada (u`pa,rcwn) dalam (evn) morfh, Allah.” Deismann, Kennedy, Käsemann, mengusulkan penambahan kata kerja fronei/te (71, 289-291) sehingga terjemahannya menjadi “adopt towards one another, in your mutual relations, the same attitude as you adopt towards Christ Jesus, in your union with him.” Lihat uraian dan evaluasi tafsiran Martin dalam O’Brien, Philippians, 256-262. O’Brien setuju dengan I. H. Marshall yang berpendapat bahwa tidak satu pun terjemahan memuaskan (253). 16 Berbeda dengan O’Brien, Philippians, 204, yang berpendapat bahwa kata tou/to (ini) merujuk kepada “preceding exhortation rather than forward to the christological hymn that follows.” 17 Demikian Martin, Carmen Christi, 42.

Partisip u`pa,rcwn menegaskan bahwa Yesus berada dalam morfh, Allah, bukan memiliki morfh, Allah. Tidak juga dikatakan Yesus sebagai morfh, Allah, namun tegas dinyatakan Yesus berada dalam morfh, Allah. Apa arti kata benda morfh,? Kata morfh, muncul tiga kali dalam PB pada Markus 16:12; Filipi 2:6 (adalah dalam morfh, Allah), 2:7 (mengambil morfh, hamba). Dalam literatur Yunani klasik morfh, menunjuk kepada hal yang dapat dialami indera manusia.18 Tetapi apakah Allah dapat dialami indera manusia? Tentu tidak. Ini menyebabkan kata morfh, ditafsirkan berbagai cara:19 (i) Kemuliaan: kemuliaan adalah bentuk kelihatan kehadiran Allah seperti terekam dalam PL (Kejadian 16:10; 24:15; Imamat 9:6; Bilangan 12:8; 14:10).20 Penampakan dan substansi tidak memiliki pembedaan, keduanya berkaitan. Kristus praeksisten memiliki bentuk kelihatan yang tidak lain adalah karakteristik diri-Nya. Bentuk kelihatan ini adalah kemuliaan. Rumusan Behm mewakili penafsir ketika menulis: “The form of God, in which the preexistent Christ was, is nothing else than the divine glory (doxa).”21 Dengan pengertian inilah perkataan Kristus pada Yohanes 17:5, “Ya Bapa, permuliakanlah Aku pada-Mu sendiri dengan kemuliaan yang Kumiliki di hadirat-Mu sebelum dunia ada,” dapat dipahami. Martin, melihat kata morfh, dalam latar PL, berpendapat bahwa istilah morfh,, eivkw,n, dan do,xa digunakan silih berganti dan 18

J. Behm, ‘morfh,’, TDNT 4: 744-746, menulis morfh, ‘represents something which may be perceived by the senses’. 19 Diskusi lengkap lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 99-133; juga Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 110-114; O’Brien, Philippians, 207-211. 20 Referensi teks lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 103 n. 8. 21 Behm, ‘morfh,’, TDNT 4: 751, dengan merujuk kepada Yohanes 17:5. O’Brien, Philippians, 210-211, mempertahankan tafsiran kemuliaan. O’Brien menulis, “The expression does not refer simply to external appearance but pictures the preexistent Christ as clothed in the garments of divine majesty and splendour. He was in the form of God, sharing God’s glory” (211).

85


dianggap ekuivalen. Martin menyimpulkan: The form of God is to be read against an Old Testament background. The morfh/| qeou/ may be the equivalent of eivkw,n = do,xa of God; and thus describes the first man, Adam at his creation (Kejadian 1:26-27). Adam reflected the glory of the eternal Son of God who, from eternity, is Himself the image of the invisible and ineffable God. Both Adams are thought of as the possessors of celestial light. What Paul had learned at the feet of Gamaliel about the glory of the first Adam—the idealized picture of the Rabbinic schools—he transferred to the last Adam as He had revealed Himself to him in a blaze of glory. This contrast is the key to the phrase; and points us back to the pre-temporal existence of the heavenly Lord in His unique relationship to God.22

Namun pengertian morfh, sebagai kemuliaan tidak dapat diterapkan pada istilah morfh, hamba pada ayat 7. Ini kelemahannya. (ii) Esensi, substansi: Kesejajaran penggunaan istilah seperti pada Plato dan Aritoteles, arti morfh, diusulkan tidak berbeda dengan kata οὐσία (essence). Dalam kaitan dengan istilah morfh, Allah, maka Yesus yang ada sebelum inkarnasi (praeksistensi) bersama-sama memiliki esensi Ilahi tanpa harus diidentifikasi dengannya. Dengan perkataan lain, Yesus berada dalam morfh, Allah berarti Yesus berada sebelum inkarnasi dengan esensi sama dengan Allah. Hawthorne dan Martin tetap mempertahankan morfh, sebagai hal yang dapat dialami indera manusia. Ungkapan morfh, Allah menunjuk “essential nature and character of God (natur esensial and karakter Allah)”.23 Meski demikian Martin menegaskan bahwa para ahli memiliki konsensus bahwa kata morfh, tidak dapat lagi dipahami dalam arti filosofis yakni esensi, substansi. 24 Yesus tidak berada

22

Martin, Carmen Christi, 119. Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 114. 24 Martin, Carmen Christi, xix, 103. 23

86

sebagai morfh, Allah tetapi berada dalam (evn) morfh Allah. (iii) Gambar: dengan menggunakan Kejadian 1:26-27 dan 3:1-5 sebagai dasar, maka ungkapan ‘rupa Allah’ (eivkw,n) dalam Kolose 1:15; 2 Korintus 4:4 dan morfh, Allah dipandang sinonim. Adam pertama berada dalam rupa dan gambar Allah (Kejadian 1:26-27), demikian juga Kristus sebagai Adam kedua berada dalam gambar Allah. Kategori Adam pertama dan Adam kedua digunakan untuk memahami morfh, Allah. 25 Pengertian sinonim eivkw,n dan morfh memberi dua masalah yakni: pertama, tidak dapat diterapkan pada ungkapan morfh, hamba; kedua, menjadikan nyanyian bukan rujukan kepada praeksistensi Kristus, hanya merujuk kepada inkarnasi, kematian dan kenaikan Kristus. (iv) Cara berada (mode of being): istilah morfh, dipahami sebagai suatu cara berada. Pemahaman demikian dapat digunakan baik terhadap ungkapan morfh, Allah dan morfh, hamba. Namun pemahaman ini bergantung pada teks-teks gnostis. Pemahaman ini diusulkan oleh Käsemann berdasarkan gagasan Bultmann 26 yang melihat motif gnostis mempengaruhi teologi Paulus. Kelemahan lain pandangan ini adalah soal penanggalan teks gnostik yang berasal dari abad kedua Era Kristus. Kritikan terhadap posisi ini secara rinci diutarakan oleh E. Percy (1939).27

25 Kritikan Martin, Carmen Christi, xx-xxi, terhadap pandangan J. D. G. Dunn mengenai tipologi dua Adam. Martin menulis: “Dunn has failed to press the hymn’s logic to inquire what is behind the first Adam’s characterization as made in the divine likeness” (xxi). O’Brien, Philippians, 263268, menolak kesejajaran Adam-Kristus. Kelemahan mendasar adalah penolakan terhadap praeksistensi Kristus. Meski demikian, yang dapat diterima dari program Dunn adalah penolakannya terhadap penggunaan gnostik sebagai latar kristologi. 26 Lihat R. Bultmann, Theology of The New Testament 1 (New York: Charles Scribner, 1951), 164-183. 27 Ringkasan Percy terdapat di Martin, Carmen Christi, 126-128. Kritikan lain datang dari D. Georgi (1964), J. T.


(v) Status, kondisi, keadaan (state): kata morfh, dipahami sebagai keadaan atau kondisi. Pemahaman ini dapat digunakan baik terhadap ungkapan morfh, Allah dan morfh, hamba. Yesus dalam keadaan Allah memilih untuk menerima keadaan hamba. Istilah morfh, sebagai kondisi merujuk kepada posisi semula Kristus berada di hadirat Allah. Penggunaan demikian ditemukan pada Tobit 1:13, “Oleh Yang Mahatinggi dianugerahkan kepadaku kerelaan dan penghormatan (morfh,n) dari pihak raja Salmaneser.” Kata penghormatan merupakan terjemahan kata morfh,n menunjuk kepada kondisi atau keadaan. Perumusan istilah morfh, belum menemukan kesepakatan di antara para penafsir nyanyian Kristus. Bukti yang diberikan Martin dengan melihat latar PL menghasilkan pengertian morphē sebagai kemuliaan, kelihatannya dapat diterima. Kekuatan pengertian morfh, sebagai kemuliaan adalah terikatnya kaitan bentuk luar yang kelihatan dengan esensi atau hakikat. Bagaimanakah kata morfh, diterjemahkan? Pilihan yang tepat adalah posisi, keadaan, kondisi. 28 Frasa morfh, Allah diterjemahkan ‘keadaan Allah’. Meski demikian ada hal yang nampaknya luput dari perhatian penafsir. Apakah terlalu berlebihan bila klausa morfh/| qeou/ u`pa,rcwn (berada dalam keadaan Allah) disejajarkan dengan klausa to. ei=nai i;sa qew/| (berada kesetaraan dengan Allah-the being equal with God)? Kata sandang to. (the) di depan infinitif ei=nai (being) berfungsi sebagai penunjuk kepada hal yang sebelumnya dikatakan yakni morfh/| qeou/ u`pa,rcwn.29 Dalam pengertian demikian frasa morfh/| qeou/ (keadaan Allah) sejajar dengan frasa i;sa qew/| (kesetaraan dengan Allah). Kesejajaran demikian diterima oleh Hawthorne dan Martin ketika mereka menulis Sanders (1971), W. Pannenberg (1968). Sudah waktunya tidak lagi berbicara gnostik sebagai latar PB. 28 Martin, Carmen Christi, xxii, 38, 104, mengusulkan kata tanda (stamp). 29 Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 114, merujuk kepada Cerfaux dan Dibelius.

bahwa klausa to. ei=nai i;sa qew/| (the being equal with God) harus dipahami sebagai “the equality with God of which we have just spoken equivalently by saying evn morfh/| qeou/ u`pa,rcwn (being in the form of God).”30 Sebelum ayat 6 diterjemahkan sepenuhnya, kata benda ἁρπαγµόν perlu dirumuskan terlebih dahulu. Apa arti kata ἁρπαγµόν? Dalam penilaian Martin istilah ἁρπαγµόν memuat “the most thorny questions in the whole field of New Testament exegesis.”31 Hal ini disebabkan bahwa kata ἁρπαγµόν hanya digunakan sekali dalam PB, tidak muncul dalam LXX dan jarang digunakan dalam literatur Yunani. Martin, mengutip penelitian linguistik hasil karya R. W. Hoover (1971), merumuskan ἁρπαγµόν sebagai “something to use for (one’s) own advantage.”32 Berdasarkan rumusan ini kata ἁρπαγµόν memiliki dua arti yakni: sesuatu yang ingin terus dipertahankan Kristus atau sesuatu yang tidak ingin direbut Kristus. (i) Harus dipertahankan (Res Rapta). 33 Kata ἁρπαγµός diterjemahkan sebagai keuntungan, hadiah, atau milik (LAI-TB). Keuntungan atau milik ini biasanya merujuk kepada kesetaraan dengan Allah. Kristus sebelum inkarnasi telah memiliki kesetaraan dengan Allah, tapi Ia harus memilih apakah akan terus mempertahankannya atau tidak. Kristus kemudian memilih untuk tidak mempertahankan kesetaraan dengan Allah itu, dan memutuskan untuk berinkarnasi. Yesus tidak merasa perlu melihat kesetaraan 30

Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 114. Bandingkan Martin, Carmen Christi, 138 n 4. 31 Martin, Carmen Christi, 134. 32 Martin, Carmen Christi, xxii. Diskusi makna aktif dan makna pasif (res rapta dan res rapienda) kata ἁρπαγµός terdapat pada halaman 134-153. O’Brien, Philippians, 215, menilai penelitian Hoover sebagai benar. Meski umumnya penafsir menerima makna pasif kata ἁρπαγµός, tapi O’Brien menerima makna aktif kata ἁρπαγµός. Dalam makna aktif, maka artinya: “Jesus did not regard his equality with God as something to be used for his own advantage” (215). 33 Pandangan Lightfoot, Käsemann, Bornkamm, Schweizer, Friedrich, Jervell, Larsson, Barth.

87


dengan Allah sebagai hadiah yang harus dipertahankan, sebagai suatu keuntungan bagi diri-Nya sendiri. Kesempatan untuk kepentingan diri sendiri terbuka, tetapi Yesus tidak meng-gunakannya. Perlu dicatat bahwa ketika Yesus mengambil keadaan sebagai hamba, tidak berarti kesetaraan dengan Allah menjadi hilang. Dalam keadaan sebagai hamba, kesetaraan Yesus dengan Allah terus berlangsung tanpa terputus. Pan-dangan ini memperlihatkan kesejajaran frasa ‘keadaan Allah’ dan ‘kesetaraan dengan Allah’. (ii) Ingin direbut (Res Rapienda). Pandangan res rapienda berpendapat bahwa Kristus memiliki kemungkinan untuk menginginkan kesetaraan dengan Allah. Tetapi Yesus menetapkan untuk tidak melanjutkan keinginan tersebut menjadi kenyataan bagi diri-Nya. Dalam pandangan ini kesetaraan Yesus dengan Allah belum lagi menjadi kenyataan, masih sesuatu yang diinginkan, yaitu kenyataan yang masih harus direbut. Di sini, ἁρπαγµός diartikan sebagai jarahan atau barang rampasan. Dalam pemahaman ini kenyataan yang diinginkan tersebut adalah kesetaraan dengan Allah. Pandangan res rapienda dirumuskan C. A. A. Scott sebagai berikut: “He did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to rise to equality with God’ and in another place, ‘He could have grasped it by the assertion of Himself by insistence on His own interests. But He refused.”34

Pemahaman demikian mengungkap bahwa sesungguhnya keberadaan praeksistensi Yesus tidak setara dengan Allah. (iii) Res rapta dan res rapienda. Martin berpendapat bahwa pandangan res rapta dan res rapienda tidak perlu diperdebatkan mana yang paling tepat. Pandangan yang merupakan jalan tengah keduanya dilihat Martin sebagai pilihan terbaik. Dalam hal

ini Martin meneruskan jalan penafsiran yang telah dibuka oleh E. Käsemann, L. Cerfaux, dan E. Lohmeyer. Martin menerima terjemahan kata ἁρπαγµός sebagai hadiah (prize) atau keuntungan (gain). Terjemahannya kemudian menjadi “did not use equality with God as a gain to be exploited.” 35 Klausa to. ei=nai i;sa qew/| dipandang sejajar dengan Yohanes 5:18, ‘i;son eàuto.n poiw/n tw/| qew/|’ (menyamakan diri-Nya dengan Alah). Kesetaraan dengan Allah dipahami secara dinamis yakni merujuk kepada “the exercise of an office, the office of Lord” (penggunaan jabatan, jabatan Tuhan). 36 Martin melanjutkan penjelasannya menghubungkan klausa ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο dengan klausa ἐν µορφή θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. Dengan demikian keadaan praeksistensi Yesus sebagai milik-Nya adalah sebagai eivkw,n atau morfh, Allah. Kesetaraan dengan Allah yang pada ayat 11 sebagai pemberian nama dan fungsi Tuhan (ku,rioz) sebenarnya dapat diperoleh Yesus dengan kekuatannya sendiri. Sebenarnya Yesus dapat memiliki kemuliaan tersebut terlepas dari hubungan dengan Allah. Namun Yesus memandang kepemilikan kemuliaan dengan cara demikian tidak pantas. Yesus menolaknya. Yesus memilih untuk menggunakan jabatan Tuhan atas segala sesuatu di langit, di atas bumi dan di bawah bumi melalui inkarnasi dan perendahan diri-Nya. Martin merumuskan pandangannya sebagai berikut: His heavenly station, His ‘being in the form of God’ as the Image of the heavenly Man, is res rapta; but is given up when He comes to accept the station of a Man and a servant. The lordships which is implicit in His pre-existent state and waits to be exercised de facto over the world is the res rapienda; and the meaning of the verse is that He did not reach out from His favoured place and grasp at that authority. He chose, on the contrary, to be installed as World-Ruler and 35

Martin, Carmen Christi, 38. Martin, Carmen Christi, 151. Penafsiran ini sejalan dengan pandangan Lohmeyer, Käsemann dan Cullmann. 36

34

88

Dikutip Martin, Carmen Christi, 141-142.


Cosmocrat[or] at the completion of a mission of self-humbling and lowly obedience unto death.37

Yesus dalam kesetaraan dengan Allah merupakan keadaan de jure. Dan keadaan de facto sebagai Tuhan atas alam semesta harus melewati penderitaan salib. Yesus memilih jalan salib untuk menerima proklamasi sebagai setara dengan Allah yang terlihat dalam penetapan-Nya sebagai Tuhan atas alam semesta. Dalam pandangan ini kesetaraan Yesus dengan Allah dilihat sebagai suatu proses. Kristus menjadi setara dengan Allah ketika Allah mengaruniakan Yesus nama dan jabatan Tuhan atas alam semesta. Dengan perkataan lain, menurut Martin, yang masih belum dimiliki Kristus dan tidak ingin direbut-Nya adalah status cosmocrator atau raja alam semesta (ruler of the world). Dan sebenarnya di sinilah kelemahan pandangan Martin. 38 Mengapa kesetaraan dengan Allah diartikan sebagai raja alam semesta? Bukankah usulan Martin ini menjadikan esensi, hakikat sama dengan fungsi, status?

2. Mengosongkan Diri-Nya Sendiri Tindakan Yesus selanjutnya adalah mengosongkan diri. Kata sambung avlla, yang diterjemahkan ‘melainkan’ (LAI-TB) atau ‘tetapi’ pada ayat 7 memberi penjelasan lanjutan dalam bentuk kontras dengan ayat 6. Kontras kedua ayat ini tidak boleh dilemahkan seperti dilakukan tafsiran Moule dan Wright.39 Yesus tidak menganggap kesetaraan dengan Allah sebagai milik yang harus dipertahankan. Sebaliknya Yesus mengosongkan diri-Nya. Ini tindakan sukarela. Tindakan Yesus mengosongkan diri diperlihatkan melalui dua partisip: meng-ambil (labw,n) keadaan hamba, menjadi (geno,menoj) sama dengan manusia. 40 Beberapa pertanyaan

37

Martin, Carmen Christi, 152-153. Lihat kritikan O’Brien, Philippians, 213, terhadap pandangan Martin. 39 Dicatat oleh Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 115. 40 Demikian Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 119; juga O’Brien, Philippians, 217. Kontra Martin, Carmen Christi, 38

utama muncul seperti: Apa arti kata kerja mengosongkan?, Apa arti mengambil keadaan hamba?, Apa arti menjadi sama dengan manusia? Uraian selanjutnya menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini. Mengosongkan diri. Kata kerja ‘mengosongkan’ (κενόω) dalam PB muncul 5 kali (Rom. 4:14 [iman telah dikosongkan-pasif]; 1Kor. 1:17 [salib Kristus tidak dikosongkanpasif]; 9:15 [tidak seorangpun mengosongkan kemegahanku-aktif); 2Kor. 9:3 (kemegahan kami atas kamu tidak dikosongkan-pasif); Fil. 2:7). Dalam PB terlihat bahwa kata kerja ‘mengosongkan’ hanya muncul dalam suratsurat Paulus. Penggunaannya memperlihatkan bahwa kata kerja ‘mengosongkan’ memuat arti metafora ketimbang harfiah.41 Kata kerja κενοῦν dipahami secara metafora. Dalam alur metafora Martin, mengutip Warren, mengartikan klausa ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν sebagai “He poured out Himself” (Ia mencurahkan diriNya) sehingga artinya Yesus did not consider the equality with God as an opportunity of self-aggrandizement, but effaced Himself and all thought of self and poured out His fulness to enrich others.42

Arti ‘mengosongkan’ bukanlah Yesus menanggalkan keallahan-Nya. Namun Yesus secara sukarela memberikan diri-Nya sepenuhnya kepada manusia berdosa. Apa yang dikosongkan? Ini pertanyaan yang sering muncul bila kata kerja ‘mengosongkan’ dipahami secara harfiah. Martin mendiskusikan beberapa kemungkinan tentang apa yang dikosongkan Yesus sebagai berikut: 43 (i) Sifat keallahan Kristus. Pandangan yang dikenal sebagai teori Kenotis berpendapat bahwa Yesus mengosongkan sifat keallahan-Nya pada saat inkarnasi. Sifat 38, 165, 197, yang memisahkan kedua partisip tersebut dalam stanza berbeda. 41 Demikian pengamatan A. Oepke, ‘kenos’, TDNT 3: 660. Pengamatan ini ditegaskan oleh Martin, Carmen Christi, 165. Juga O’Brien, Philippians, 217. 42 Martin, Carmen Christi, 167. 43 Diskusi lengkap dan evaluasi diberikan Martin, Carmen Christi, 169-194; Juga O’Brien, Philippians, 218-224.

89


(ii) (iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

keallahan yang dikosongkan Yesus adalah sifat mahatahu, mahahadir, dan mahakuasa, namun tetap mempertahankan atribusi kekudusan, kasih, dan kebenaran. Yesus menjadi miskin. Ini pendapat Dibelius yang didasarkan pada Lukas 1:53; Rut 1:21 dan 2 Korintus 8:9. Yesus menjadi hamba atau budak. Istilah hamba pada ayat 7 dipahami secara harfiah merujuk kepada kelompok sosial terbawah dalam masyarakat kuno, yakni budak. Yesus menjadi manusia. Pandangan tradisional ini berpendapat bahwa praeksistensi Yesus menjadi manusia adalah momen Ia mengambil rupa hamba. Yesus menaruh diri-Nya di bawah kuasa roh jahat (demonis). Pandangan ini diutarakan oleh E. Käsemann yang memahami istilah hamba sebagai penghambaan kepada kuasa-kuasa roh jahat. Yesus mengambil peranan hamba seperti digambarkan Yesaya. Pandangan ini memahami ungkapan ‘Ia mengosongkan diri’ memiliki kesejajaran dengan ungkapan Avp.n: hr"[/h (‘ia telah menyerahkan nyawanya’) seperti terdapat pada Yesaya 53:12. Dalam pengertian ini, mengosongkan diri merujuk kepada kematian bukan kepada inkarnasi.44 Yesus menjadi penderita yang benar (E. Schweizer). Pandangan ini didasarkan pada konsep Yudaisme tentang orang benar yang harus menderita sebelum Allah meninggikannya. Yesus disebut hamba bukan karena memenuhi peranan hamba Yesaya, melainkan karena sejalan dengan gagasan Yudaisme mengenai orang benar yang menderita disebut hamba (Ebed). Dalam konsep

44

Kelemahan penggunaan hamba Yahweh Yesaya, tunjuk Martin, sebagai latar terletak dalam tiga aspek: (i) linguistic validity; (ii) contextual appropriateness; (iii) the properiety of using morfh. dou,lou to designate the Isaianic ‘Ebed Yahweh.

90

kemartiran Yahudi, istilah Ebed menjadi kata kunci.45 (viii) Kemuliaan. 46 Martin sendiri berpendapat bahwa yang dikosongkan adalah kemuliaan Yesus. Mengosongkan diri bukan berarti menyerahkan sifat Ilahi dan menukarkannya dengan natur manusia. Dengan melihat kesejajaran antara ἐν µορφή θεοῦ dan μορφὴν δούλου, maka Yesus yang praeksisten menyerahkan status sebagai gambar Allah dan merendahkan diri-Nya dengan menerima peranan hamba. Yesus mengosongkan diri-Nya dengan mengambil keadaan hamba. Mengosongkan diri berarti ‘an eclipsing of His glory as the divine Image (morfh, = eivkw,n) in order that He might come, in human flesh, as the Image of God incarnate’ (memudarkan kemuliaan-Nya sebagai gambar Allah sehingga Ia menjadi, dalam tubuh manusia, sebagai gambar Allah berinkarnasi).47 Bila kata kerja ‘mengosongkan’ adalah sebuah ungkapan metaforis, maka kata ‘mengosongkan’ tidak perlu dipahami secara harfiah. Sebagai ungkapan metaforis, ia dijelaskan oleh dua partisip, yakni mengambil keadaan hamba dan menjadi sama dengan manusia. Dengan demikian pertanyaan apa yang dikosongkan tidak perlu ditanyakan karena sesungguhnya tidak ada yang dikosongkan. 45

Kritikan G. Bornkamm terhadap pandangan ini dijumpai pada Martin, Carmen Christi, 193. Konsep kemartiran Yudaisme dirumuskan sebagai berikut: ‘Judaism frequently speaks of the righteous one who humbles himself or who voluntarily accepts humiliation by suffering and death in obedience to God. Suffering in particular is very valuable as atonement for one’s own sins or vicarious atonment for other people’s. As a reward the righteous one is exalted by God, secretly already on earth, but especially in the world to come, where he finds his seat reserved for him in heaven, the throne of glory, and there acts as a judge and executioner. This exaltation can also be pictured physically as an assumption from the earth, as an ascension to heaven.’ (224225). 46 Martin, Carmen Christi, 194. Abineno, Surat Filipi, 54, 55, berpendapat bahwa yang dikosongkan adalah kebesaran dan kemuliaan Kristus. 47 Martin, Carmen Christi, 194.


Mengambil keadaan hamba. Hal pertama penting dipahami adalah istilah hamba dalam ayat ini tidak perlu dipandang sebagai rujukan terhadap kematian Yesus. Mengapa? Karena pengertian demikian merusak tahapan kehidupan Kristus. Kematian-Nya baru disebutkan pada ayat 8. Urutan tahapan kristologi kesetaraan dengan Allah kemudian hamba-manusia dan selanjutnya Tuhan seperti terungkap dalam nyanyian Kristus perlu dipertahankan. Dengan demikian ungkapan mengambil keadaan hamba merujuk kepada inkarnasi Kristus ketimbang kematian.48 Juga ungkapan mengambil keadaan hamba tidak perlu diartikan bahwa Yesus mengambil status sosial sebagai budak ketika hidup di Palestina. Yesus mengambil keadaan hamba tidak berarti bahwa penampilan luar-Nya seperti seorang hamba atau budak. Istilah keadaan hamba menunjuk kepada hakikat atau natur. Dalam arti ini usulan C. F. D. Moule, diterima Bruce, Feinberg dan O’Brien, bahwa latar belakang dan konsep perbudakan pada masa Yesus dapat dijadikan dasar pijakan untuk memahami ungkapan Yesus mengambil keadaan hamba. Natur hamba menggambarkan “the extreme deprivation of one’s rights, even those relating to one’s own life and person” (perampasan ekstrim hak-hak manusia, bahkan hak berkaitan dengan hidup dan dirinya). 49 Yesus bukan memperlihatkan diri sebagai seorang hamba, namun mengambil hakikat seorang hamba yang hidupnya tanpa memiliki hak dasar kemanusiaan sama sekali. Yesus dengan sukarela bebas melepas hak yang melekat pada-Nya. Hakikat hamba ini menampakkan wujud dalam seluruh perkataan dan perbuatan-Nya. Contoh yang diberikan Bruce, Hawthorne dan O’Brien adalah peristiwa ketika Yesus membasuh kaki murid-muridNya seperti terekam dalam Yohanes 13:3-5. Dalam ungkapan Yesus mengambil keadaan hamba, tidak dinyatakan secara

eksplisit kepada siapa Yesus menghambakan diri-Nya. Namun jelas, kata kerja aktif ‘mengambil’ menyatakan tindakan Yesus bersifat sukarela, bukan paksaan. Usulan Käsemann, seperti disebut di atas, bahwa Yesus menghambakan diri kepada kuasa-kuasa dunia ini tidak perlu diperhitungkan karena dasarnya lemah sekali. Demikian juga pendapat yang mengatakan bahwa istilah hamba dipahami, seperti tersebut di atas, dalam kategori gambaran hamba seperti uraian Yesaya ataupun gambaran hamba menderita dalam Yudaisme kelihatannya kurang tepat digunakan untuk membaca nyanyian Kristus. Secara umum mengambil keadaan hamba dipandang sebagai rujukan kepada inkarnasi Kristus. Yesus dengan sukarela menjadi manusia. Namun tidak berarti bahwa Yesus meniadakan keallahan-Nya ketika mengambil keadaan hamba. Mengambil keadaan hamba merupakan ungkapan untuk menggambarkan karakter Yesus dalam peniadaan hak. Yesus mengambil keadaan hamba, namun tidak kehilangan keallahan-Nya. Ungkapan ‘mengambil keadaan hamba’ tidak berarti Yesus tidak menukar keadaan Allah dengan keadaan hamba. Sebaliknya, ungkapan tersebut justru memperlihatkan bahwa Yesus menyatakan keadaan Allah dengan keadaan hamba.50 Menjadi sama dengan manusia. Yesus mengosongkan diri dengan mengambil keadaan hamba dan menjadi sama dengan manusia.51 Klausa ‘menjadi sama dengan manusia’ bukanlah penjelasan klausa ‘mengambil keadaan hamba’, tetapi kelanjutan penjelasan verba mengosongkan diri. Menarik untuk diamati bahwa nyanyian ini menjadikan urutan keadaan hamba mendahului manusia. Urutan logis adalah Yesus menjadi sama dengan manusia, barulah mengambil keadaan hamba. Urutan demikian menimbulkan pertanyaan mengapa. Dengan pengertian bahwa mengambil keadaan hamba berarti pelepasan hak. Hak melekat dalam posisi

48

Demikian kebanyakan pandangan penafsir seperti Käsemann, Schweizer, Martin. 49 O’Brien, Philippians, 222, 223.

50 51

O’Brien, Philippians, 216, mengutip F. F. Bruce. Demikian O’Brien, Philippians, 224.

91


setara dengan Allah dengan sengaja dan sukarela dilepaskan Yesus. Inilah sebabnya urutan hamba ditaruh sebelum manusia. Partisip ‘menjadi’ (geno,menoj) menekankan arti “coming into a position, or a state” (datang ke suatu posisi atau keadaan).52 Arti ‘datang ke suatu keadaan’ menyatakan bahwa partisip ‘menjadi’ bersifat dinamis. Yesus masuk ke dalam keadaan manusia melalui kelahiran. Tetapi berbeda dengan kelahiran manusia lainnya, Yesus lahir melalui rahim seorang anak dara. Hal ini bertolak belakang dengan partisip ὑπάρχων pada ayat 6 yang bersifat statis (Yesus berada dalam morfh, Allah). Lebih jauh, partisip geno,menoj, seperti usulan Cerfaux, Joüon, Beare, Martin, O’Brien, dipandang sebagai rujukan kepada kelahiran Yesus. Kesejajaran penggunaan demikian dijumpai pada Yohanes 8:58 (pri.n VAbraa.m gene,sqai evgw. eivmi,) dan Galatia 4:4 (geno,menon evk gunaiko,j). 53 Meski partisip ‘menjadi’ digunakan dalam Galatia 4:4 dan Roma 1:3, usulan O’Brien bahwa partisip ‘menjadi’ diterjemahkan sebagai ‘dilahirkan’ (was born) 54 dipandang sebagai penyempitan makna. Penggunaan verba γίνοµαι dalam Galatia 4:4 dan Roma 1:3 dalam kaitan dengan perempuan dan Daud sehingga terjemahannya ‘dilahirkan’. Tetapi dalam ayat 7 dikaitkan dengan manusia (ἂνθρωπων) sehingga terjemahannya ‘menjadi’. Kata benda ὁμοίομα selain dalam Filipi 2:7 juga muncul pada Roma 1:23; 5:14; 6:5; 8:3. Di luar surat Paulus, kata ini hanya digunakan di Wahyu 9:7. Kata ὁμοίομα dapat diterjemahkan sebagai ‘sama dengan’ (Rom. 5:14; 6:5) atau ‘mirip dengan’ (Why. 9:7). Ungkapan ‘sama dengan’ menegaskan “identical duplicate of the original,” sedang ungkapan mirip dengan mengungkapkan kesamaan namun “retains a sense of distinction from the original.”55 Apakah Yesus menjadi ‘sama dengan’ manusia atau menjadi

‘mirip dengan’ manusia? Martin, mengutip Bauer, merumuskan pertanyaan sebagai berikut: Does Philippians 2:7 mean that, in His incarnate existence, Christ is fully and perfectly man, that His likeness to men means His full participation in their humanity; or that He was only seen to resemble men, since He is, in reality, in the world as a divine being?56

Bila Yesus hanya dipandang mirip dengan manusia, maka kemanusiaan-Nya tidaklah sejati dan sempurna. Yesus hanya terlihat seperti manusia, bukan sungguh-sungguh manusia sejati. Ini tidak dapat diterima. Sebaliknya, jika Yesus sungguh manusia, artinya Yesus mengambil bagian kemanusiaan manusia, apakah keberdosaan manusia turut diambil-Nya? Dalam hal ini lebih baik diterima Yesus berpartisipasi dalam kemanusiaan manusia sebelum Adam jatuh ke dalam dosa. Pengertian ini membawa kita semakin dalam kepada masalah apakah Yesus mampu berdosa? Pencobaan Yesus menegaskan bahwa Yesus tidak mampu berdosa karena hakikat dosa tidak melekat pada diri-Nya. Pilihan homoiōma sebagai ‘sama dengan’ lebih baik. Yesus menjadi sama dengan manusia menegaskan identifikasi penuh dan partisipasi sempurna dengan kemanusiaan manusia. 57 Bagaimana kata homoiōma diterjemahkan sebagai ‘sama dengan’ harus dipahami? Martin berpendapat, merujuk O. Michel, bahwa kata homoi ma harus dipahami dalam terang Daniel 7:13 dan Yehezkiel 1:26; 8:2. Dalam alur ini kata homoiōma menunjukkan “the form in which someone divine, an angel or God, appears upon earth.”58 Bila dikatakan Yesus menjadi sama dengan manusia memperlihatkan bahwa Yesus adalah manusia sejati, namun tetap menyimpan keallahanNya. Ketika Yesus berkata dan berbuat, tidak hanya kemanusiaan sempurna yang tampak, 56

52

O’Brien, Philippians, 224. 53 Martin, Carmen Christi, 202. 54 O’Brien, Philippians, 224. 55 O’Brien, Philippians, 225.

92

Martin, Carmen Christi, 201. O’Brien, Philippians, 225, merumuskan ὁµοίοµα sebagai ‘Christ’s full identity with the human race’. 58 Martin, Carmen Christi, 205. O’Brien, Philippians, 225-226, setuju dengan Michel dan Martin. 57


namun termasuk juga terungkap keallahanNya. Ringkasnya, Yesus adalah kehadiran Yahweh di dunia.59 Jadi, menjadi samanya Yesus dengan manusia merujuk kepada kelahiran dan kehidupan-Nya sebagai manusia. Yesus lahir sebagai manusia seperti kelahiran manusia lainnya. Yesus hidup seperti manusia lainnya, harus berjalan kaki untuk menempuh jarak, mengalami lapar dan haus, merasa sedih, menangis. Meski Yesus adalah manusia sejati, kesamaan-Nya dengan manusia menyatakan keallahan-Nya. Yesus adalah kehadiran Allah di dunia. Kehadiran Allah-Manusia dalam diri Yesus, bukanlah hal mistis seperti pendapat Martin. Nyanyian Kristus menegaskan bahwa Yesus sebagai Allah-Manusia memperlihatkan, seperti diuraikan di atas, kerendahan hati sempurna yang tidak mampu diperlihatkan manusia. Pekerjaan Kristus pertama dan kedua dengan jelas memperlihatkan kerendahan hati sempurna. Meski istilah dosa tidak secara eksplisit tidak disebut dalam nyanyian Kristus, tapi kata ‘mati’ pada ayat 7 menunjuk kepada kehadiran dosa dalam dunia. Kesediaan sukarela Yesus untuk mati menegaskan bahwa kematian-Nya bukan keharusan seperti manusia lainnya. Manusia harus mati karena dosa. Yesus mati karena sukarela bersedia mati. Dalam hal ini, Yesus menjadi sama dengan manusia sepenuhnya, namun memiliki perbedaan fundamental esensial dengan manusia dalam hal kerendahan hati, ketaatan dan dosa. Yesus secara sempurna menunjukkan kerendahan hati dan ketaatan dan tanpa dosa. Perbuatan Yesus tidak menganggap sebagai keuntungan dan mengosongkan diri menggambarkan kerendahan hati Yesus. Dua perbuatan Yesus menyatakan bahwa kerendahan hati memuat beberapa pengertian sebagai berikut: (i) Posisi atau status tidak dipandang sebagai keuntungan untuk menguasai orang lain. 59

Bandingkan Martin, Carmen Christi, 206, mengatakan Yesus sebagai penampakan (appearance) Yahweh di dunia.

Orang yang rendah hati bersedia dengan sukarela menggunakan posisinya untuk kebaikan orang lain. (ii) Orang rendah hati dengan sukarela yang bebas bersedia meniadakan hak-haknya demi untuk orang lain. Hak yang melekat tidak digunakan untuk kepentingan diri sendiri, tetapi kepentingan orang lain. Pelepasan hak ini menempatkan orang lain lebih utama ketimbang diri sendiri. (iii) Rendah hati berarti kerelaan untuk mengindentifikasi diri secara sempurna dengan orang lain. Tiga hal di atas dapat dipandang sebagai anatomi kerendahan hati, yang mendapatkan gambarannya pada diri Yesus Kristus.

3. Merendahkan Diri Tindakan Kristus selanjutnya selain mengosongkan diri adalah merendahkan diri. Bagaimana Kristus merendahkan diri-Nya? Yesus merendahkan diri dengan cara: didapati (eu`reqei,j) rupa sebagai manusia (ayat 7c)60 dan menjadi (geno,menoj) taat sampai mati (ayat 8). Merendahkan diri. Perbuatan ketiga Yesus adalah merendahkan diri. Perbuatan ini tidak identik dengan tindakan kedua yakni mengosongkan diri. Perbuatan Yesus merendahkan diri diusulkan penafsir dipahami dengan latar belakang hamba (ebed) Yahweh seperti tergambar dalam Yesaya 53. Sebagai dasar dilihat hubungan Filipi dan Yesaya dalam penggunaan frasa evn th/| tapeinw,sei (Yes. 53:8, LXX) sejajar dengan frasa evtapei,nwsen eàuto,n (2:8). Frasa evn th/| tapeinw,sei dipahami sebagai rujukan terha-dap ketaatan hamba hingga mati. Namun, bila dicermati terungkap bahwa kata ketaatan sama sekali tidak muncul pada teks hamba yang menderita dalam Yesaya.61

60

Demikian O’Brien, Philippians, 226, dan melihat kata sambung kai menghubungkan verba evtapei,nwsen dan evke,nwsen. 61 Martin, Carmen Christi, 212-215, menolak hamba menderita dalam Yesaya sebagai latar nyanyian Kristus dalam Filipi. O’Brien, Philippians, 228, setuju dengan Martin.

93


Perbuatan Yesus merendahkan diri merupakan perbuatan aktif, inisiatif Yesus seperti terlihat melalui penggunaan bentuk aktif kata kerja evtapei,nwsen. Yesus merendahkan diri dengan sengaja dan sukarela dan bukan karena direndahkan oleh siapa pun. Dalam korpus surat Paulus verba ‘merendahkan’ muncul 4 kali (2 Korintus 11:7; 12:21; Filipi 2:8; 4:12). Apa artinya merendahkan diri? Dua cara, seperti dijelaskan partisip eu`reqei,j dan geno,menoj, yaitu: memperlihatkan diri secara penuh sebagai manusia, kecuali tidak memiliki natur atau tabiat dosa dan memperlihatkan ketaatan sempurna sebagai manusia. Didapati rupa sebagai manusia. Kata benda sch,mati juga digunakan dalam 1 Korintus 7:31 untuk menggambarkan dunia yang dilihat secara mata visual. Kata sch,mati diterjemahkan sebagai ‘rupa lahiriah’.62 Istilah ‘rupa lahiriah’ di sini menunjuk kepada penampakan luar atau bentuk kelihatan oleh panca indra manusia. Martin merumuskan ungkapan sch,mati eu`reqei,j menunjuk kepada “the external appearance of the incarnate Son as He showed Himself to those who saw Him in the days of his flesh.” 63 Dalam pengertian ini, manusia yang bertemu dengan Yesus ketika hidup di Palestina menyadari bahwa Yesus sungguh-sungguh manusia, sama seperti mereka. Manusia yang berjumpa dengan Yesus, mendapati bahwa Ia tidak terlihat seolah-olah seperti manusia atau melebihi manusia lainnya, tetapi sebagai Yesus manusia sejati. Yesus berjalan dan berkata seperti manusia lainnya. Seperti ditegaskan O’Brien, Yesus “was found to be a man.”64 Menjadi taat sampai mati. Kehidupan Yesus sebagai manusia di Palestina memperlihatkan satu prinsip kehidupan yakni ketaatan. Tidak

disebutkan secara eksplisit kepada siapa Yesus menaruh ketaatan-Nya. Apakah Yesus taat kepada Bapa seperti usulan W. Michaelis? 65 Martin, mengikut Barth, menolaknya karena tidak eksplisit dinyatakan dalam nyanyian Kristus.66 Yesus juga tidak taat kepada maut. Maut tidak menguasai Yesus. Yesus taat sampai (me,cri) mati. Kata depan me,cri memperlihatkan suatu “degree or measure, not merely of a temporal goal, that is, as long as he lived.” 67 Ketaatan Yesus juga tidak diberikan kepada manusia. Yesus tidak takluk kepada kehendak manusia. Yang dapat dipastikan adalah bahwa ketaatan Yesus bersifat aktif dan sukarela. Yesus taat sampai mati. Martin, mengutip Lohmeyer, menulis bahwa ketaatan Yesus sampai mati mengungkap Yesus sebagai the true God-become-man, for only a divine being can accept death as obedience; for ordinary men [and women] it is a necessity, to which they are appointed by their humanity.68

Ketaatan Yesus sampai mati memperlihatkan totalitas identifikasi dengan manusia. Manusia, akibat dosa, berada dalam penjara kematian. Kematian adalah musuh manusia yang kuat, tidak terkalahkan. Yesus datang menjemput manusia dari cengkeraman maut dan membebaskan manusia dari penjara kematian. Yesus harus masuk ke dalam dunia kematian, di mana manusia terpenjara untuk membebaskan mereka yang percaya kepadaNya. Tidak berlebihan bila dikatakan bahwa karakteristik utama kehidupan Yesus di dunia adalah ketaatan. Seperti yang disimpulkan oleh Martin bahwa “[t]he earthly life of the ‘manifested God’ is summed up in one term: His obedience.”69

65

62

J. Schneider, ‘sch,ma’, TDNT 7: 954, dalam Yunani klasik kata sch,ma menunjuk kepada ‘the outward form or structure perceptible to the senses’. 63 Martin, Carmen Christi, 207. Martin menunjuk kepada penggunaan sejajar pada Galatia 2:17 ‘eu`re,qhmen kai. auvtoi. a`martwloi,’ (kami didapati sebagai orang-orang berdosa). 64 O’Brien, Philippians, 227.

94

Dikutip Martin, Carmen Christi, 216. Martin, Carmen Christi, 216. Barth, seperti dikutip Martin, menegaskan bahwa nyanyian Kristus ‘is not concerned as to whom Christ obeyed in his self-humiliation as man...it is interested rather in the fact that he obeys, in the attitude of submission and dependence he adopts’ (216). 67 O’Brien, Philippians, 229-230. 68 Martin, Carmen Christi, 217. 69 Martin, Carmen Christi, 227. 66


Martin menolak pandangan Käsemann dan Lohmeyer yang berpendapat bahwa ketaatan Yesus berarti pada titik tunduk dengan sukarela kepada roh-roh jahat yang menguasai dunia kematian dengan tujuan untuk menghancurkan kuasa kematian. Martin mengajukan 3 alasan untuk menolak pandangan Käsemann dan Lohmeyer: 70 (i) Tidak ada indikasi bahwa kata katacqoni,wn pada ayat 10 merujuk kepada adanya perang rohani terhadap roh-roh jahat. (ii) Diragukan bila ayat 8 memuat gagasan Yesus turun ke Hades. (iii) Mitologi penebusan Gnostik sebagai kerangka dasar nyanyian Kristus tidak diterima karena perbedaan mencolok gagasan Gnostis dan Kristen, meski ada persinggungan konsep keduanya. Tentang kematian Yesus, kesimpulan Martin adalah: He put Himself in an emphatic voluntary fashion under the control of death, man’s last enemy. He yielded to its claim, although that claim was unlawful since He was divine and therefore not subject to death’s regime.71

Mati di kayu salib.72 Kematian Yesus di kayu salib 73 memperlihatkan puncak ketaatan Yesus. Tidak berlebihan bila dikatakan bahwa mati di kayu salib merupakan klimaks nyanyian Kristus bagian pertama (ayat 6-8).74 Batas akhir ketaatan Yesus mencapai kematian penyaliban. Mati di kayu salib dipandang kematian yang paling hina dan rendah. Dalam pandangan orang Yahudi, kematian di kayu salib adalah suatu kutuk (Ul. 21:23). Sebagai kutuk, kematian di kayu 70

Martin, Carmen Christi, 219-223. Martin, Carmen Christi, 227. 72 Ungkapan ‘mati di kayu salib’ dipandang Lohmeyer sebagai tambahan atau sisipan ke dalam nyanyian Kristus. Namun Martin, Carmen Christi, 221, bersama Dibelius, Michaelis, Stauffer, Cerfaux mempertahankannya sebagai ‘authentically Pauline’. O’Brien, Philippians, 230, bersama Bruce setuju dengan Martin. 73 Uraian klasik tentang penyaliban lihat M. Hengel, Crucifixion (London: 1977). 74 Juga O’Brien, Philippians, 230. 71

salib tidak dipandang Yahudi sebagai penderitaan atau martir. Mati di kayu salib dilukiskan Origen sebagai “the utterly vile death of the cross.” 75 O’Brien menggambarkan kematian di kayu salib sebagai “the most loathsomely degrading death of all.”76 Inilah cara kematian yang dipilih Yesus, kematian terendah. Kematian di kayu salib bukan kecelakan sejarah, atau peristiwa sejarah di luar kendali Yesus. Salib adalah pilihan karena ketaatan Yesus. Ungkapan mati di kayu salib menunjuk kepada ketaatan Yesus secara sempurna.77 Bukan tabiat dosa manusia yang membawa Yesus ke kayu salib, melainkan ketaatan-Nya. Kematian Yesus di kayu salib bukan menyingkapkan identifikasi sempurna dengan keberdosaan manusia, tetapi menunjuk kepada ketaatan sempurna sebagai manusia. Perbuatan Yesus merendahkan diri menunjuk kepada ketaatan sempurna. Ketaatan yang tidak pernah diperlihatkan manusia setelah Adam gagal taat kepada perintah Allah. Ketaatan sempurna selalu bersifat sukarela dan aktif. Meski kematian Yesus di kayu salib memuat dimensi keselamatan, namun dalam nyanyian Kristus penekanan tertuju demonstrasi ketaatan sempurna Yesus Kristus. 78 Fokus nyanyian pada perbuatan Kristus itu sendiri ketimbang karya Kristus bagi manusia.

75

Dikutip O’Brien, Philippians, 227. O’Brien, Philippians, 230, merujuk Martin Hengel. Kematian di kayu salib dipandang rendah dan hina sampaisampai Cicero menulis ‘Let the very name of the cross be far away not only the body of a Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears’ (Rab Perd 5.10.16, dikutip Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 122). Hawthorne dan Martin menulis ‘Christ’s death by crucifixion was the ultimate in human degradation’. 77 Apakah ungkapan mati di kayu salib memuat makna keselamatan manusia? Bila melihat penggunaan kata salib dalam korpus Paulus yang muncul 18 kali di luar surat Filipi, kaitan dengan keselamatan jelas terlihat. Meski demikian penekanan kata salib terarah kepada ketaatan Yesus ketimbang keselamatan manusia. O’Brien, Philippians, 232, setuju bahwa dimensi keselamatan bukan soal pokok nyanyian Kristus. 78 Juga O’Brien, Philippians, 231-232, menolak dimensi keselamatan seperti usulan Schneider dan Gnilka. 76

95


Ketaatan Yesus di taman Getsemani, seperti terekam dalam Markus 14:32-42, Matius 26:36-46, Lukas 22:39-46, merupakan pergumulan Yesus menghadapi kematian yang berpuncak kepada ketaatan-Nya.

Stanza 2: Perbuatan Allah (ayat 9-11) Kata sambung dio. kai, yang muncul pada Lukas 1:35; Kisah Para Rasul 10:29; 24:26; Roma 4:22; 15:22; 2 Korintus 1:20; 4:13; 5:9; Ibrani 11:12; 13:12. diterjemahkan ‘itulah sebabnya’ (LAI-TB). Terjemahan ‘itulah sebabnya’ menjalin stanza 1 dan stanza 2 dalam ikatan konsekuensi logis bukan relasi kausal. Dalam alur ini, stanza 2 mengungkap perbuatan Allah merupakan kelanjutan perbuatan-perbuatan Kristus pada stanza 1. Stanza 2 mengubah subjek nyanyian dari Yesus kepada Allah. Pada stanza 1 subjek adalah Yesus, namun pada stanza 2, yang tersusun dalam satu kalimat, Yesus menjadi objek. Meski demikian, pokok perhatian nyanyian Kristus terbentang mulai stanza 1 hingga stanza 2 adalah tentang Yesus Kristus di mana frasa ‘itulah sebabnya’ mengkaitkan kedua stanza. Namun, kaitan demikian menimbulkan pertanyaan, apakah kemuliaan menjadi upah atau ganjaran (reward) terhadap ketaatan? Umumnya pandangan kemuliaan sebagai upah ketaatan tidak diterima para teolog Reformed. Sebagai pemecahan masalah ini Martin, mengikut Michael, mengusulkan bahwa kemuliaan stanza 2 merupakan pembalikan (inversion) terhadap kerendahan hati dan ketaatan Yesus.79 O’Brien, mengikut O. Hofius, memahaminya sebagai respons Allah. 80 Pembalikan atau respons terjadi karena Allah melihat bahwa keadaan Yesus sudah mencapai titik paling rendah yang tidak mungkin turun lagi karena tidak ada yang lebih rendah lagi. Melihat kerendahan terendah ini, Allah kemudian mengintervensi dengan melakukan dua tindakan. Meski demikian harus ditegaskan bahwa intervensi 79 80

96

Martin, Carmen Christi, 244. O’Brien, Philippians, 233.

pembalikan Allah terjadi bukan semata-mata hanya karena kematian Yesus di kayu salib seperti usul Hofius. 81 Allah merespons perbuatan-perbuatan Yesus yakni: tidak menganggap sebagai keuntungan, mengosongkan diri dan merendahkan diri. Bila frasa ‘itulah sebabnya’ dipahami sebagai respons atau pembalikan dan hubungan stanza 1 dan 2 bukan dalam kategeri upah atau ganjaran, maka prinsip kerendahan hati-ketaatan diikuti kemulian membentuk gagasan dasar nyanyian Kristus. Gagasan ini dalam bentuk ekstrim diusulkan oleh Lohmeyer yang mengatakan bahwa prinsip tersebut merupakan prinsip universal dan beroperasi di mana Allah memerintah. 82 Jelas dalam PL terlihat Allah merendahkan yang sombong dan meninggikan yang rendah hati. 83 Yesus sendiri mengajarkan bahwa siapa yang direndahkan akan ditinggikan (Mat. 18:4; 23:12; Luk. 14:11; 18:14). Teks PL dan tradisi Injil menyatakan bahwa kerendahan hati dan pemuliaan adalah bagian tatanan Ilahi, atau sebagai “an inexorable law of God’s kingdom.”84 Kerendahan hati dan kemuliaan adalah hukum Ilahi, seperti halnya hukum alam gravitasi. Dalam pengertian ini, nyanyian Kristus merupakan ilustrasi prinsip yang terdapat dalam PL dan ajaran Yesus. 85 Dalam stanza 2 terlihat dua bentuk perbuatan Allah kepada Yesus yakni: u`peru,ywsen (ayat 9, sangat meninggikan) Yesus dan evcari,sato (ayat 9, mengaruniakan) nama di atas segala nama. O’Brien berpendapat bahwa pekerjaan Allah bukanlah tahapan dan kedua perbuatan Allah tersebut dipandang sebagai pernyataan sejajar (the parallel assertion).86 Senada dengan itu Martin menulis, “The vindication of Christ is 81

O’Brien, Philippians, 233-234, menolak usulan

Hofius. 82

Ringkasan dan kritikan terhadap Lohmeyer lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 233-235. 83 Untuk referensi teks PL lihat O’Brien, Philippians, 180-181. 84 Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 124. 85 Martin, Carmen Christi, 234, 244; O’Brien, Philippians, 235. 86 O’Brien, Philippians, 236, 237.


expressed by the bestowal of ‘the name’ ‘above all names’.” 87 Tetapi sama seperti stanza 1, perbuatan-perbuatan Kristus merupakan tahapan peristiwa, demikian juga dengan perbuatan Allah pada stanza 2. Tulisan berikut, seperti diuraikan di bawah, berpendapat bahwa perbuatan Allah merupakan suatu tahapan peristiwa. Tujuan perbuatan Allah adalah: semua lutut ka,myh| (bertekuk) dan semua lidah evxomologh,shtai (mengakui). Tema kebangkitan dan kenaikan Yesus tidak disebut eksplisit karena fokus nyanyian kepada pengakuan semua makhluk bahwa Yesus adalah Tuhan.

1. Allah Sangat Meninggikan Allah sangat meninggikan (u`peru,ywsen) Yesus. Kata kerja u`peru,ywsen adalah hapax legomenon. Bagaimana memahami kata kerja hapax legomenon u`peru,ywsen? Pemahaman terhadap kata kerja u`peru,ywsen terbagi ke dalam dua alur pikiran:88 (i) Kata kerja u`peru,ywsen dipandang sebagai kata kerja komposit yang terbentuk atas preposisi u`per dan kata kerja u`yo,w (misalnya, Héring, Cullmann, Dibelius, Lohmeyer). Dalam Kisah Para Rasul 2:33; 5:31 kata kerja u`yo,w digunakan secara figuratif sebagai rujukan terhadap kenaikan Yesus. Kata preposisi ὑπέρ memuat makna komparatif. Dalam makna kompa-ratif ini peninggian Kristus berarti meninggikan-Nya ke posisi lebih tinggi dibanding posisi sebelum inkarnasi. Arti komparatif ini kurang cocok dengan ayat 6.89 (ii) Kata kerja u`peru,ywsen digunakan untuk menggambarkan kontras atau makna superlatif atau elatif (misal: Beare, Michaelis, Martin, O’Brien). Dalam alur pikiran ini, peninggian Kristus memperlihatkan keunikan Kristus dan tidak terbandingkan 87 Martin, Carmen Christi, 235. Martin memperlakukan kedua perbuatan Allah itu sebagai hal sejajar. 88 Diskusi lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 239-243. 89 Demikian Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 125.

dengan siapa pun. Makna elatif demikian terpancar dalam Mazmur 97:9 (LXX). 90 Yesus ditinggikan mengatasi segala sesuatu, seluruh alam semesta. Beare dengan ringkas menulis “God exalted him to the highest station.” 91 Tidak berarti Yesus lebih tinggi setingkat dibanding makhluk lainnya, melainkan Yesus tidak ada bandingannya. Keunikan Yesus mendapat penekanan melalui penggunaan kata kerja u`peru,ywsen. Meski peninggian Kristus diawali dengan peristiwa kebangkitan-Nya berlanjut kenaikanNya, namun dalam nyanyian Kristus yang menjadi penekanan adalah keunikan dan posisi Kristus mengatasi segala ciptaan.92 Di atas disebutkan bahwa perbuatanperbuatan Allah dalam stanza 2 merupakan tahapan. Buktinya? Penggunaan kata kerja u`yo,w digunakan pada Matius 11:23; 23:12 (2 kali); Lukas 1:52; 10:15; 14:11 (2 kali); 18:14 (2 kali); Yohanes 3:14 (2 kali); 8:28; 12:32, 34; Kisah Para Rasul 2:33; 5:31; 13:17; 2 Korintus 11:7; Yakobus 4:10; 1 Petrus 5:6. Penggunaan kata kerja u`yo,w dalam hubungan dengan Kristus merujuk kepada kenaikan Yesus (Yoh. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32,34; Kis. 2:33; 5:31). Lagi dalam Roma 8:34; 1 Petrus 3:1822, peristiwa kematian, kebangkitan Kristus dan kenaikan Kristus dipandang sebagai satu kesatuan. Peristiwa kebangkitan dan kenaikan Kristus adalah peristiwa bertahap, ada selang waktu di antara keduanya. Kedua peristiwa ini dirumuskan sebagai perbuatan Allah sangat meninggikan Kristus.

2. Allah Menganugerahkan Nama Allah menganugerahkan Yesus nama. Penganugerahan nama ini bukanlah tahapan 90

Martin, Carmen Christi, 242, memberi komentar terhadap Mazmur 97:9 sebagai berikut ‘It is not the thought that Yahweh is on a step higher than other deities, but that He is unique and in a class apart because He is incomparable One (Yesaya 40:18; 44:7; Yeremia 10:6’. 91 Dikutip Martin, Carmen Christi, 241; dan O’Brien, Philippians, 236. 92 Juga O’Brien, Philippians, 237.

97


kedua setelah perbuatan Allah meninggikan Yesus. Peristiwa meninggikan dan mengaruniakan terjadi pada waktu bersamaan. Namun keduanya bukanlah peristiwa sejajar. Artinya, tindakan Allah mengaruniakan nama merupakan ekspresi peninggian Kristus. Perbuatan Allah sangat meninggikan Kristus terkait dengan kebangkitan dan kenaikan Yesus, memiliki muatan spasial. Namun, perbuatan Allah menganugerahkan nama bersifat kosmis dan transendental, tanpa muatan spasial dan temporal. 93 Kedua perbuatan Allah berbeda, namun serempak terjadi. Apa yang dimaksud dengan nama? Nama yang dimaksud di sini, kesepakatan umum penafsir94 merujuk kepada ayat 11 yakni kata κύριος.95 κύριος memuat dua arti96 yakni: (i) Penyataan Allah kepada manusia (Käsemann). Istilah nama menunjuk kepada penyataan karakter seseorang. Dalam arti ini istilah nama diberi arti khusus yakni Allah menyatakan kepada manusia. Yesus tidak lagi merupakan Allah yang tersembunyi, namun Ia telah dinyatakan kepada seluruh alam semesta. Pengaruniaan nama kepada Yesus berarti penyataan Yesus sebagai Tuhan atas alam semesta. (ii) Fungsi ketuhanan. Istilah nama dipahami sebagai jabatan (office). 97 Yesus sebelum inkarnasi menolak untuk mengambil paksa kesetaraan dengan Allah sebagai milik-Nya. Ketika Yesus menyelesaikan tugas ketaatan-Nya, maka Allah meninggi93

Bandingkan Martin, Carmen Christi, 268. Martin, Carmen Christi, 245. Juga Abineno, Filipi, 58; O’Brien, Philippians, 238, merujuk kepada Yahweh. Berbeda dengan umumnya penafsir, C. F. D. Moule mengusulkan nama Yesus. Rujukan nama juga tidak diartikan sebagai ‘Yesus Kristus’ (Vincent, Meyer), atau ‘Anak’ (Theodoret, Agustinus, Pelagius), atau ‘Allah’ (Novatian, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria). 95 Kata VIhsou/ dalam frasa evn tw/| ovno,mati VIhsou/ (ayat 10) berbentuk genitif sehingga terjemahannya ‘nama milik Yesus’ (the name of Jesus). Artinya, semua makhluk takluk kepada nama milik Yesus yakni κύριος, bukan semua makhluk takluk kepada nama Yesus. 96 Diskusi lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 236-239. 97 Hawthorne, dan Martin, Philippians, 126, κύριος berarti ‘Christ has been given the character and office of Lord’. 94

98

kan-Nya dengan jabatan setara dengan Allah. Yesus memiliki otoritas yang hanya dimiliki Allah. Masalahnya adalah tidak diketahui apa nama tersebut dan didasarkan pada pengertian a`rpagmo.n h`gh,sato sebagai res rapienda. Dua arti di atas tidak memuaskan. Lebih baik kata κύριος memuat arti pemulihan pemerintahan Allah (restorasi kerajaan Allah). Yesus memiliki kesetaraan dengan Allah. Namun, mengapa menjadi manusia? Tentu ada yang salah dalam hidup manusia. Manusia, akibat dosa, berada di bawah pemerintahan maut. Manusia tidak berdaya melawannya. Dengan mendasarkan pada nyanyian Kristus yang terekam pada surat penjara lainnya, yakni Kolose 1:15-20, terungkap bahwa pengaruniaan nama menunjuk kepada pemulihan pemerintahan Allah. Bagaimana penjelasannya? Kata katalla,ssw hanya muncul dalam korpus Paulus. Dalam 1 Korintus 7:11 kata rekonsiliasi digunakan dalam hubungan suami-istri memuat arti pemulihan relasi. Istilah rekonsiliasi dalam surat-surat Paulus selalu berkaitan dengan manusia, namun dalam Kolose 1:20 diperluas meliputi alam semesta atau makhluk-makhluk di surga, bersifat universal. Rekonsiliasi berarti kembali ke kondisi semula (diberlakukan kembali) atau pemulihan seperti keadaan semula di mana perseteruan sudah tidak ada. Terjemahan kata kerja avpokatalla,xai pada Kolose 1:20 yang tepat adalah ‘pemulihan’ bukan ‘memperdamaikan’ seperti terjemahan LAI-TB1. Rekonsiliasi adalah kembali ke keadaan semula tanpa permusuhan. Rekonsiliasi adalah pemulihan kembali apa yang telah dirusakkan oleh dosa manusia. Rekonsiliasi sebagai pemulihan ditegaskan dengan kesejajaran Kolose 1:16 dan ayat 20. Terlihat kesejajaran ganda: (i) Ayat 16: baik yang di surga dan di bumi Ayat 20: baik yang di bumi atau di surga (ii) Ayat 16: semuanya oleh Dia dan untuk Dia telah diciptakan; Ayat 20: oleh Dia semuanya direkonsiliasi untuk Dia


Kesejajaran pertama memperlihatkan lingkup pendamaian. Semua wilayah yang dirusak dosa dipulihkan kembali oleh kematian Yesus di kayu salib. Kesejajaran kedua melibatkan peran Yesus sebagai pencipta dan sebagai pendamai. Peranan pertama sebagai pencipta dan peranan kedua sebagai pendamai, tepatnya pencipta damai, memperlihatkan adanya masa berkuasanya dosa dan maut. Sejarah ciptaan bergerak dari diciptakan kepada direkonsiliasi. Ciptaan diciptakan oleh dan untuk Dia menjadi direkonsiliasi oleh dan untuk Dia. Rekonsiliasi berarti pulihnya ciptaan seperti keadaan semula. Seperti kata Dunn, rekonsiliasi adalah to restore the harmony of the original creation, to bring into renewed oneness and wholeness ‘all things,’ ‘whether things on the earth or things in the heavens’.98

Kata sambung i[na pada ayat 10 memuat makna tujuan (supaya) atau akibat (sehingga). Meski kedua muatannya tidak perlu tajam dipisahkan, namun terjemahan ‘supaya’ digunakan di sini. Perbuatan Allah bertujuan terjadinya dua peristiwa: semua lutut ka,myh| (bertekuk) dan semua lidah evxomologh,shtai (mengaku).99 Semua lutut bertekuk (ayat 10). Ketika menghadap Allah orang Yahudi menunjukkan dua sikap, yakni berlutut atau berdiri. Bertekuk lutut atau bersujud merupakan sikap ibadah menyembah Allah (Ezr. 9:5; 1Taw. 29:20; 1 Esdras 8:71; 9:47; 2 Makabe 2:1; Yes. 45:23; Maz. 95:9 [LXX]). Juga bertekuk lutut digunakan sebagai ungkapan penaklukkan seperti terdapat pada 2 Samuel 22:40; Sirakh 33:27. Berdiri sering menjadi sikap orang Yahudi ketika berdoa kepada Allah seperti terdapat pada Lukas 18:11,13; Yeremia 18:20; 1 Raja 19:11; Ezra 9:15; Mazmur 24:3. Bertekuk lutut menggambarkan sikap menyembah dan menaklukkan diri. 98

J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 104. 99 Hubungan dengan Yesaya 45:23 LXX lihat O’Brien, Philippians, 241-242.

Sebagian manusia menghadap Tuhan dengan sikap menyembah dan sebagian manusia lainnya menghadap Tuhan dengan sikap takluk kepada-Nya. Martin menegaskan bertekuk lutut sebagai a mark of extreme abasement and submission (as in Ephesians 3:14) and denotes that the universal homage marks the subjection of those who so kneel to the lordship of Christ.100

Kata ‘semua’ (pa/n) di ayat 10 dan kata ‘semua’ (pa/sa) di ayat 11 merujuk kepada semua manusia dari segala tempat dan zaman dalam alur makna inklusif total. Secara khusus kata semua ayat 10 dan 11 dijelaskan oleh 3 ungkapan yakni: evpourani,wn (langit); evpigei,wn (bumi); katacqoni,wn (bawah bumi). Apa artinya? Martin, mengikut Lightfoot, mempertahankan bahwa tiga ungkapan merupakan suatu pleonasme retoris yang merujuk kepada keseluruhan ciptaan alam semesta.101 Namun, kebanyakan penafsir melihat tiga ungkapan ini merujuk kepada tiga bagian alam semesta102 yang masing-masing merepresentasikan makhluk-makhluk ciptaan-Nya: malaikat di langit, manusia di bumi dan rohroh jahat di bawah bumi. Meski demikian usulan Cullmann dan Käsemann bahwa ungkapan tersebut merujuk kepada roh-roh jahat sebagai penguasa tiga lapis alam semesta yang takluk kepada Kristus dipandang sebagai pengertian yang membatasi cakupan ungkapan. 103 Semua makhluk, baik manusia, malaikat dan roh-roh jahat mengakui Yesus adalah Tuhan. Sebagian makhluk, manusia percaya dan malaikat, mengakui Yesus sebagai Tuhan yang membebaskan dengan sukacita dan sebagian makhluk, manusia tidak percaya dan roh-roh jahat, mengakui Yesus sebagai 100 Martin, Carmen Christi, 265. O’Brien, Philippians, 241, 279. 101 Martin, Carmen Christi, 257-258. Juga W. Carr, Angels and Principalities (Cambridge: 1981), 86-89. 102 Bukti-bukti pandangan kuno tentang tiga lapis alam semesta diberikan dalam Martin, Carmen Christi, 259 n. 1, 3 dan 260 n. 1, 2. 103 Pandangan mereka mengikut Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 85) dan Irenaeus (adversus Haereses 1.10.1). Diskusi lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 260-262.

99


Tuhan yang mengadili dengan penuh ketaklukkan. Semua lidah mengakui (ayat 11). Martin mengamati bahwa kata kerja ‘mengaku’ tidak lagi diterjemahkan para ahli sebagai “to proclaim with thanksgiving,” yaitu kata ‘mengaku’ yang digunakan dalam konteks ibadah ketika semua malaikat, gereja dan orang mati di Sheol bersama-sama beribadah menyembah Kristus yang telah mengalahkan maut. Sekarang ini, papar Martin, kata kerja ‘mengaku’ dirumuskan sebagai “admit, acknowledge” dalam arti netral. 104 Terjemahan yang tepat adalah ‘mengakui’ bukan ‘mengaku’ seperti terjemahan LAI-TB. Menyadari bahwa pengakuan ini diutarakan oleh semua lidah, artinya semua makhluk, tentu tidak tepat bila dikatakan pengakuan demikian merupakan suatu pengakuan iman dalam suatu ibadah penyembahan kepada Kristus. Pengakuan itu bukanlah suatu pengakuan pribadi yang sukarela diikrarkan oleh sebagian makhluk. Menyadari bahwa kata ‘semua’ memuat signifikansi inklusif, maka pengakuan bahwa Yesus adalah Tuhan meliputi segala makhluk termasuk malaikat dan roh-roh jahat dan semua manusia dari segala zaman dan suku bangsa. Dalam konteks demikian, segala makhluk mengakui Yesus adalah Tuhan baik dalam ibadah penyembahan maupun dalam elu-eluan (acclamation) universal. Nah di sini timbul masalah. Apakah pengakuan segala makhluk ini terjadi sekarang105 atau pada saat parousia (O’Brien)? Penggunaan kata kerja bertekuk lutut dan mengakui dalam bentuk aoris memberi indikasi kuat bahwa peristiwa ini terjadi sekarang bukan pada saat parousia. Semua makhluk mengakui Yesus Tuhan segera setelah peristiwa kenaikan-Nya ke sorga. Kenaikan Yesus menjadi peristiwa Yesus dilantik sebagai Tuhan atas alam semesta. 104 Martin, Carmen Christi, 263; juga O’Brien, Philippians, 247105 Martin, Carmen Christi, 266, menyatakan ini pandangan para ahli umumnya.

100

Bukankah pernyataan ini tidak sesuai dengan pengalaman gereja di dunia yang masih menderita? Apakah lebih baik dipandang sebagai ketegangan antara sudah-belum (already-not yet) seperti teologi Paulus lainnya (Hofius)?106 Namun, kata kerja bertekuk dan mengakui bukan, seperti ditegaskan penelitian naskah di atas, dalam bentuk kala depan (future), tetapi jelas ini adalah peristiwa kala kini (present).107 Martin menegaskan kekinian peristiwa bertekuk dan mengakui, namun membatasinya sebagai proklamasi hanya kepada makhluk-makhluk rohani. 108 Membatasi universalitas ketuhanan Kristus merusak jiwa nyanyian Kristus. Nyanyian Kristus menyatakan bahwa semua makhluk kelihatan dan tidak kelihatan mengakui Yesus adalah Tuhan merupakan Raja atas seluruh alam semesta. Perlu ditegaskan bahwa pengakuan semua makhluk ini tidak memiliki muatan keselamatan. Ia lebih bermuatan rekonsiliasi (pendamaian). Artinya, penciptaan rusak oleh dosa dan, akibatnya, maut sekarang mendapat pemulihan kembali oleh kemenangan Kristus atas maut yang menguasai hidup manusia. Istilah rekonsiliasi memiliki arti pemulihan. Martin menulis bahwa rekonsiliasi berarti the universe is restored to its rightful Lord who in turn, by His redemptive act, has reinstated the Fatherly rule of God over all His universe.

Kalimat terakhir memberi penjelasan terhadap pernyataan ‘bagi kemuliaan Allah, Bapa’ pada ayat 11. 109 Pemulihan Yesus sebagai Tuhan atas alam semesta tidak menggeser Allah dari tahta-Nya atau merusak relasi Yesus dan Bapa-Nya. Pemulihan Yesus sebagai Tuhan atas seluruh semesta tidak lain 106 Diskusi pandangan Hofius lihat O’Brien, Philippians, 242-243; Martin, Carmen Christi, xxv-xxix. 107 O’Brien, Philippians, 203, 249, menolak bentuk kala depan (future), namun menganggap peristiwanya terjadi saat parousia (245, 250). 108 Martin, Carmen Christi, 269. 109 O’Brien, Philippians, 250, mengikut Hofius melihatnya sebagai bagian asali nyanyian Kristus. Frasa eivj do,xan qeou/ patro,j terkait langsung dengan ku,rioj VIhsou/j Cristo,j ketimbang verba evxomologh,shtai.


merupakan pemulihan pemerintahan Allah sebagai Bapa atas seluruh ciptaan. Dan melalui pengakuan Kristus adalah Tuhan, maka karakter Allah sebagai Bapa tersingkap kepada seluruh semesta. Ketuhanan Yesus atas seluruh ciptaan tidak lain menjadi momen penyataan kebapaan Allah atas seluruh alam semesta. Yesus dilantik sebagai Tuhan adalah untuk kemuliaan Allah Bapa. Hubungan Allah Bapa dan semua ciptaan yang rusak oleh dosa, dipulihkan kembali melalui kenaikan Yesus. Allah sebagai Bapa atas semua ciptaan pulih kembali.

Mengapa Nyanyian Kristus Dikutip dalam Surat Filipi?110 Sejarah penafsiran tafsiran nyanyian Kristus dapat digolongkan dalam dua kategori utama: tafsiran kerigmatis dan tafsiran etis.111 Tafsiran dominan adalah tafsiran yang melihat nyanyian Kristus memiliki muatan etis. Ini dievaluasi terlebih dahulu sebelum mengusulkan pembacaan yang lebih segar.

Tujuan Etis112 Umumnya penafsir memahami nyanyian Kristus dalam alur etis. Pandangan etis berpendapat bahwa kerendahan hati Kristus menjadi contoh/model bagi jemaat Filipi untuk diikuti. Jemaat Filipi didorong untuk meneladani Kristus dalam hidup dalam persekutuan jemaat. Jemaat diperlihatkan suatu prinsip rohani bahwa kerendahan hati membawa kepada kemuliaan. Martin menolak nyanyian Kristus memiliki tujuan etis karena tidak pernah Paulus menggunakan hidup Yesus di dunia sebagai 110 Teori kenosis yang berpendapat bahwa Yesus ketika inkarnasi mengosongkan atribusi Ilahi-Nya seperti mahatahu (omniscience), mahakuasa (omnipotence) sudah tidak mendapat perhatian para penafsir lagi. Ekskursus tentang kenosis lihat Hawthorne dan Martin, Philippians, 120-121. 111 Uraian ringkas O’Brien, Philippians, 253-262. Evaluasi terhadap tafsiran kerigmatis terdapat pada halaman 257-262. Juga Martin, Carmen Christi, 63-88. 112 Uraian interpretasi etis lihat Martin, Carmen Christi, 84-88; juga O’Brien, Philippians, 253-256..

dasar etis untuk ditiru (example) jemaat, seolah-olah yang perlu dilakukan jemaat hanyalah meniru hidup Yesus (exemplum ad imitandum). Martin menegaskan bahwa “The controlling motive of Pauline ethics is not imitation, but death and resurrection,” artinya jemaat Kristen dalam hidup etisnya harus mati bagi dosa dalam baptisan dan turut ikut bersama kebangkitan Kristus dalam Roh Kudus.113 Selanjutnya, Martin mengusulkan bahwa nyanyian Kristus dipahami sebagai pengingat (reminder)114 dengan merujuk kepada ayat 5b dan 11. 115 Martin menjelaskan bahwa nyanyian Kristus adalah suatu solemn reminder to them that they have received in baptism the divine image and that they belong to this new Age in which the exalted Christ is the world-Ruler.116

Paulus mengingatkan jemaat Filipi apa yang harus mereka perbuat sebagai jemaat yang sudah ada dalam Kristus. Tafsiran Martin bersama E. Käsemann yang disebut sebagai tafsiran kerigmatis ditolak oleh O’Brien. 117 Keberatan utama terhadap tafsiran kerigmatis adalah penambahan verba fronei/te memberikan kondisi tautologis. Dengan demikian tafsiran kerigmatis dan etis tidak cukup untuk menjelaskan makna nyanyian Kristus. Perlu pemaknaan nyanyian Kristus lebih segar.

Tujuan Imitating O’Brien, melihat nyanyian Kristus dalam alur tafsiran model atau teladan terhadap jemaat Filipi. O’Brien menulis bahwa nyanyian Kristus presents Jesus as the ultimate model for Christian behavior and action, the supreme example of the humble, self-sacrificing, self-giving service that Paul has just been urging the

113

Martin, Carmen Christi, 71-73, 215, 288. Martin, Carmen Christi, 289, 294. 115 Martin, Carmen Christi, 289-292. 116 Martin, Carmen Christi, 294. 117 Kritikan disajikan O’Brien, Philippians, 257-262. 114

101


Philippians to practice in their relations one toward another.118

Pandangan ini didasarkan kata τοῦτο merujuk kepada ayat sebelumnya. Meski demikian, bagi O’Brien, istilah model atau contoh yang dimaksud dipahami sebagai “conformity to Christ’s likeness rather than of an imitation of his example.” 119 Dengan demikian, O’Brien hanya mampu melihat nyanyian sebagai dorongan untuk kesesuaian (conformity) ketimbang peniruan atau peneladan (imitation). Ini tidak cukup. Jika dikatakan bahwa tujuan nyanyian Kristus untuk meneladani Kristus, tidak berarti bahwa jemaat secara harfiah mengosongkan diri dan mati di kayu salib. Ini tidak mungkin dan tidak perlu. Itulah sebabnya dalam ayat 5 jemaat diberi perintah ‘pikirkanlah ini’ (tou/to fronei/te), bukan lakukan atau kerjakanlah ini. Dorongan nyanyian Kristus agar jemaat meneladani Yesus menunjukkan bahwa pikiran kerendahan hati dan ketaatan merupakan kondisi mutlak yang harus ada dalam pikiran semua jemaat Kristen supaya moralitas jemaat seperti ayat 1-4 mendapat ruang lapang untuk memperlihatkan wujudnya. Konteksnya adalah kehidupan bersama jemaat dalam persekutuan sesama jemaat. Kata ‘ini’ (tou/to) pada awal ayat 5 yang merupakan crux interpretum merujuk, seperti diuraikan di atas, kepada kerendahan hati dan ketaatan Kristus. Kata tou/to menunjuk kepada ayat di depannya ketimbang ayat di belakangnya. Paulus ingin agar jemaat Filipi dalam kehidupan persekutuan mereka sebagai jemaat Kristus memiliki pikiran kerendahan hati dan ketaatan seperti yang dimiliki Kristus. Hidup moralitas bersama jemaat hanya bisa berlangsung bila kerendahan hati dan ketaatan dimiliki semua jemaat. Keberhasilan tuntutan tujuh moralitas jemaat pada ayat 1-4 membutuhkan kondisi dan suasana kerendahan hati dan ketaatan. Bila 118 119

102

O’Brien, Philippians, 205, 252, 262. Lihat ayat 1-4. O’Brien, Philippians, 205.

jemaat saling memperlihatkan kerendahan hati dan ketaatan, maka tujuh moralitas jemaat akan menampakkan wujudnya. Pikiran kerendahan hati dan ketaatan adalah fondasi dasar bahkan alam pikiran (worldview) kehidupan persekutuan jemaat.

Bibliography Abineno, J. L. Ch. Tafsiran Surat Filipi. Jakarta: BPK Gunung Mulia, 1982. Burridge, Richard A. Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Martin, Ralph P. Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 In Recent Interpretation and in the setting of early Christian Worship. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Ralph P. Martin. Philippians. Volume 43 of Word Biblical Commentary. Revised and expanded edition. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: UBS, 2002. O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.


Reforming Reason Jonathan Edwards as An Exemplary Model Nathaniel Gray Sutanto

Abstract This article attempts to show how Jonathan Edwards is to be commended as a philosophical theologian (or a theological philosopher) who submits reason under the authority of Scripture as the principium cognoscendi while utilizing the philosophical discourse of his day for the purposes of communicating Reformed theology. Particular attention is given to the reasons why Edwards thinks that reasoning apart from Scripture’s authority is pointless at worst or incomplete at best—the noetic effects of sin and God’s direct providential control over all things couched in terms of occasionalism make this the case for Edwards. Furthermore, Edwards’ use of Lockean epistemology to structure his thoughts on regeneration is also discussed, as Edwards uses the language of a new faculty of the heart that is given to the newly regenerated believer, allowing the new believer to perceive the idea of God.

Reformed theology has always affirmed that the role of reason in theological contemplation is that of a servant, not a dictating mistress. Jonathan Edwards, as a Reformed theologian, is certainly no exception to this mold of thought. The purpose of this paper is to commend Jonathan Edwards’ use of reason in his theological work, showing along the way how Edwards manages to utilize the best of the philosophical tools available to him in his day for the purposes of communicating orthodox Reformed theology. Edwards, in this way, shows how the relationship of philosophy to theology is to be construed. Before discussing Jonathan Edwards’ views and uses of philosophy and the context from which he comes, it would be profitable to provide first some basic things to keep in mind particularly with regard to the relationship between philosophy and theology. The basic affirmation of the Reformed use of philosophy in theology stated above would be made clearer as the subject matter of philosophy in distinction from theology as commonly understood is noted. K. Scott

Oliphint has suggested, and rightly so, that the best way to think about the distinction between theology and philosophy, historically speaking, is to think of the two in light of the Latin term, principia. This notion of principium and its sense signifies the source or foundation of a thing; more specifically, “it is that which gives something its reason to be, or its justification for existence.” 1 This notion thus implies another distinction, between the principium essendi and the principium cognoscendi. The former refers to the essential principles or foundations or sources of a subject matter, while the latter refers to epistemological principles and sources for the subject matter. The two are mutually related and symbiotically inseparable. For Reformed theology in particular, the principium essendi for all things in general and theology in particular is God himself, and the principium cognoscendi is his own revelation—his self-disclosure in the form of revelation to his 1

K. Scott Oliphint, Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006), 25.

103


creatures. 2 This is and should be a basic Christian affirmation; since God is the foundation and source for all that exists, all that exists must have Him as the norm and ultimate reference point. Thus it follows that all disciplines, according to Christian thought, must have God as their principium essendi and His special and general revelation as the principium cognoscendi. However, Reformed theology further affirms that the only way one could rightly understand God’s general revelation is through His own Word and even in this process the Holy Spirit is necessary as an illuminating guide. Edwards offers his own unique and cogent reasons for thinking this to be so, as we shall see below. The role of philosophy in theology, depending on whom one asks, is thought by some to be that of a master who dictates the latter on its boundaries, limitations and affirmations. Note, for example, the words of 18th century philosopher John Caird regarding philosophy as a master discipline: “According to this view, then, there is no province of human experience, there is nothing in the whole realm of reality, which lies beyond the domain of philosophy, or to which philosophical investigation does not extend.” 3 Philosophy itself is to be the arbitrating judge, through the deductions and inferences of autonomous human reason, of all disciplines. Caird’s response to the objection that philosophy is unworthy to be placed on such a high priority, and to the claim that it is unfitting to place reason as the arbitrating judge over all things is quite stark. He says, It may be answered, in general, that the only way in which philosophy can prove its rights is by philosophizing. The capacity of reason or incapacity of reason to deal with any object or class of objects cannot be determined by a 2

For a more thorough exposition of the history of Reformed thought on the role of philosophy, see Oliphint, 21-35. 3 John Caird, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, The Croall Lectures; 1878-79 (Glasgow: J. Maclehose, 1880), 5.

104

preliminary inquiry, for this, if for no other reason, that the inquiry could only be conducted by the faculty which is impugned. If the incapacity is asserted on external authority, it is only reason itself that can judge of that authority and pronounce on its claims.4

It seems, then, on this view, the principium essendi and cognoscendi for philosophy is reason itself. If this is the case, “then philosophy’s boundaries are determined by reason, its authority lies in reason, and its rules and laws are the rules and laws of reason.”5 Assuming that this is the principium of philosophy, it follows that, when one is speaking about philosophy of religion, or the role of philosophy in theology, human reason must set the ultimate boundaries, rules and foundation for the inquiry of God and his world. In other words, reason as the principium cognoscendi is the sure means by which one would acquire true knowledge of God. Though not all philosophers hold this view, this, or some modest forms of it, seems to be the common consensus in contemporary literature on philosophy of religion. Without reviewing the general, possible objections that can be raised against this view of the use of philosophy, suffice it to say here that this is not the approach that Jonathan Edwards takes. This paper will, instead, focus on Edwards’ specific contributions in response to such a view. The rest of this paper has its loci on Jonathan Edwards’ use of philosophy in his theological thinking. Indeed, as one begins to investigate the matter it should be made clear that Jonathan Edwards is a consistent Reformed theologian in this regard. His use of philosophical discourse is that of a servant to, in terms of principia, the principium cognoscendi of God’s own Word-revelation and the principium internum 6 of the regenerative 4

Caird, 4. Emphasis mine. Oliphint, 25. 6 A category under the principium cognoscendi, the principium internum designates the internal functional source, authority and foundation for knowledge. Thus the principium externum for knowledge is God’s Word in Holy Scripture. 5

REFORMING REASON: JONATHAN EDWARDS AS AN EXEMPLARY MODEL

work of the Holy Spirit. Underlying his use is the distinction between human reason as a faculty that processes and structures theological thought towards rational expression and human reason as an autonomous producer of foundational axioms and systems of thought. The use of reason, for Edwards, is that of the former and not of the latter. Therefore, Jonathan Edwards is a theologian first and foremost, but his robust use of philosophy and reason as a tool also qualifies him to be a first-rate philosophical theologian. This paper will argue for a thesis, that Edwards is a theologian who radically stands opposed to the mode of philosophical thinking propelled by the philosophers of his day, while adopting some of his opponents’ philosophical language as a tool to communicate biblical truths. With divine revelation as his starting point and primary authority, reason and philosophical inquiry becomes a helpful tool for Edwards. Edwards regards reason, as Allen Guelzo observes, nothing more than a “handmaid” to theology7 and in this regard Edwards should be commended as an exemplary model for one’s own theological work. This paper will proceed by sketching the general Enlightenment position with regard to reason, the Bible and philosophy—the mode of thought contemporary to Edwards’ day, and then outline Edwards’ departure from that mode of thought, showing along the way how Edwards incorporates some Enlightenment philosophy into his own thinking to communicate Calvinistic theology. It should then become clear how Edwards’ mode of scholarship is to be admired and commended to contemporary Reformed scholars.

The Enlightenment: Starting Points, the Bible and Epistemic Authorities The 17th-19th century Enlightenment era’s philosophical viewpoints cannot be simplified to a unified way of thought or worldview, but among its thinkers there are identifiable common sensibilities. Among them are the elevated roles of the autonomous human mind and the power of human reason. The Modern period has put the emphasis to the individual as an autonomous knowing subject; it “fostered trust in human power and ability,” and considers it virtuous to argue from the “authority of reason” rather than from some divinely instituted revelation. 8 Theological ontology and explanations regarding science and the world are to be avoided. The rise of biological and physical reductionism has led to the adoption of multiple forms of Deism which in turn leads to the conviction that God’s role is to be limited to the mere creation and sustaining of the world, thus leaving it up to humanity to reason themselves to proper living in the world. This emphasis reveals that lying behind the deist’s appeals to the use of ‘reason’ in religion was a kind of epistemological infallibilism9 represented perhaps most recognizably by the philosophy of Descartes but certainly embraced by a spectrum of thinkers.10

The Enlightenment’s way of thinking, then, stems from viewing human reason, perception and experience, in one way or another, as the foundation and authority for knowledge. Philosophy and knowledge are to be legitimate insofar as human reason (for the rationalists) or sense experience (for the empiricists) is utilized as the starting point, 8

7

Allen C. Guelzo, “Learning is the Handmaid of the Lord: Jonathan Edwards, Reason, and the Life of the Mind,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 28 (2004): 1-18.

Avihu Zakai, “The Age of Enlightenment,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards, ed. Stephen J. Stein (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 81. 9 The view that the clear inferences and products of autonomous human reason (normally the deductions from a priori principles) are to be regarded as immune to doubt and to be followed above all else. 10 Robert E. Brown, “Edwards, Locke, and the Bible,” The Journal of Religion 79, no. 3 (July 1999): 363.

105


and history is to be seen as a progress from barbarism to a utopia reached through a proper use of human freedom. The result is a neglect of the Bible or any notion of divine revelation, as “the sharp, almost qualitative distinction made between knowledge and belief or opinion implied an equally sharp distinction between reason and faith and, hence, between reason and revelation.” 11 Though there are many key figures during the time of the Enlightenment that Edwards is responding to or aware of, John Locke in particular will be discussed here because of his influence in Edwards’ personal life. In Edwards’ day, Locke is one of the identified causes of a growing liberalism . . . [a] new attitude toward religion . . . characterized by moderation and the avoidance of extremes – a reasonable religion.12

With the individual’s capacity to know, reason, or perceive as the starting point and authority for knowledge, it is not surprising then, that Locke argues that one “can have knowledge no further than we have ideas.”13 Ideas, for Locke, must be able to be traced back to some sensory stimuli or experiential perception. Thus, human knowledge must be contained by man’s capacity for perception, and if no experience or perception could be found as a root of an idea, then one would find that this idea has “no sure footing.” 14 Conversely, these ideas that are traceable to some experience are the most distinct and sure knowledge that one would have. Human testimony, then, is considered less and less reliable “the further off it is from the

original truth.” 15 Consequently, Scripture, as testimonies from people from a distant past, can never be as sure as the ideas one has. It is thus to be believed not on the basis of knowledge (for, to know is to experience or perceive something directly through an idea, and no one, presumably, has had a direct encounter with God other than the original authors of the Bible) but on faith. Indeed, Locke would “prefer to assent to truths on the basis of the direct encounter with evidence” rather than to believe “simply on the Bible’s authority.” 16 What Scripture says cannot contradict what knowledge already establishes, but it provides information that one has no direct access to, while insisting that “the thoughtful” would be “perfectly capable of discovering for themselves many of the truths contained in it.”17 Locke himself believes in the Bible, but precisely because he believes that the Bible is attested to by reason, and reasonableness itself demands a belief in a Divine God. For Locke, therefore, the knowing subject’s perception must remain the authority, limiting boundary, and starting point for philosophy. The Bible is no longer to be seen as the fountainhead and authority of knowledge; another authority, namely, human reasoning and perceptive capacity is to be the judge that arbitrates above it. In this scheme, Christianity is “neither contrary to reason nor above reason.” 18 Rather, it is to be believed not because the Bible has an inherent divine authority that is not to be questioned, but simply because some version of it would be the product of rigorous reasoning anyway. Indeed, the Enlightenment’s thinkers deem it necessary to establish the veracity of Scripture in this way, since to them the truths derived

11

Brown, 363. Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 49. 13 John Locke, “Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” in Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources, ed. Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2009), 392. 14 Locke, 318. 12

106

15

Locke, 419. The word original here indicates the experience or perception that sparks the first idea being testified. 16 David Laurence, “Jonathan Edwards John Locke, and the canon of experience,” Early American Literature 15 no. 2 (Fall 1980): 109. 17 Laurence, 109. 18 Zakai, 82.


from experience or certain rational axioms are much more sure and certain.19

Edwards and the Role and Use of Reason: Sin and Occasionalism as Limits While it would certainly be a false dichotomy to suppose that the Enlightenment thinkers champion reason without regard for the authority of Scripture whereas the theologians functioning as pre-critical biblicists, it is clear that Edwards subordinates the role of reason to that of theology for at least two reasons: the noetic effects of sin and the activity of God. Unlike Locke and other thinkers contemporary to his day, Edwards regards reasoning towards the knowledge of God and His world without divine revelation an exercise in vanity, and at best reason must be seen as merely a handmaid to divine revelation, opposing anyone who would make “reason a higher rule than revelation.” 20 It is thus never virtuous to reason without presupposing the truth of divine Scripture, and, for Edwards, that meant that reason must be used only to communicate, in a rational and coherent manner, Calvinistic doctrines instead of building it. Indeed, Edwards’ conviction that the whole of man, including his reason, having been so affected by the Fall, implies that reason could only provide “a crippled, ‘secondary’ mode of understanding.” 21 Consider Allen Guelzo’s comments on Edwards’ thoughts from A History of the Work of Redemption, Without revelation to transcend the limitations of a morally impaired reason, Edwards believed that “nothing proved effectual to enlighten ‘em; the light of nature, and their own reason, and all the wisdom of learned men, signified nothing till 19

With the exception of George Berkeley and Nicholas Malebranche, “who all viewed philosophy as subservient to theology.” McClymond and McDermott, 41. This could also explain why Edwards was particularly attracted to the philosophical thinking of these two figures. 20 Brown, 373. 21 Guelzo, 8.

the Scripture came.” Nor was it merely that reason had required a transcendent source of information from which to operate; reason had to be animated directly by transcendence itself.22

One cannot liberate himself by reason because one’s reasoning capacity itself needs to be liberated. Therefore, understanding the things of the divine and being able to communicate it rationally is to be seen as a result of salvation, and not a preamble or a cause for it. Thus, reason is helpful but, as Edwards states, if we take reason strictly, not for the faculty of mental perception in general, but for ratiocination, or a power of inferring by arguments; I say if we take reason thus, the perceiving of spiritual beauty and excellency no more belongs to reason, than it belongs to the sense of feeling to perceive colors . . .23

Therefore “it should be beyond a man’s power to obtain this knowledge, and light, by the mere strength of natural reason.” 24 To reason about divinity truly is to have received a supernatural light from God, which implants into man a new cognitive faculty and capacity to perceive divine excellency—reason then takes that perception and communicates it in a rational fashion, “but it will never give me a perception of its sweetness.”25 In this emphasis on the noetic effects of sin and thus its inadequacy to reach sound theological wisdom or saving knowledge, Edwards is merely echoing in his own language the convictions of the Reformed faith. Reason left on its own would never reach the light of true knowledge of the divine, much less its climactic expression,

22

Jonathan Edwards, A History in the Work of Redemption, ed. John F. Wilson (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 399, quoted in Guelzo, 8. Emphasis mine. 23 Jonathan Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” in A Jonathan Edwards Reader, ed. John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 121-122. Emphasis mine. 24 Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” 121. Emphasis mine. 25 Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” 122.

107


biblically speaking, in the Cross of Christ which is foolishness to the world. Indeed, God's wisdom-revelation, focused in the cross of Christ, is beyond the human competence and capacity to grasp and determine, whatever the means—reason, intuition, observation, or feeling.26

The implication of reason’s inability to build a natural theology in response to general revelation is summed up well by Calvin, Hence it appears that if men were taught only by nature, they would hold to nothing certain or solid or clear-cut, but would be so tied to confused principles as to worship an unknown God.27

Unregenerate reason must be reformed by the efficacious work of the Spirit to function fruitfully for God—this is a mere reaffirmation of Proverbs 1:7 that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. That is, knowledge in its truest sense. Edwards’ Calvinistic and biblical emphasis on God’s absolute sovereignty and creaturely dependence on Him in the form of philosophical occasionalism also pushes Edwards to subordinate human reason and natural philosophy to theology. Oliver Crisp offers a helpful definition of this view: Occasionalism is the philosophical view according to which God: (a) continually creates the world ex nihilo moment-by-moment, which collapses the notions of creation and conservation into one (by identifying conservation with continuous creation), with (b) the idea that God is the only causal agent in the world. All creaturely ‘acts’ are merely the ‘occasions’ of God’s activity.28

26

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16,” Westminster Theological Journal 57 (1995): 111. 27 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), I.v.12. 28 Oliver D. Crisp, “Jonathan Edwards’s Ontology: A Critique of Sang Hyun Lee’s Dispositional Account of Edwardsian Metaphysics,” Religious Studies 46, no. 1 (March 2010): 10.

108

It is indubitable that Edwards holds to this doctrine, as he states himself that “the existence of created substances, in each successive moment, must be the effect of the immediate agency, will and power of God,”29 such that it will certainly follow from these things, that God’s preserving created things in being is perfectly equivalent to a continued creation, or to his creating those things out of nothing at each moment of their existence . . . those things would drop into nothing, upon the ceasing of the present moment, without a new exertion of the divine power to cause them to exist in the following moment.30

Occasionalism, coupled with Edwardsian idealism, implies necessarily the dependence on the mind and activity of God for the continual existence of every thing, act and thought. This “attraction to the occasionalism of Berkeley and Malebranche… offered [for Edwards] a seductive and provocative way to redress scholastic Calvinism in a radical idealist costume.” 31 For Edwards, created things cannot exist apart from a conscious perceiver, for there would be no colors, and without motion, there would be no resistance or solidity, and without solidity, no extension. “There is nothing in a room shut up, but only in God’s consciousness,” and the universe therefore “exists nowhere but in the divine mind.”32 For Edwards, matter is not ultimate, for their extension is only discovered by some resistance, and resistance requires motion, which involves a spirit that moves matter. Therefore the material world is wholly subordinated to the spiritual realm. The upshot is clear. Edwards holds to the strongest form of God’s absolute sovereignty, making the physical world, human perceptions, thoughts and actions as wholly subordinated and dependent upon God as 29

Jonathan Edwards, “Original Sin,” in A Jonathan Edwards Reader, 240. 30 Edwards, “Original Sin,” 241. Emphasis mine. 31 Guelzo, 8. 32 Jonathan Edwards, “Of Being,” in A Jonathan Edwards Reader, 11-12.


the product—the occasions—of his direct divine work. It is important to keep in mind at this point that Edwards’ occasionalism is a step removed from the more traditional Reformed understanding of God’s providence, which is usually couched in the language of concurrentism, according to which creatures themselves act as genuine causes according to their natures as ordained by God. It is my own conviction that occasionalism, insofar as it diminishes the role and integrity of secondary causes in providence, is an erroneous view. Thus, though occasionalism could be used by Edwards, and uniquely so, as a means to limit human reason, it might not be an open move for most Reformed theologians. Nonetheless, this renders any knowledge through the inspection of “natural laws” or natural reason as wholly pointless at worst or incomplete at best, for the order of things is upheld toward a theological and spiritual telos. There is, therefore, no room for an autonomous knowing subject to know natural things external to himself, contra some of the central tenets of the Modern Enlightenment. The moment one reasons, one depends on God as each idea in one’s mind is the direct product of God’s causation, and the moment one perceives, he is perceiving the ‘occasions’ of God’s activity and the ‘ideas’ in God’s mind. These observation makes clear that Edwards is indeed a philosopher—he is not against the use of robust reasoning or philosophical discourse in any way. He even incorporates the ideas espoused by contemporary philosophers in his day to communicate central Calvinistic doctrines. However, it is also clear that Edwards had reduced reason from the status of a scholastic faculty or an autonomous principle of intellectual discovery to being a mere processor of information.33

Reason is not, for Edwards, to be seen as a principium cognoscendi—it is neither able nor 33

Guelzo, 14.

qualified to fit the role. A proper use of reason therefore necessitates deep and reverent desire for piety—the acknowledgment and bringing to bear that one is dependent upon God for any true understanding. Secondly, a proper use of reason demands the affirmation of a revelational epistemology— holding that the content of Scripture is the starting point and final epistemic authority— the principium cognoscendi for human knowledge. The philosophical language or ideas that Edwards incorporates into his worldview “has been ‘Edwardsianized’, so to speak, in order to serve his one supreme theological purpose: the greater glory of God.”34

Lockean Epistemology Edwardsianized It could thus be easily argued that part of Edwards’ genius is the appropriation of autonomous philosophy into a robust orthodox Calvinistic theology. This paper has already touched on some examples of that reappropriation in Edwards’ use of Malebranchian idealism and occasionalism to communicate Calvinistic divine sovereignty, and it will now turn to Edwards’ reappropriation of Locke’s epistemology. It is important to note, however, that it is clear that Edwards repudiates Locke’s materialist ontology, 35 and that even Locke still holds that historical traditions, including revelation, retained their epistemological authority to compel belief even when the certainty to be had about their reliability was less than absolute.36

Nonetheless, it seems clear that some Lockean language was adopted by Edwards to expound philosophically the doctrine of regeneration, 34

Crisp, 15. See Paul Copan, “Jonathan Edwards’s Philosophical Influences: Lockean or Malebranchean?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 1 (March 2001): 107-124. This article presents a convincing argument that Edwards’ metaphysical views are largely Malebranchian instead of Lockean. 36 Brown, 383. 35

109


and that Locke himself functions with a different principia in his epistemological and philosophical methodology. The difference between Locke and Edwards, the present author believes, is not primarily regarding the authority of the Bible but the basis on which that authority is to be found. As alluded earlier, Locke believed in the authority of the Bible because natural reason already demands some belief in divine revelation, while Edwards, being a consistent Reformed theologian, founds that basis on divine authority and pneumatological regenerative work as the final vindication for the Bible’s authority. It is, therefore, the strategy of Locke to make Christian revelation accessible to many by trying to vindicate the rationality of revelation, while Edwards responds by compelling his followers to seek for a new “sense of the heart” with the result that they would be convinced of the veracity of Scripture. However, contrary to Locke’s intentions, many Deistic rationalists take his empiricist epistemology to strip the Bible of its authority. Edwards responds to these thinkers by arguing against the implications of Locke’s empiricism, first by presenting a philosophical argument for the spiritual illumination of reason based on Locke’s empiricism itself and then, critiquing Locke, by asserting the need for written salvation . . . He therefore attempted to radically transform, if not abrogate, Locke’s empiricism by appealing to the existence of a ‘spiritual’ intuition, or sense of the heart.37

According to Locke, for an idea to truly be an object of knowledge, it must be able to be traced back to some sensory stimuli, or an experience. Edwards takes this notion and agrees that the believer must apprehend an idea of God—however, this apprehension of God requires a new principle of operation in him—a means by which he apprehends spiritual things that were not there before. This is brought about by the Spirit through a stimulus in this new operation that makes it 37

110

Brown, 371.

possible for the believer to apprehend spiritual things. This new sense is not physical, but it does enable the believer to sense the spiritual such that “a true sense of the divine excellency of the things revealed in the Word of God,” or “a real sense and apprehension . . . from such a sight of their divine glory”38 is wrought. This apprehension of the divine idea results in the conviction of the their truth. In this regard, Edwards takes the Lockean notion that the most distinctive and sure knowledge is the knowledge of ideas that stems from sense perception—but the idea of the divine, for Edwards, is perceived not by physical stimuli but by a new sense, namely, a “sense of the heart: as when there is a sense of the beauty, amiableness, or sweetness of a thing.”39 This sense enables the believer to immediately and directly apprehend the subject matter of revelation, making it sure for him as he is regenerated by a supernatural light such that “the idea of it is sweet and pleasant to the soul.”40 The regenerate, therefore, had those special affections and perceptions [of the divine] because a special mechanism for producing them had been added to their minds.41

Reason cannot produce an apprehension of the divine, though it can explain it, and it is this spiritual light that positively helps reason . . . the ideas themselves that otherwise are dim, and obscure are by this means impressed with the greater strength and have a light cast upon them; so that the mind can better judge of them.42

Reason, then, takes these ideas from the perceptions of the divine wrought by the spiritually, and newly, implemented faculty and communicates it. That is the crux of 38

Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” 111. Emphasis mine. 39 Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” 111. 40 Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” 112. 41 Laurence, 115. Emphasis mine. 42 Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” 113.


Edwards’s response to the Deistic rationalists of his day, that reason cannot establish the veracity of Scripture because natural reason cannot apprehend the subject matter of Scripture. Only when God redeems reason can it be useful to ascertain biblical truths. Reason is therefore not to be a judge over Scripture, and when the Deists claim that Scripture must be pitted against a reasonable religion, it is only because they do not have this new spiritual faculty to apprehend the subject matter of revelation. It seems clear, then, that Edwards adopts, at least in part, Locke’s “idea theory”—that our knowledge can only go so far as the ideas caused by perception—in his epistemology. But, unlike Locke, Edwards teaches that regeneration implies that a new spiritual faculty is produced in the believer. This spiritual faculty enables the believer to really perceive God. This incorporation of Locke’s empiricist epistemology, however, repudiates Locke’s epistemology and “stood Locke on his head,” 43 for Edwards does not limit the sources of knowledge to what the physical senses can accommodate. Again, Edwards “Edwardsianized” a philosophical framework, causing it to serve a theological purpose, and, in this particular case, he communicates the common Calvinistic doctrines of regenerative grace, particular to God’s elected people, in terms of Lockean perception of (divine) ideas.

Conclusion The Church today has much to learn from Edwards. He is a pastor who responds to the ideas that were rampant in his day and he was not afraid to engage them critically. He exemplifies how, and rightly so, how reason serves theology, for the faithful Christian must take every thought captive to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In a Christian’s attempt toward full and uncompromised obedience, one must hold that “revelation is 43

Laurence, 116.

the exclusive and comprehensive principium (foundation and norm) for human knowledge.” 44 This article has shown that Edwards was indeed a philosophical theologian, but he was a theologian first. Philosophy and the role of reason are to be seen as a handmaid to theology, or as a mental processor and not an arbitrating judge; both are dependent upon the transcendent work of the sovereign God.

Bibliography Brown, Robert E. “Edwards, Locke, and the Bible.” The Journal of Religion 79, no. 3 (July 1999): 361-384. Caird, John. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, The Croall Lectures; 1878-79. Glasgow: J. Maclehouse, 1880. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. Edited by John T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960. Copan, Paul. “Jonathan Edwards’s Philosophical Influences: Lockean or Malebranchean?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 1 (March 2001): 107-124. Crisp, Oliver D. “Jonathan Edwards’s Ontology: A Critique of Sang Hyun Lee’s Dispositional Account of Edwardsian Metaphysics.” Religious Studies 46, no. 1 (March 2010): 1-20. Gaffin, Jr., Richard B. “Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16.” Westminster Theological Journal 57 (1995): 103-124. Guelzo, Allen C. “Learning is the Handmaid of the Lord: Jonathan Edwards, Reason, and the Life of the Mind.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 28 (2004): 1-18.

44

Gaffin, 107.

111


Edwards, Jonathan. “A Divine and Supernatural Light.” In A Jonathan Edwards Reader. Edited by John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema, 105-124. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. —————. A History in the Work of Redemption. Edited by John F. Wilson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. —————. “Of Being.” In A Jonathan Edwards Reader. Edited by John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema, 913. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. —————. “Original Sin.” In A Jonathan Edwards Reader. Edited by John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Laurence, David. “Jonathan Edwards, John Locke, and the Canon of Experience.” Early American Literature 15, no. 2 (Fall 1980): 107-123. Locke, John. “Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” In Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources, 316-421. Edited by Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2009. McClymond, Michael J. and Gerald R. McDermott. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006. Zakai, Avihu. “The Age of Enlightenment.” In The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards. Edited by Stephen J. Stein. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

112


Perkins and Baxter on Vocation Changes in the Puritan Concept of Vocation? Yuzo Adhinarta

Abstract Richard Baxter, according to Max Weber, stands out above many other writers on Puritan ethics and has gained the universal recognition accorded to his works, which showed his eminently practical and realistic attitude. Not all, however, agree with Weber. Robert S. Michaelsen disagrees with Weber in regarding Baxter as, in Michaelsen words, a “typical Puritan.” He believes that some “crucial changes” in the concept of vocation which took place within Puritanism. This essay is a critical response to Michaelsen’s claim that theological changes exist in the seventeenth century Puritan concept of vocation. In the end I will argue that there are no such “crucial” changes in theology occurred by comparing the early and late Puritan concepts of vocation, as represented by Perkins’ and Baxter’s concepts of vocation. If any change occurred, it would be merely a shifting of emphases primarily caused by the historical dynamics of the era rather than by the changes in their theological concepts of vocation.

In his famous essay, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber regards Richard Baxter as one of English Puritanism’s representatives whom he deems best to exemplify his thesis that the Protestant ethic— specifically the Puritan concept of the calling— was a force behind the economic drives that led to the development of capitalism in the West. 1 Robert S. Michaelsen disagrees with Weber in regarding Baxter as, in Michaelsen’s words, a “typical Puritan.” He argues that in doing so Weber “overlooked . . . certain rather crucial changes which took place within Puritanism, and thus failed to give an adequate picture of the relationship between this particular form of Protestantism and the

1 Weber’s discussion of Protestantism is merely intended to point out the conviction behind his thesis that “the principal explanation” for the phenomena of the rise of Western capitalism “must be sought in the permanent intrinsic character of their religious beliefs, and not only in their temporary external historico-political situations.” In Weber’s analysis, only certain types of Protestantism, Puritanism in particular, favored rational pursuit of economic gain. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Routledge, 2006), 7.

‘spirit of capitalism.’” 2 Michaelsen later concludes, “Actually Baxter represented a Puritanism which was quite different from that of the early seventeenth century.”3 To argue his case, Michaelsen compares the concepts of vocation of the two groups of seventeenth century Puritans, namely “the early Puritans”—represented by William Perkins—and “the late Puritans”—represented by Cotton Mather, Richard Steele, George Swinnock, and Baxter. Michaelsen goes on to illustrate and enumerate some “crucial changes” in the concept of vocation which took place within Puritanism. Michaelsen focuses his discussion on the changes in the theology of the Puritans of the era, but never explicates the reasons lying behind the changes. Near the end of his article he mentions various factors that seem to him to have caused these changes. The two dominant factors are: (1) the shifting emphasis from the covenant theology of the 2 Robert S. Michaelsen, “Changes in the Puritan Concept of Calling or Vocation,” The New England Quarterly 26 (Sept. 1953): 315. 3 Michaelsen, “Changes,” 336.

113


early Puritans to an increasing emphasis on the autonomy of the individual of the late Puritans and (2) the late Puritans’ interpretation of the stress on worldly work of the early Puritan concept of vocation in a more materialistic fashion under “the corrosive effects of second and third generation ‘mentality’ especially due to the full weight of the social and economic pressures of an expanding business community.” 4 However, Michaelsen never discusses these factors in detail, nor does he provide arguments. He simply concludes that “the changes can be explained in terms of a changing theology and the influence of the rapidly expanding commercial community of late seventeenthcentury England and New England.”5 Michaelsen rightly points out that some similarities, or continuities, between the early and the late Puritans regarding their concepts of vocation are evident. The late Puritans “carried over from their forefathers many of the same emphases” in their discussion of vocation. [The late Puritans] continued to talk in terms of the two callings—the general and the particular. They insisted on a necessary connection between the two, as well as the necessity of the particular calling. They called upon the religious person to avoid avarice and covetousness in his calling, and insisted also that the calling be pursued for God and for the good of fellow men.6

However, the late Puritans, he claims, have greatly modified “Both the doctrine or concept of vocation, and the general supporting framework,” such as the doctrine of Christian liberty, the doctrine of sin, the idea of the providence of God, and the doctrine of stewardship. 7 Therefore, for Michaelsen, the distinct differences between the two generations or periods are quite evident. Michaelsen holds that the differences are not merely superficial, a matter of nuance 4

Michaelsen, “Changes,” 335. Michaelsen, “Changes,” 335-336. 6 Michaelsen, “Changes,” 326. 7 Michaelsen, “Changes,” 325.

or subtlety. Rather, the differences are so major that they indicate crucial changes in the concept of vocation. They clearly display “a distinct movement from a religious doctrine of vocation in early Puritanism toward the beginnings of a secular doctrine of vocation among the later Puritans.” 8 What are those differences? Michaelsen enumerates several differences which can fall into three topics which I will carefully present and evaluate: (1) vocation and religious practices; (2) vocation and self-fulfillment; (3) vocation and prosperity. In this essay I will lay out and evaluate the theological changes in the seventeenth century Puritan concept of vocation that Michaelsen enumerates. I will do so by comparing Michaelsen’s claims to Perkins and Baxter, two major representative figures of the two groups. My goal is to find out whether Michaelsen reads them correctly and whether their concepts of vocation differ from each other theologically as Michaelsen claims. In the end I will argue that no such “crucial” theological changes can be found in Perkins’ and Baxter’s concepts of vocation. Where change did occur, it is merely a shifting of emphases primarily caused by the historical dynamics of the era rather than by the changes in their theological concept of vocation.

Vocation and Religious Acts Michaelsen claims that the late Puritans hold a different view from that which their predecessors hold regarding the connection between the general and particular calling. Michalesen remarks that, whereas the early Puritans view the calling—the general and the particular—as an area of response and obedience to God’s grace and love in Jesus Christ, 9 the late Puritans view the religious acts of the general calling as less associated with religious experience.

5

114

8 9

Michaelsen, “Changes,” 326; emphasis mine. Michaelsen, “Change,” 325.

PERKINS AND BAXTER ON VOCATION: CHANGES IN THE PURITAN CONCEPT OF VOCATION?

When the late Puritans talked about the general calling they thought chiefly of particular acts which might be called religious acts, rather than an overwhelming experience of the grace of God in Jesus Christ.10

Michaelsen thinks that the shift of the concept of the general calling is due to the hardening of the intensity and freshness of the original emphasis of the early Puritans into “a rather mechanical conception of religious experience,” something which Michaelsen believes “so frequently happens, in the history of theology.”11 Moreover, according to Michaelsen, the late Puritans hold “an atomized conception of the general calling” which then leads to “a position giving more and more autonomy to the particular calling.” 12 By “an atomized conception of the general calling” he suggests a total separation between the activities that pertain to the general and the particular calling. Even though both the early and the late Puritans hold that the callings should not interfere with each other, both camps have different understandings of the connection between the two callings. Whereas for the early Puritans “The two should be related,” the particular calling “must always be a part of the framework of the general calling,” and “the general calling shades into the personal or particular calling,” 13 for the late Puritans the connection between the callings, if any, is a negative connection between two isolated realms of activities. For the early Puritans, the callings are distinguishable yet inseparable, but for the late Puritans, the callings are distinguishable and separable, as if one is religious and the other is mundane, or one is heavenly and the other is worldly, and there is no intersection whatsoever except the fact that both kinds of activities are done by the same individual subject. One’s everyday occupation should not “interfere with 10

Michaelsen, “Changes,” 326; emphasis his. Michaelsen, “Changes,” 326-327. 12 Michaelsen, “Changes,” 327. 13 Michaelsen, “Changes,” 323. 11

religious practices, with the mechanics of devotion, with the business of attending to the salvation” of one’s soul.14 This atomized or compartmentalized concept of the callings, therefore, inevitably leads to a fragmented dualistic life. 15 One confines the general calling to religious acts or practices of religion, and at the same time ceases to regard the outworking of the particular calling as religious acts.

Perkins: The Two Inseparable Callings from God Following Luther and Calvin, Perkins emphasizes that a vocation or calling comes from God. He defines a vocation or calling as “a certain kind of life, ordained and imposed on man by God, for the common good.”16 God is the source of the callings, both the general and the particular. It is God who calls Christians to serve him and their neighbors in their work. For Perkins, God’s acts precede human responses, meaning that our experience and reception of God’s calling come prior to our response to the calling. As Michaelsen rightly points out, “God calls: man responds,” and not the other way around.17 Perkins emphasizes theologically the reality of the experience of God’s calling by asserting the twofold action of God, viz., the ordination and the imposition of callings. To this twofold action, 14

Michaelsen, “Changes,” 327. Michaelsen, “Changes,” 334. “Their approach to the religious life, or the general calling, in terms of specific religious or pious acts tended toward an increased fragmentation of that life. The upshot of this was an eventual split between the individual’s religious life and his day-by-day living in the world . . . .” 16 William Perkins, “A Treatise of the Vocations,” In The Workes of That Famovs and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins, vol. 1 (London: Iohn Legatt, 1626), 750C col. 1. In defining a calling as “a certain kind of life” Perkins merely follows Calvin and Vermigli. See John Calvin, A Commentarie vpon S. Paules Epistles to the Corinthians, trans. Thomas Timme (London, 1577), fol. 83; Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Common Places, of the Most Famovs and Renowned Diuine Doctor Peter Martyr, trans. and comp. Anthonie Marten (London: Henry Denham and Henry Middleton, 1583), III.xi.5 (259 col. 2). 17 Michaelsen, “Change,” 319. 15

115


those who are called are to respond out of faith and obedience according to the word of God by working out the vocation. Without faith and obedience guided by the word of God, “whatsoever any man enterprizeth or doth, either in word or deede,” can only qualify for avocations. Whatsoever is not done within the compasse of a calling, is not of faith, because a man must first have some warrant and word of God to assure him of his calling, to do this or that thing, before he can do it in faith.18

Both the general and the particular callings, therefore, originated from God and are received through our experience of God. Following his predecessors, Perkins distinguishes between the general and the particular calling. 19 By general calling he means “the calling of Christianity, which is common to all that live in the Church of God;” the general calling is that “wherby a man is called out of the world to bee a child of God, a member of Christ, & heire of the kingdome of heaven.” 20 By particular calling he means the “special calling that belongs to some particular men,” the calling of various stations, 21 “the execution of some particular office, arising of that distinction which God makes betweene man and man in euery societie.” 22 The distinction between the 18

Perkins, “A Treatise,” 751B col. 2. Luther distinguishes between Stand, the social status to which one is called, and the ruff des Evangelii, the call of the gospel or the evangelical call. Martin Luther, “Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7,” trans. Edward Sittler, in Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 28, ed. Hilton C. Oswald (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1973), 46-47. Vermigli distinguishes precepts common to all men and precepts particular to every one and defines vocation as a twofold calling, “the declaration of the will of God, by the which he leadeth vs vnto faith and saluation, and placeth vs in some certeine state and kind of life.” Vermigli, The Common Places, III.xi.4-5 (259 col. 1-2). 20 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 752 col. 2C-D. 21 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 752 col. 2C. 22 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 754 col. 2D. Robert Chason Trawick and Paul Marshall fail to see the distinction between vocation and occupation, i.e., between calling and its execution in life station, office, or occupation “in which he was called to bee a Christian.” Consequently they accuse Perkins of equivocation by collapsing vocation into 19

116

general and the particular calling, however, is not based on the spheres of society in which one lives, as if the general calling is only to be applied by all as pious acts in the sphere inside the Church, and the particular calling in the sphere outside the Church. The distinction is based on the stations that all people occupy in life as the extension of God’s will and providence. The general calling is thus a vocation that every child of God occupies, whereas the particular calling is one or some vocations that each child of God occupies according to the diversity of gifts that God in his sovereignty bestowed to each person to enable each one to manifest God’s providence in every human societies. Both callings are thus distinguishable not in terms of different spheres of society or common religious duties, but in terms of the diversities of life station that one occupies in society. The general calling is common to all and should be applied in all spheres of societies or of life since everyone is called to be Christian, but the particular calling is particular to each person according to the station(s) to which God assigned each person in society. This understanding of the distinction implies the inseparability of both callings in a person. Every child of God has both the general and the particular calling. This is the distinction that is theologically and historically maintained by Perkins to oppose a dualistic life—a division between a contemplative and an active life—performed by some monks and friars in his era, who, “besides the generall duties of prayer and fasting, did not withal imploy themselues in some other calling for their better maintenance.” 23 Both callings must be so occupation. In fact, for Perkins, one performs one’s calling through one’s office. See Robert Chason Trawick, “Ordering the Earthly Kingdom: Vocation, Providence and Social Ethics” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1990), 11; Paul Marshall, A Kind of Life Imposed on Man: Vocation and Social Order from Tyndale to Locke (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1996), 41. 23 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 755 col. 2D-756 col. 1A.


joined, Perkins argues, “as body and soule are ioyned in a liuing man,” because the particular calling & practice of the duties thereof, seuered from the foresaid generall calling, is nothing else but a practice of iniustice and profaneness. And the generall calling of Christianitie, without the practice of some particular calling, is nothing els, but the forme of godlinesse, without the power thereof . . .24

Moreover, for Perkins, both callings must be joined because they are aimed at the same end, the main end of Christian lives, viz., “to serue God in the seruing men in the workes of our callings.”25 In this sense, both callings are justly considered as religious acts of believers since, as Perkins puts it, their efficient cause or author and their ultimate end are none but God himself. Michaelsen is right when he states that, for Perkins and the early Puritans, “The general calling shades into the personal or particular calling.” 26 He is also right in asserting that “if the time ever comes when the personal calling is adverse to the general calling then the former must give way” and that one’s choice of vocation “is secondary so long as he serves God in it.” 27 Perkins does assert that “the particular calling of any man, is inferior to the general calling of a Christian: and when they cannot both stand together, the particular calling must give place.” 28 This assertion, however, has to be understood as not putting two kinds of activities into a contest to gain the prime time of one’s life. Perkins’ assertion is limited to the case where one’s occupation hinders one from being a faithful Christian, not with respect of time. If an occupation necessitates one to sin and thus makes one a bad Christian in the sight of God, then one may lawfully change one’s particular calling. Perkins’ assertion has to be understood in this sense. 24

Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757 col. 1A. Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757 col. 1B. 26 Michaelsen, “Change,” 323. 27 Michaelsen, “Change,” 323. Cf., Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757ff. col. 1D. 28 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 758 col. 1A. 25

Baxter: The Good Works Assigned by the Master Baxter does not use the same terms for the distinction of callings we find in Perkins, the “general” and “particular” callings. Baxter uses instead the terms “good works” and “calling” or “place.” “Good works” resonates with Perkins’ “general calling” and encompasses the common duties of Christianity, such as the works of piety, justice, and charity, 29 whereas “calling” or “place” resonates with “particular calling” as it denotes “some particular good work or way of service” which every Christian should choose according to the talents that God has bestowed, of which every one should give account to God.30 To refer to religious acts, such as prayer and fasting, Baxter uses the terms “religion” and “piety” or sometimes “spiritual things” interchangeably. 31 For Baxter, “good works,” as general calling, includes, but is not limited to, the works of “piety.” To suggest as Michaelsen does, that the late Puritans tend to think the general calling chiefly as religious acts less associated with an experience of the grace of God, is simply unwarranted when it comes to Baxter. Baxter is as much concerned with “being religious only in opinion, without zeal and holy practice” as he is with “zealous affection, without a sound, well grounded judgment.” Baxter advises “young Chrsitians or beginners in religion” that “judgment, zeal, and practice” should be “conjunct.”32 “[U]naffected belief, that worketh not by love” is as worse as “misguided zeal.”33 One can easily mistake Baxter for promoting “a rather mechanical conception of religious experience” or legalism by merely browsing the huge volume 29

Richard Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, vol. 1 (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000), 110 col. 2. 30 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 114 col. 1, 375 col. 1. 31 Cf. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 110 col. 2, 114 col. 2, 375 col. 2. 32 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 38 col. 2. 33 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 38 col. 2-39 col. 1.

117


of his Directory filled with directives and rules for a holy life. In fact, Baxter is aware of such conception of religious experience. In his Directory, Baxter simultaneously campaigns against legalism and libertinism caused by “the decays of grace” and “the degenerating of it into some carnal affections, or of something counterfeit.”34 Moreover, rather than grounding the doctrine of good works on “a mechanical conception of religious experience,” Baxter grounds them on a relational conception. We should do the good works, or fulfill our general calling, by always remembering our relationship with God, as servants to their Lord and Master, established on the redemptive work of Christ.35 “The obligation to good works,” Baxter remarks, “is essential to us as servants of the Lord.”36 In the same vein as this Master-servants relationship, Baxter also states that “the love of our Creator, Redeemer, and Regenerator, is the very end for which we are created, redeemed, and regenerate,” the end of all our good works, our employment.37 Our life and works as a whole should be a faithful expression of our thankfulness to God our Creator, Redeemer, and Regenerator.” 38 This line of thought, albeit stated with different emphasis, is certainly not against, or is perhaps even complementary to, Perkins’ idea of vocation in that the reality of our experience of God and reception of God’s callings is always thought to precede and underlie our responses and good works. Far from severing the works of vocation from their religious significance, the particular calling from the general calling, Baxter always views one’s calling or occupation as “a way of service” to God integrated with the common

duties of Christianity. Therefore, a possibility whether a Christian may have a calling adverse to the duties of Christianity is simply ruled out. “Before you do any work, consider whether you can truly say, it is a service of God and will be accepted by him,” Baxter remarks.39 When two duties collide with respect to time, Baxter offers some preferences serviceable to make the choice. At any time, we need to prefer greater duties before lesser, the souls of men before the body, the good of many before the good of one or few, a durable good that will extend to posterity before a short and transitory good, and one’s particular good work before other’s good work which is greater in itself. 40 However, Baxter also asserts, “The greatest duty is not always to go first in time; sometimes some lesser work is a necessary preparatory to a greater.”41 The choice of duty also involves a consideration of the order of duty which begins at home, though it does not stop here. According to Baxter, God has made duties of piety, justice, or charity inseparable and not to be set against each other. 42 But Baxter would also certainly reject the idea that religious practices have to be conducted with the mechanics of devotion. Baxter is aware of the complexities of life and cautious to the negligence of duties under pretence of doing a work of piety, as shown in his statements in several places. You must not neglect the necessary maintenance of wife and children, under pretence of doing a work of piety or greater good.43 Not only works of mercy may be thus preferred before sacrifice, but the ordinary conveniences of our lives; as to rise, and dress us, and do other business, may go before prayer, when prayer may

34

For his detailed discussions against legalism and libertinism see Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” part I, ch. II, Directions XIII, XVII, XVIII. 35 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 110 col. 2-112 col. 1. 36 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 111 col. 2. 37 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 123 col. 2. 38 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 142 col. 2.

118

39 40

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 112 col. 1. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 112 col. 2-114 col.

1. 41

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 113 col. 1. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 112 col. 2. 43 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 114 col. 1. 42


afterwards be done as well or better, and would be hindered if these did not go before.44 To neglect [public service], and say, I will pray and meditate, is as if your servant should refuse your greatest work, and tie himself to some lesser, easy part.45 He that under pretence of religion, withdraweth from converse, and forbeareth to do good to others, and only liveth to himself, and his own soul, doth make religion a pretence against charity . . .46

Never does Baxter suggest “an atomized conception of the general calling” that leads to a position giving more and more autonomy to the particular calling. Far from compartmentalizing each calling, Baxter proposes a holistic view of good works and piety without neglecting the complexities of life. —————————— As we carefully observed in our comparison of Perkins’ and Baxter’s on the issue of vocation and religious acts, contrary to Michaelsen we find that Baxter shows very close affinity with Perkins. Perkins and Baxter agree that both callings are distinct yet inseparable. Both callings must be joined because they are aimed at the same end, to serve God for his glory. There is no substantial theological change in their concepts of vocation with respect to the connection between the general and the particular callings. Perkins and Baxter are also adamant in holding that the works of callings are religious responses to God’s grace and action.

Vocation and Self-fulfillment Michaelsen remarks that there are significant changes in orthodoxy with regard to the goals of the vocation. The early Puritans, as Michaelsen states, hold that “the prime goals” of vocation are “service to God

44

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 114 col. 1. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 115 col. 1. 46 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 375 col. 2. 45

and to fellow men rather than to self.”47 The late Puritans, on the other hand, Michaelsen contends, regard self-fulfillment, as it was conceived of in terms of the ultimate reward, as one of the goals of the vocation. “Three ends were listed together as goals of the calling: service to God, to society, and to self,” Michaelsen remarks. 48 What is more, the elevation of self-fulfillment as one of the goals of the vocation is such that The reader is not always certain which is primary, since a distinct note of heavenly utilitarianism is to be found in these later Puritans so that even service rendered to God and to neighbor takes on a certain value in the achievement of the individual salvation.49

Michaelsen draws some quotations from Baxter and Cotton Mather to support his assertion. According to Michaelsen, when Baxter listed the ways in which a person should use his time, Baxter teaches that The most necessary work for one to accomplish . . . is to ‘get proof of your adoption and peace with God, and right to everlasting life . . . .’50

Mather, as Michaelsen reports, likened the Christian in his two callings to a man in a rowboat headed for heaven as if to say that for Mather the goal of the callings is one’s own salvation, a personal gain.51 Following this interpretation of selffulfillment in vocation, Michaelsen states further that the late Puritans emphasize the role of human works in salvation and in daily life. According to Michaelsen, the late Puritans assumed that, although salvation “obviously rested ultimately with God,” “the individual had a natural power which could enable him to do much toward achieving his 47

Michaelsen, “Change,” 321. Michaelsen, “Change,” 327. 49 Michaelsen, “Change,” 327. 50 Michaelsen, “Change,” 327; cf. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 239 col. 1-2. 51 Michaelsen, “Change,” 327-328; cf. Cotton Mather, A Christian at His Calling; Two Brief Discourses, One Directing a Christian in His General Calling; Another Directing Him in His PersonalCalling (Boston, 1701), 38. 48

119


salvation.” 52 To support this, Michaelsen provides one page from Baxter’s “A Christian Directory” and another page from Mather’s A Conquest over the Grand Excuse of Sinfulness and Slothfulness without specifying the sentences from which he draws his assertion. 53 In the Boston edition (1701) of Baxter’s “A Christian Directory,” the page that Michaelsen refers to contains the beginning of the first chapter of the Christian Ethics section titled “Directions to unconverted graceless sinners, for the attaining of true saving grace.” Michaelsen perhaps intends to refer to the general idea of the whole section. He asserts that for the late Puritans the goal of life was “salvation of the soul and life everlasting” and “individual could do much for himself in reaching that goal.”54 Therefore, he goes on to argue, the late Puritans later develop an idea which is not emphasized by the early Puritans, that is to urge their followers to “order their lives so as to make use every minute, so as to redeem all time available to them.”55

Perkins: Serving God in Serving Others Perkins is unequivocal when he discusses the goal or end of vocation. Employing the scholastic causal distinction, Perkins holds that the efficient cause and the author of every calling—either the general or the particular— is God himself, while the final cause or end of every calling is “For the common good: that is, for the benefite and good estate of mankinde.” 56 Perkins explains further, The common good of men stands in this, not onely that they liue, but that they liue well, in 52

Michaelsen, “Change,” 329. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 8 col. 1. Cotton Mather, A Conquest over the Grand Excuse of Sinfulness and Slothfulness (Boston, 1706), 29. 54 Michaelsen, “Change,” 330. 55 Michaelsen, “Change,” 330. Here Michaelsen points to a chapter in Baxter’s “A Christian Directory” where Baxter specifically addresses the issue of redeeming time. Cf., Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 230ff. 56 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 751 col. 1C. Emphasis his. 53

120

righteousnes and holiness, and consequently in hapinesse. And for the attainement hereunto, God hath ordained and disposed all callings, and in his prouidence designed the persons to beare them.57

“The common good” as the final end or goal of vocation, however, is not to be understood as an end in itself. For Perkins, vocation is always to be seen in the light of the larger framework of human life, thus the end of vocation has also to be understood within the main end of human life, viz., to serve God. In the works of our callings, we are actually serving God in the serving of men. “The true end of our liues is, to do seruice to God, in seruing of man,” Perkins affirms. 58 He also explicitly states that “the end why God bestowes his gifts vpon vs, is, that they might be imployed in his seruice, and to his glory, and that in this life.”59 In this line of thought, thus we cannot serve God through the works of our callings without serving our neighbors or striving for the common good. This is why Perkins and his predecessors so condemned the “Monkish kind of liuing,” which refuses to be a “profitable member” of society. 60 On the other hand, we cannot serve our neighbors and be considered as serving God if we do it without having some warrant of God’s calling at the first place. Since “Without faith it is impossible to please God: and Whatsoeuer is not of faith, is sinne,” and “Whatsoeuer is not done within the compasse of a calling, is not of faith,” then whatsoever is not done within the compass of God’s calling is sinful and not serving God. 61 Hence, to serve God and to serve our neighbors exist inseparably. They do not constitute two goals of vocation, as Michaelsen suggests when he states that for the early Puritans the prime goals of vocation are service to God and to fellow men. Rather,

57

Perkins, “A Treatise,” 751 col. 1D. Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757 col. 1C. 59 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 752 col. 1D. 60 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 755 col. 2D-756 col. 1A. 61 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 751 col. 2B; emphasis his. 58


to serve God and to serve our neighbors constitute one coordinated end of vocation. This clearly rules out the admittance of any idea of personal gain as the goal of vocation. Those who work their callings for their own sake, and not for the common good, will be against the end of the callings and thereby abuse their callings.62 That the works of our calling are also our responses to God’s love also constrains us to do all things for the honor and praise of his name.63 The ruling out of every idea of personal gain as an end of vocation does not rule out the anticipation of God’s reward or blessings in this world or in the world to come. We may justly look for reward from both humans and God insofar as the reward is not taken as an end of our vocation.64 The reward might include the assurance of salvation. Perkins’ answer is affirmative regarding whether the proper workings of callings could contribute to the assurance of salvation in our consciences. And if thou wouldest have signes and tokens of thy election and saluation thou must fetch them from the practice of thy two callings ioyntly together: sever them in thy life, and thou shalt finde no comfort, but rather shame and confusion of face, vnlesse thou repent.65

However, the comfort we get from the practice of the two callings serves only as fruit or confirmation rather than as an end of vocation. Therefore, the idea of anticipating God’s reward and getting proof of one’s salvation through the works of vocations is not novel to the early Puritans as Michaelsen suggests. On the other hand, any idea of workrighteousness or salvation by works is unwaveringly repudiated. This is so for at least two reasons. First, the existence of faith prior to everyone’s calling, as noted above, presupposes that grace of salvation is already 62

Perkins, “A Treatise,” 751 col. 1D-2A. Perkins, “A Treatise,” 772 col. 2C-D. 64 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757 col. 1D. 65 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757 col. 2C; cf. 779 col. C-D. 63

given. No work will be considered as a good work unless faith is present. 66 “[T]he best workes we doe, are in themselues defiled in the sight of God,” Perkins remarks.67 Second, the invocation of the name of God in Christ as the main duty of the general calling, which contains “both prayer and thanksgiuing in the name and mediation of Iesus Christ,” also suggests that the grace of salvation is already given. 68 By this invocation of the name of God in Christ in a thankful manner, as Perkins remarks, “a Christian is distinguished and seuered from all other sorts of men in the world, that pretend deuotion or religion.”69

Baxter: To God be the Glory Unlike Perkins who employs the causal scholastic distinction, Baxter offers a more simple formulation regarding the goal of vocation, or good works. Since any work we do is a service of God, God’s glory should be the sole end of every work done by us. Even though “All works tend not alike to the glory of God; but some more immediately and directly, and others remotely,” Baxter explains, “all must ultimately have this end.”70 To glorify God means to serve the public good, or, in Perkins’ term, the common good. Baxter clearly articulates, If you will glorify God in your lives, you must be above a selfish, private, narrow mind, and must be chiefly intent upon the public good, and the spreading of the gospel through the world.71

In his “A Brief Explication of the Method of the Lord’s Prayer,” Baxter identifies “the public good of mankind” as “the lower end.”72 This is so because the public good is never an 66 “In a good worke are three things required: first, it must be done in obedience: secondly, in faith: thirdly, it must be directed to the glory of God.” Perkins, “A Treatise,” 758 col. 1D. 67 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 779 col. 2A-B. 68 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 753 col. 1A. 69 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 753 col. 1A. 70 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 112 col. 1. 71 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 153 col. 2. 72 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 485.

121


end in itself, even though good works are directed to the public good. The public good has the glory of God and his pleasure as its end.73 Michaelsen’s contention that the late Puritans regard the self as one among many goals of vocation and that one cannot be always certain which is primary is thus proven false. Baxter unequivocally affirms the glory of God as the ultimate end of vocation and the public good as its lower end, and nowhere does he allow, even slightly, any idea of selffulfillment or personal gain as somewhat an end of vocation. Baxter’s doctrine of good works alone, i.e., good works as an exhibit of the established relationship with God and thankfulness, save his doctrine of election and justification, sufficiently rules out any idea of work-righteousness. “[N]o sinner can do any work so good, as in point of distributive, governing justice, shall merit at his hands,” Baxter emphasizes. 74 Christ’s redemption restores us to a capacity and ability to perform good works and has created us anew for good works, not the reverse.75 Michaelsen, citing Baxter, states that the most necessary work for one to accomplish is to “get proof of your adoption and peace with God, and right to everlasting life . . . .”76 What is missing in Michaelsen’s discussion is an explanation about the context in which the quotation is taken. In the passage from which the text is taken, Baxter urges the readers to use their time first to make sure of their salvation before they endeavor to redeem their time. This is “the first point in the art of redeeming time . . . which must be done, or else we are undone for ever.” 77 Baxter is convinced that unless we are certain that the great work of a sound conversion or sanctification has been wrought within us, our endeavor to redeem our time might be 73

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 411 col. 2. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 111 col. 1. 75 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 111 col. 1. 76 Michaelsen, “Change,” 327; cf. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 239 col. 1-2. 77 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 239 col. 1. 74

122

misleading and bring a great loss. This is the necessary work that must be done first. Far from being the idea of vocation as a means for salvation or its assurance, the work that Baxter means here does not have anything to do with Baxter’s idea of vocation or calling. Michaelsen does not pay attention to the context of the text and clearly misreads it. As noted earlier, Michaelsen makes a suggestion that for Baxter “the individual had a natural power which could enable him to do much toward achieving his salvation” possibly based on the title of Chapter 1 of the first part of “A Christian Directory,” “Directions to unconverted graceless sinner, for the attaining of true saving grace.” This suggestion is misleading. In that particular chapter, Baxter only intends to persuade the unbelievers to use their carnal minds as best as they could to examine themselves. The unbelieving readers are guided to acknowledge their own ungodliness, the temptations whereby the devil hinders true conversion, and subsequently their inability to merit salvation. At the end of the chapter, Baxter states clearly that the only way to attain true saving grace is to believe in Christ, not by doing some good works. Believing in Christ means admitting Christ as one’s Saviour and Governor and giving up oneself to be saved, sanctified, and ruled by him. “If you believe Christ, you must believe that you cannot be saved unless you be converted.”78 —————————— On the issue of vocation and selffulfillment, we again find that there is no discontinuity between Perkins and Baxter as Michaelsen claims. Both Perkins and Baxter allow the anticipation of God’s rewards as compensation of labor. However, both Perkins and Baxter also clearly distinguish and never confuse the end of vocation with the rewards of labor or personal gain. Both maintain that the rewards−heavenly or earthly−are not to become an end of vocation. 78

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 36 col. 2.


Both unwaveringly repudiate any idea of work-righteousness or salvation by works.

Vocation and Wealth Michaelsen argues that the late Puritans have somewhat gradually shifted their attention from a concern of expressing gratitude through the works of the callings to a concern for the salvation of the soul or eternal life and eventually to a concern for this-worldly rewards. The stress on selffulfillment gives way to another stress on selfwell-being in this world. “Thus heavenly utilitarianism was rapidly on the way to becoming worldly utilitarianism,” Michaelsen states. 79 This worldly utilitarian mentality is displayed through the late Puritans’ notions of industry, of slothfulness or idleness, and of wealth. “The early Puritans had praised industry in work, but not quite to the extent of the late Puritans, nor for the same ends,” Michaelsen claims. In late Puritan thought, prudence, along with diligence and orderliness, is understood as chosen by God as one of the primary means of insuring self-well-being in this world, rather than as a means of serving God and the common good and as a means of disciplining oneself. 80 In early Puritan thought, diligence and industry in the works of callings were always “a by-product of the impetus given by worship of God, and not an end in itself or a means to the end of worldly accumulations.”81 The emphasis on worship is missing in late Puritan thought; “diligence and industry became virtues to be extolled in themselves, no longer being intimately connected with service to God.”82 The late Puritans add a sound condemnation of idleness and slothfulness to their approval of diligence and prudence in their concept of vocation. Michaelsen 79

Michaelsen, “Change,” 328. Michaelsen, “Change,” 331. 81 Michaelsen, “Change,” 323. 82 Michaelsen, “Change,” 322. 80

contends that the late Puritans have shifted the primary scorn from the sin of covetousness, which their forerunners had repeatedly warned against, to the sins of the flesh. Baxter, Michaelsen reports, calls sensuality the “master sin,” putting it ahead of pride, covetousness, etc.” 83 The lusts of the flesh, or the sins of sensuality, were regarded by Baxter and other Puritan contemporaries as “more dangerous than ‘the lusts of the spirit.’”84 The shift of the primary scorn to the sins of the flesh, according to Michaelsen, in turn makes room for a certain indulgence of the “ambitions of the spirit,” or those motivations not directly connected with man’s physical self. Michaelsen gives the following example, The rich man who abstained from overindulging his fleshly appetites was to be praised for the advantageous use of his God—given abilities. On the other hand, the poor were condemned for their lack of ambition, lack of industry, and it might also be assumed, for their indulgence of the flesh—otherwise how could one account for their failures?85

Michaelsen holds that the shift only exhibits the subtle changes that had crept into the late Puritans’ approach to sin. Although the doctrine of original sin was still accepted as true, “a somewhat different twist” was given to the doctrine. Michaelsen charges that the late Puritans “modified the concept of original sin” to the extent that “the penetrating eye of the religious community was directed more and more toward the sins

83 Michaelsen, “Change,”328-329; cf. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 222 col. 2. Michaelsen also adds a note, “[Baxter] also called it ‘flesh-pleasing’ or ‘voluptuousness.’ Baxter appears to have been quite typical in his appeal against flesh-pleasing as the worst of sins.” To support his assertion, he referenced a work by Richard B. Schlatter, The Social Ideas of Religious Leaders, 1660-1688 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940; reprint, New York: Octagon Books, 1971), 191. Schlatter illustrates that, for Baxter and other Nonconformists in general, wasting time was a deadly sin. Sensual indulgence and wastefulness was at the same time a personal and a social evil. 84 Michaelsen, “Change,” 329. 85 Michaelsen, “Change,” 329.

123


of the flesh and away from the sins of covetousness.”86 In addition to the modification of the doctrine of original sin, Michaelsen contends that the late Puritans modified the Puritan notion of Christian liberty. “[M]ore and more power was given by the [late] Puritans to the natural man.”87 In contrast to the Reformers and early Puritans, Michaelsen insists that the late Puritans came to think of Christian liberty more and more in terms of the ability of the individual to determine his own destiny in the economic realm, in terms of the freedom of mobility in the world, rather than a freedom from bondage to self and sin which enabled the individual to serve God and neighbor …88

Michaelsen seems to argue that the late Puritans stripped the early Puritan notion of Christian liberty of its religious meaning and understood freedom in a worldly utilitarian sense, namely, more as a means to gain wealth in the economic realm than as a means to serve God and neighbor. Michaelsen believes that these subtle changes are, among others, greatly due to “the pressures of an expanding and increasingly more successful economic upon Puritan thought.”89 Consequentially, according to Michaelsen, what follows is the change in the late Puritans’ view of wealth and property, from “the blessing of industry and prudence as the best exercises for the soul” to “the blessing of these virtues in themselves, or the blessing of the material wealth gained by them.” 90 Michaelsen insists that, although the late Puritans “did not always consciously” bring about the change, “their emphases certainly pointed in that direction.”91 The late Puritan emphases on industry, diligence, prudence, and thrift, paired with their condemnation of idleness and poverty, in fact, did lead to “a 86

Michaelsen, “Change,” 334. Michaelsen, “Change,” 328. 88 Michaelsen, “Change,” 334-335. 89 Michaelsen, “Change,” 328. 90 Michaelsen, “Change,” 332. 91 Michaelsen, “Change,” 332. 87

124

sanctification” of “business motivations and wealth getting.” 92 To exemplify this, Michaelsen cites Baxter when he speaks against prodigality and wastefulness and discusses the choice of callings.93 Michaelsen argues that, although Baxter opposes the idea of profit-seeking outright, Baxter did urge the Christian to choose the more materially profitable work in preference to a position where wealth was not as easily gained. 94 On the contrary, Michaelsen believes that Perkins and other early Puritans hold that “a person should stay in his calling once it had been chosen” 95 and that a change of calling only shows a discontentment toward God and an attempt to usurp the prerogative of the Lord, which “would undoubtedly come to a bad end.”96 Along these lines of thought, prosperity is then regarded as a sign of God’s favor toward his “good children.” Michaelsen illustrates the shifting view regarding prosperity in the late Puritan thought: 92

Michaelsen, “Change,” 332. “It is a sin to desire riches as worldlings and sensualists do, for the provision and maintenance of fleshly lusts and pride; but it is no sin, but a duty, to labour not only for labour sake, formally resting in the act done, but for that honest increase and provision, which is the end of our labour ; and therefore to choose a gainful calling rather than another, that we may be able to do good, and relieve the poor. Eph. iv. 28, "Let him labour, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 854 col. 1; “If God show you a way in which you may lawfully get more than in another way, (without wrong to your soul, or to any other,) if you refuse this, and choose the less gainful way, you cross one of the ends of your calling, and you refuse to be God's steward, and to accept his gifts, and use them for him when he requireth it . . .” Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 377 col. 2. 94 Michaelsen, “Change,“ 332-333. 95 Michaelsen, “Change,” 320. To support this, Michaelsen quotes Perkins, “Euery man must iudge that particular calling, in which God hath placed him, to be the best of all callings for him: I say not simply best, but best for him.” Perkins, “A Treatise,” 756 col. 1C. 96 Michaelsen, “Change,” 321. “This concept could have been used to encourage a static and hierarchical society,” adds Michaelsen. He is also convinced that H. M. Robertson emphasizes the same point. Cf. H. M. Robertson, Aspects of the Rise of Economic Individualism (Cambridge: The University Press, 1933; reprint, New York: Kelley and Millman, 1959), 8ff. 93


Whereas the early Puritans—and the Reformers— had looked upon everything which happened to or came to a man, whether he be poor or rich, as a gift of God, and therefore as something to be treated accordingly, the late Puritans shifted to the idea that God is especially kind to his “good” children by giving them this-worldly wealth and prosperity.97

In a similar vein, poverty is consequently regarded as a sign of God’s disfavor toward his “bad” children; “the poor were condemned for their lack of ambition, lack of industry.”98

Perkins: God’s Blessings for the Common Good Rejecting any idea of personal gain as the goal of vocation does not mean that Christians cannot anticipate any blessing from God at all. On the contrary, the works of our calling for the common good allow us to anticipate some benefits either as a result of our own or from the labor of others. Actually, as Perkins points out, “by the imployment of men in his seruice, according to their seuerall vocations,” God manifest his fatherly care over us. 99 Moreover, drawing some lessons from Paul in Col. 3:24, Perkins remarks that “for a recompence of his seruice, God sends his blessings on mens trauailes, and he allowes them to take for their labours.”100 It is not the anticipation of God’s blessings or the compensation of our labor as one of God’s providential ways in preserving our lives that Perkins rejects, but the shifting of his blessings to be an end of vocation. Therefore, anticipating some rewards does not make the 97

Michaelsen, “Change,” 334. Michaelsen, “Change,” 329. Instead of providing his argument with direct quotations of any late Puritan thinker, Michaelsen references the work of Richard H. Tawney and Margaret James on the issue of the change in attitude toward poverty in seventeenth-century England. See Richard H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (London: John Murray, 1960), 252-273 (or, as Michaelsen references it, ch. iv, para. 4), and Margaret James, Social Problems and Policy during the Puritan Revolution, 1640-1660 (London, 1930; reprint, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967), 18ff. 99 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757 col. 1B. 100 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757 col. 1C. 98

early Puritans utilitarian, since God’s blessings or rewards or personal gain are never thought to be an end of vocation. When Perkins discusses diligence as a form of discipline in working the callings, he never regards God’s rewards as the reason for diligence. Instead, he states that there are two reasons for this diligence: First of al, the end why God bestowes his gifts vpon vs, is, that they might be imployed in his service, and to his glory, and that in this life. . . . Secondly to them which imploy their gifts; more is giuen, and from them which imploy them not, is taken that which they haue: and labour in a calling is as pretious as gold or silver.101

The first reason is concerned with the Giver of gifts or rewards. It is God to whom the receiver of gifts should give account of his labor. The second reason is concerned with the value of the labor itself. On the other hand, God’s rewards or gifts are not intended merely for human convenience, but are to be employed diligently in God’s service. God’s rewards share with diligence the same end, viz., God’s own glory. Michaelsen is absolutely right when he states that in the early Puritan thought, as we see in Perkins, diligence and industry in the calling were always “a byproduct of the impetus given by worship of God, and not an end in itself or a means to the end of worldly accumulations.”102 Perkins then pairs his admonition of diligence with two damnable sins that are contrary to diligence. The first is idleness, “whereby: the duties of our callings, and the occasions of glorifying God, are neglected or omitted;” the second is slothfulness, “whereby they are performed slackly and carelessly.”103 Perkins’ attitude toward idleness and slothfulness is not less condemning than the late Puritans’ as Michaelsen suggests. Perkins does affirm that idleness and slothfulness are “the causes of many damnable sins,” and calls the idle body, along with the idle brain, “the 101

Perkins, “A Treatise,” 752 col. 1D. Michaelsen, “Change,” 323. 103 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 752 col. 2A. 102

125


shop of the diuell,” and the idle and slothful person “a sea of corruption.”104 The sin of covetousness Perkins also sternly scorns. To seek for abundance is unlawful and against good conscience. “[W]e haue no warrant to pray for aboundance,” he states. 105 Citing 1Tim. 6:9, Perkins also affirms that those who desire to be rich will “fal into the snares of the diuel.” Those who are overcome by the sin of covetousness were neuer thoroughly touched with any sense or feeling of the need they had of Christ, their hearts are dead in sin & corruption, and they never knew the vileness of their own natures, and in what extreame misery they are out of Christ.106

Contrary to Michaelsen’s report, Perkins does maintain that a change of particular calling is allowed under certain conditions, but a change of general calling is prohibited. 107 A change of particular calling can only be made upon urgent and weighty causes: private necessity and the common good. 108 By private necessity as a cause, Perkins means that if by the works of our callings we cannot maintain ourselves and our families entrusted to us, we may betake ourselves to other callings. By the common good as a cause, Perkins means that the 104

Perkins, “A Treatise,” 752 col. 2B-C. Perkins, “A Treatise,” 768 col. 2C. 106 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 770 col. 2B. 107 Richard M. Douglas accuses Perkins of departing from Luther and Calvin by allowing one to choose his calling. Richard M. Douglas, “Talent and Vocation in Humanist and Protestant Thought,” in Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Memory of E. H. Harbison, ed. Theodore K. Rabb and Jerrold E. Seigel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 296. Similarly, Trawick contends that by allowing one to choose his calling, “Perkins introduces a new conception of human freedom into the theology of vocation.” Trawick, “Ordering the Earthly Kingdom,” 121. Douglas and Trawick do rightly point out Perkins’ view of the active role one has in choosing a calling. However, their allegation that Perkins is in discontinuity with his predecessors, is not supported by convincing argument to prove that Perkins’ predecessors restrict all changes of callings and changes of callings that Perkins explicates here. Conversely, in their treatment of 1 Cor. 7:20, both Calvin and Vermigli seem to agree with Perkins. See Calvin, Epistles to the Corinthians, fol. 83; Vermigli, Common Places, III.xi.6 (260 col. 1). 108 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 776 col. 1A. 105

126

change must be to “better and more excellent callings, in which we may glorifie God more, and bring greater benefit” to the common good.109 Perkins’ view of wealth is consistent with his notion of common good. Riches, along with prayer and the works of edification, is a means of furthering the common good. 110 Despite the misuse of wealth for the richer’s own sake, that God has given riches to the richer for the common good is the “principall.”111 Even though Perkins holds an intransigent position on the sins of covetousness and prayer for abundance, Perkins does not see riches and abundance of worldly things as bad in themselves. Actually, they are good in themselves, but are not good for every one. Here Perkins employs a distinction of blessings−“simply blessings” that are good for every one and “blessings only in respect” that are not good to every one−and puts riches and abundance of worldly things under the second kind of blessings. While “simply blessings,” such as the gifts of faith, of repentance, of the fear of God, and the love of God and neighbors, are to be sought, “blessings only in respect,” such as riches and abundance, are to be used in moderation and no further to be sought. 112 When God grants abundance to some who seek it, “he gives a blessing, but like to the quailes which he gaue to the Israelites, that brought a plague with them: for God oftentimes giveth temporall blessings in his wrath,” Perkins insists. In the case where riches are given to righteous men, such as Abraham, Jacob, and Salomon, they were made rich by God’s sending, not by their own seeking. So any man may accept riches and abundance only 109

Perkins, “A Treatise,” 776 col. 1B. Perkins, “A Treatise,” 754 col. 1A. 111 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 754 col. 1A. 112 Perkins deals more thoroughly with the issue of riches in his other treatise. Cf., William Perkins, “Cases of Conscience,” in The Workes of That Famovs and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins, vol. 2 (London: Iohn Legatt, 1631), 125-129. 110


“when it is the pleasure of God to bestow it upon them, while they walke in their callings.”113 Nonetheless, we must restrain our affections from the world by seeking only “for things, that may be in Christian wisdome esteemed necessarie,” Perkins emphatically remarks.114 Regarding poverty, Perkins sees it as a disorder in society.115 As rotten legs and arms that drop from the body, suffered rogues, beggars, and vagabonds are to any society. Voluntary poverty, the practice of giving all riches to the poor and then living off alms, performed by some Monks and Friars is of no exception. 116 However, Perkins is convinced that non-voluntary poverty also has a providential character and should be endured with contentment, believing that it befalls us by the will and appointment of God. Those whose "calling" requires the performance of “poore and base duties” will not be base in the sight of God, if they undertake those duties in obedient faith to serve God in the serving of men. 117 While poverty as God’s chastisement and a display of God’s disfavor to his bad children remains possible, nowhere in his treatise does Perkins regard poverty as a necessary sign of God’s disfavor toward his wicked children.

113

Perkins, “A Treatise,” 770 col. 1A. Perkins, “A Treatise,” 770 col. 1B. 115 In Tawney’s words, “a social phenomenon produced by economic dislocation.” Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, 271. 116 Perkins, “Cases of Conscience,” 128 col. 1B. 117 Perkins, “A Treatise,” 757 col. 1D. Modern scholars, such as Charles Taylor and Marshall, raise the issue of egalitarian understandings of callings, contending that “Perkins takes on the Hierarchical preconceptions of his audience,” as if all callings were of equal importance. Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 224. See also Marshall, A Kind of Life, 43. However, even though Perkins holds that good works are of equal importance in the sense of God’s acceptance, he also holds that personal callings are not of equal importance in the sense of their roles in society. Some are essential and others are subservient to society. Perkins, “A Treatise,” 758 col. 1B. 114

Baxter: God’s Blessings for a Better Service In line with Perkins, Baxter does allow anticipating some rewards of our labors. As servants lawfully expect rewards from their masters, we are to expect our rewards from God alone. “If you are not the servants of men, but of God, expect your recompence from him you serve,” Baxter asserts. 118 However, Baxter insists that heavenly rewards are always to be preferred over worldly rewards.119 Baxter’s teaching of rewards is far from utilitarianism−either heavenly or worldly−because rewards are never thought of as an end of good works or labors. When we work, we do not work for rewards, but for the glory of God. The rewards that we may receive should not be understood merely as a recompense of our labor, but also as God’s providential care and justice, for God is the Preserver and Disposer of all things. Diligent labor is “God’s appointed means for the getting of our daily bread,” asserts Baxter.120 The expectation and bestowal of reward in earthly life, for Baxter, is not based on human needs or wants. Nor is it based on human efforts in works, but on who God is: He is “the First Cause and ultimate End of all things,” “the Preserver and overruling Disposer of all things,” “the supreme Governor of the rational world,” “the great Benefactor of all mankind,” and “the special favourer and rewarder of such as truly love him, seek him, and obey him.”121 What is then the purpose of God’s rewards? What is its end? Baxter is not less adamant than Perkins in holding the principle of stewardship with regard to God’s rewards, that rewards are given to be employed in God’s service, to God’s glory. Any personal gain or riches given by God through our labors is never purported to be an end of our labors, but merely a means for 118

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 115 col. 2. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 28 col. 1. 120 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 376 col. 2. 121 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 64 col. 1. 119

127


the same end. Taking personal gain as an end of labor will contradict the end of God in giving them. Baxter asserts, He gave them to help thee to him, and dost thou take up with them in his stead? He gave them that they might be comfortable refreshments in thy journey, and wouldst thou now dwell in thy Inn, and go no further?122

With Perkins, Baxter also warns that the more we have, the more we have to give account for. Yet Baxter goes a step further than Perkins in allowing desire for riches, insofar as riches do not become the chief end of our labor.123 Self well-being (personal soul and bodily health and even riches) can get into consideration for choosing a calling or a change of vocation insofar as it is put in subordination to higher things, that we “may be the better provided to do God service, and may do the more good” with what we have.124 “All the comforts of food, or rest, or recreation, or pleasure which we take, should be intended to fit us for our Master’s work, or strengthen, cheer, and help us in it.” 125 However, as we see above, Baxter’s A Christian Directory (1664-1665), written 14-15 years later than The Saint’s Everlasting Rest (1650), displays substantial continuity in Baxter’s view of material wealth. Despite the immensity of Baxter’s discussions of rewards, never does he regard either God’s heavenly or earthly blessings or rewards as a motive behind the virtues as diligence, prudence, and industry as 122 Richard Baxter, The Saint’s Everlasting Rest (London: Rob. White, 1650), IV.i.3 (562). 123 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 219 col. 2. “If you desired riches but for the service of your Lord, and have used them for him, … that you laid them not out for the needless pleasure or pride of the flesh … then you expect the reward of good and faithful servants; but if you desired and used them for the pride and pleasure of yourselves while you lived, … you will then find that Mammon was an unprofitable master …” Here I give another quotation complementary to the quotations that Michaelsen gives to illustrate Baxter’s view of wealth. See n. 93. 124 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 377 col. 2. 125 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 112 col. 1.

128

Michaelsen suggests. Regarding earthly rewards, Baxter does indeed state that God is so just as not to deny the reward which was promised to those who sincerely and diligently do good works. 126 He also states, “The more we do [good works], the more we receive from [God].” 127 Nevertheless, Baxter never suggests that worldly rewards or riches are the end of these virtues. Besides being God’s appointed means for the preservation of our daily life, diligent labor is also a means to attain an ascetic life. Diligent labor keeps the mind upon a lawful employment and therefore effectively restrains the thoughts and words from sin; it also “mortifieth the flesh, and keepeth under its luxurious inclinations, and subdueth that pride, and lust, and brutish sensuality which is cherished by an idle life.”128 Here we find that, contrary to Michaelsen, diligence, prudence, and industry never become virtues to be extolled in themselves, but always tightly connected with service to God.129 Baxter’s stewardship principle, as it is applied to material blessings, is also applied to human body and mind. They are means to serve God. Human body and mind are most useful when they are active in labor. Moreover, for Baxter, human labor is “necessary for the preservation of the faculties of the mind” and “needful to our health and life.” As we observed above, diligent labor is even instrumental and necessary for conducting an ascetic life. Therefore, to understand how sternly Baxter is against idleness and slothfulness is not difficult. His line of reasoning is not hard to follow. “Sloth is an averseness to labour, through a carnal love love of ease, or indulgence to the flesh,” whereas idleness, which is the effect of slothfulness, is “the omission or negligent performance of our duties through a flesh-

126

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 111 col. 2. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 111 col. 2. 128 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 376 col. 2. 129 Michaelsen, “Change,” 322. 127


pleasing backwardness to labour.” 130 Slothfulness and idleness are, therefore, detrimental to the service of God. If slothfulness and idleness are averse to labor, covetousness, according to Baxter, is averse to the true end of labor. It is “a sin of interest, love, and choice, set up against our chiefest interest;” it is “the setting up of a false end,” “a perverting of the very drift of a man’s life, as employed in seeking a wrong end,” “destroying our souls.”131 Covetousness, along with pride, is a reigning sin.132 It is idolatry. The sin of covetousness is thus no less serious than the sins of slothfulness and idleness. Baxter actually mentions both groups of sins in his explication of the “Master Sin,” viz., “Sensuality,” “Flesh-pleasing,” or “Voluptuousness.” 133 Another pivotal point in Baxter’s discussion of flesh-pleasing is his broad definition of flesh. According to Baxter, the term flesh most frequently encompasses both “the inordinate sensitive appetite” and “the rational powers” which are corrupted by sin and sinfully disposed to obey it, or to follow inordinately “sensual things.”134 Along with the fact that both groups of sins are merely different instantiations of the same sin, a more careful reading of Baxter’s definition of flesh only shows how Michaelsen uses a false dichotomy of sins−the sins of flesh and the lusts of spirit−in his appraisal of Baxter’s doctrine of original sin. It also contradicts Michaelsen arguments. Some clarifying points are thus needed: contrary to Michaelsen, (1) the shifting of the primary scorn from the sin of covetousness to the sins of flesh or sensuality, “the Master Sin,” does not exist, (2) Baxter never makes room for a certain indulgence of the “ambitions of the spirit,” or those motivations not directly connected with man’s physical self, and (3)

both Perkins and Baxter, despite their different articulations, intransigently oppose the sins of covetousness, slothfulness, and idleness without employing a dualistic distinction between the sins of flesh and the lusts of the spirit. In sum, with regards to their concept of vocation or labor, Baxter’s doctrine of sin is substantially in continuity with that of Perkins. It has been noted earlier that, according Baxter, riches that are given by God are intended to further God’s glory. As God’s gifts, riches are to be employed for the service of God. Baxter also commends the charitable use of riches for the poor.135 The more riches one is given, the higher responsibility one gets. It is also true that Baxter does state that the more we do good works, the more we receive rewards from God. Yet this does not imply that Baxter elevates worldly blessings over heavenly blessings. In fact he argues for the opposite, heavenly blessings are to be preferred and seeking abundance for selfpleasure is always condemned. Nor does it imply that Baxter regards earthly prosperity as a necessary sign of God’s favor toward his “good children.” It could be a sign of God’s favor toward his faithful servants, but it is not a necessary sign, since there are children of God who “are poor in the world, but rich in faith and holiness.” 136 Baxter even remarks, “You have more cause to be afraid of prosperity, than of adversity; of riches, than of poverty.”137 Regarding poverty, Baxter holds that there are many causes of poverty. Lack of industry is not the only cause. Nor is poverty a necessary sign of wickedness as Michaelsen suggests. Baxter warns us not to judge God's love . . . by your riches or poverty, prosperity or adversity, as knowing that they come alike to all.138

130

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 378 col. 2. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 215 col. 1. 132 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 34 col. 2. 133 For covetousness, see Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 223 col. 1, 225 col. 2; for slothfulness and idleness, see 226 col. 2, 229 col. 2. 134 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 222 col. 2. 131

135

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 317 col. 2. Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 33 col. 2. 137 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 78 col. 2. 138 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 514 col. 2. 136

129


There are poverties caused by slothfulness and idleness, 139 and sin, 140 but there are also poverties caused by Satan to tempt godly people (as in Job),141 persecution,142 and God’s will.143 Those who are called to “the poorest laborious calling” are to make their calling “the matter of thy pleasure and joy that thou art still in thy heavenly Master’s service.” 144 With regards to poverty, Baxter’s condemnation is always directed to the sins of slothfulness and idleness and never to the poor in general. Richard H. Tawney apparently ignores this fact when he states that the late Puritans “were apparently quite unconscious that it was even conceivable that there might be any other cause of poverty than the moral failings of the poor.” 145 Following Tawney, Michaelsen thus falls into the same mistake in neglecting the fact that Baxter does admit various causes of poverty.146 Next to Tawney, Michaelsen also references Margaret James. Unfortunately, Michaelsen does not seem to read carefully James’ account. James provides a fair historical account explaining the complicated problem of poverty during the Puritan revolution. James admits the existence of “a growing disposition toward poverty as a crime and disgrace.” 147 The problems of vagrancy, unemployment, and preservation of wounded soldiers and their families added up to the shifting disposition toward poverty. Nevertheless, James does not generalize the 139

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 242 col. 2, 380 col.

2. 140

Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 89 col. 2, 318 col. 1, 321 col. 2. 141 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 43 col. 2. 142 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 19 col. 1. 143 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 514 col. 2. “Steadfastly believe that God is every way fitter than you to dispose of your estate and you.” 144 Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 378 col. 2; cf. 514 col. 1. 145 Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, 271. 146 Michaelsen, “Change,” 329, n. 43. 147 James, Social Problems and Policy during the Puritan Revolution, 18. James provides a helpful historical account of the problem of poverty during Baxter’s era in Chapter 4 of her book.

130

cause of the poor as Tawney and Michaelsen do. —————————— On the issue of vocation and wealth, we again find that there is no substantial difference between Perkins and Baxter as Michaelsen claims. Both see God’s material blessings as a part of God’s providential care for his children. Material blessings are to be employed to further God’s glory, for the common good, and not bad in themselves. Both Perkins and Baxter view diligence, prudence, and industry as virtues that need to be cultivated for the service of God. Covetousness, slothfulness, and idleness, on the other hand, are always condemned. Even though Baxter’s historical and social context is different from that of Perkins, Baxter’s views of prosperity and poverty are substantially in continuity with Perkins.

Conclusion In his disagreement with Weber in regarding Baxter as a “typical Puritan,” Michaelsen contends that Baxter represents a Puritanism which was quite different from that of the early seventeenth century. The differences are so major that they indicate crucial changes from the early to the late Puritan concept of vocation. Michaelsen claims that the late Puritans, including Baxter, greatly modified both the doctrine or concept of vocation, and the general supporting framework, such as the doctrine of Christian liberty, the doctrine of sin, the idea of the providence of God, and the doctrine of stewardship. As we carefully observed in our comparison of Perkins’ and Baxter’s concepts of vocation, there is no crucial, substantial change in their theology of vocation as Michaelsen claims. Michaelsen does not carefully read the texts, and overlooks some key theological points in both Perkins and Baxter that actually display the substantial continuity in their concepts of vocation. The


differences between Perkins and Baxter are merely in their emphases and articulations of the doctrine. Regarding the connection between the general and the particular callings, both Perkins and Baxter maintain a holistic view of vocation. Perkins starts with the distinction of the callings and then discusses the close connection between them. Baxter, on the other hand, starts with the doctrine of good works and develops the distinction of the callings from there. Baxter is fully aware of the idea of the general-particular distinction of callings, even though he employs a different set of terms to refer to the general and the particular callings. However, both Perkins and Baxter agree that the general and the particular callings are distinct yet inseparable. Both callings must be joined because they are aimed at the same end, the main end of Christian lives, to serve God for his glory. They both are adamant in holding that the works of callings are religious responses to God’s grace and action. Regarding the relationship of vocation and self-fulfillment, Perkins emphasizes the notion of the common good as the final end of vocation, but then submits it under the main end of Christian life. Baxter, on the other hand, emphasizes the Lordship of God in every good work. Perkins and Baxter clearly distinguish and never confuse the end of vocation with the rewards of labor or personal gain. Both maintain that the rewards −heavenly or earthly−are not to become an end of vocation. Regarding wealth, material blessings, or riches, Perkins and Baxter agree that God’s blessings or rewards are to be expected as God’s providential care to his servants and children. However, Perkins and Baxter sternly condemn the amassing of wealth driven by pleasure-seeking. Their strong approval of diligence and prudence as necessary virtues in labor, paired with their condemnation toward the sins covetousness, slothfulness, and idleness, are always directed to the concern of

how to please God and to serve the common good, and never to the wealth-getting, capitalseeking motif. Perkins and Baxter do allow changing of callings, but never approve it on the basis of self-well-being as the end of choosing between callings. Both condemn seeking wealth for self-pleasure. Baxter goes a step further than Perkins in allowing desire for wealth. Nevertheless, Baxter only does so insofar as riches are meant to be the better means to serve the common good, and not to become the chief end of labor. The view of poverty has undergone change during the seventeenth century. The problem of poverty in its historical social context contributes to a growing disposition toward poverty as a crime and disgrace. However, this change in the view of poverty does not change the Puritan conception of poverty and vocation. Baxter, in line with Perkins, does not condemn the poor for their lack of industry. Instead, both are aware of the various causes of poverty and only condemn those who indulge in the sins of slothfulness and idleness. Their condemnation is not grounded on any capitalistic motive, but on their understanding of human labor as the worship and service of God. All things considered, Michaelsen is indeed right in pointing out that Weber overlooked the historical dynamics of the seventeenth century that might contribute to the shifting concern of the late Puritans. However, as far as the concept of vocation is concerned, Michaelsen’s claim that crucial theological changes occurred from the early to the late Puritan concept of vocation cannot be demonstrated in Perkins and Baxter. Therefore, his claim calls for reconsideration. Conversely, Weber’s use of Baxter to represent the seventeenth century English Puritan ethic stands justifiable, regardless of the truth value of his thesis and his interpretation of Baxter’s concept of vocation.

131


Bibliography Baxter, Richard. “A Christian Directory.” In Practical Works of Richard Baxter, vol. 1. Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000. —————. The Saint’s Everlasting Rest. London: Rob. White, 1650. Calvin, John. A Commentarie vpon S. Paules Epistles to the Corinthians. Translated by Thomas Timme. London, 1577.

Perkins, William. “A Treatise of the Vocations.” In The Workes of That Famovs and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins, vol. 1. London: Iohn Legatt, 1626. —————. “Cases of Conscience.” In The Workes of That Famovs and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins, vol. 2. London: Iohn Legatt, 1631.

Douglas, Richard M. “Talent and Vocation in Humanist and Protestant Thought.” In Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Memory of E. H. Harbison. Edited by Theodore K. Rabb and Jerrold E. Seigel, 261-98. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Schlatter, Richard B. The Social Ideas of Religious Leaders, 1660-1688. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940. Reprint, New York: Octagon Books, 1971.

James, Margaret. Social Problems and Policy during the Puritan Revolution, 1640-1660. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967.

Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Luther, Martin. “Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7.” Translated by Edward Sittler. In Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 28, ed. Hilton C. Oswald. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1973. Marshall, Paul. A Kind of Life Imposed on Man: Vocation and Social Order from Tyndale to Locke. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1996. Mather, Cotton. A Christian at His Calling; Two Brief Discourses, One Directing a Christian in His General Calling; Another Directing Him in His Personal Calling. Boston, 1701. —————. A Conquest over the Grand Excuse of Sinfulness and Slothfulness. Boston, 1706. Michaelsen, Robert S. “Changes in the Puritan Concept of Calling or Vocation.” The New England Quarterly 26 (Sept. 1953): 315-36.

132

Tawney, Richard H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study. London: John Murray, 1960.

Trawick, Robert Chason. “Ordering the Earthly Kingdom: Vocation, Providence and Social Ethics.” Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1990. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. The Common Places, of the Most Famovs and Renowned Diuine Doctor Peter Martyr. Translated and compiled by Anthonie Marten. London: Henry Denham and Henry Middleton, 1583. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Routledge, 2006.


What It Takes to Integrate Ihan Martoyo

Abstract The integration project stems from the tension in living out the Christian faith within a secular field of discipline, such as psychology. The field of psychology and theology display considerable overlaps in describing and understanding human life, yet accompanied by seemingly contradicting assumptions or point of views. This tension has prompted numerous scholars to come up with approaches to integrate psychology and theology. This paper does not aim to go into in-depth discussions of the integration frameworks, which are already available elsewhere. Instead, the aim is to come up with a psychological profile of a good integrator, which can be distilled by looking closely at the ideal picture of integration. Humility, ability to tolerate ambiguity, balanced of expression and thoughts, and the conjunctive-faith stage have been found to be the characteristics of a good integrator. This paper also presents some of the important thoughts delivered in Yakub Susabda’s integration course at Reformed Theological Seminary of Indonesia (STTRI), Jakarta.

John Carter and Bruce Narramore (1979) note in their book that even centuries after the Reformation and one hundred years after the founding of modern psychology, the Christian church was just beginning to grapple seriously with the discipline of psychology. That was 20 years ago. Today, a lot of actions and discussions have taken place to integrate psychology and theology, yet the integration effort is still felt to be highly challenging. The integration project will possibly remain challenging. It entails complex tasks that demand certain qualities from the integrator. This article will critically examine the complexity of the integration task in order to arrive at the psychological profile of a good integrator. It will also attempt to capture some of the important concepts delivered by Yakub Susabda in his integration course at Reformed Theological Seminary of Indonesia (STTRI), Jakarta. It will start with describing the

challenge of integration in the next section. Section 2 will elaborate the ideal of an integration approach. It will be followed by a discussion on the integrated life in Section 3. Section 4 will discuss the qualities of a good integrator, and Section 5 will close with some concluding remarks.

The Challenge of Integration The term integration, particularly in this article, is used to denote the effort to reconcile the tension between a particular discipline with the discipline of theology. The effort of integration is based on the assumption of the unity of truth, that is, all truth, no matter in what discipline it is found, is God’s truth. Carter and Narramore were among the earliest scholars who popularized the term integration in such a way. They write,

133


Figure 1. Optimism degree for each type of Niebuhr’s typology towards culture.

During the last decade Christian behavioral scientists have increasingly used the word integration to refer to the interaction between, or “interface” of, their given discipline and the discipline of theology. This practice is especially widespread in psychology. One scholarly journal1 has described itself as “An evangelical Forum for the Integration of Psychology and Theology,” and at least two accredited doctoral-degree programs in psychology require students to take a series of “integration seminars” designed to relate Scripture and psychology.2 Most of these efforts are based on one essential philosophical underpinning—the belief that all truth is God’s truth, wherever it is found. This proposition is frequently referred to as the “unity of truth”.3

Carter and Narramore also present 4 basic models of integration approach: The Against model, the Of model, the Parallels model, and the Integrates model. In the Against model, either psychology or theology is simply rejected because of the assumption that there is an inherent conflict between the two disciplines. The Of model tends to strip theology from its supernatural elements, so that both theology and psychology can be harmonized as a humanistic enterprise. The Parallels model is better than the first two models, in that it preserves the integrity of

both psychology and Christianity. 4 In the Parallels model, the importance of both Scripture and psychology is emphasized, but it is usually assumed that they are separated or do not interact deeply. The last model—the Integrates model—in which a balanced view of Christianity and psychology is attempted, represents the real integrative approach where the uniqueness of both disciplines are respected. These models from Carter and Narramore are reminiscences of the more general struggle between Christianity and culture as posed by Richard Niebuhr. 5 Niebuhr presents five models for the interaction between Christ and Culture: Christ against Culture, Christ of Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ Transforming Culture. The first two types from Niebuhr resemble the Against and Of model from Carter and Narramore. The Christ above Culture and Christ and Culture in Paradox are similar to the Parallels model. The Christ Transforming Culture from Niebuhr can be seen as a variant of the Integrates model from Carter and Narramore. In another published article I summarized the attitude of Niebuhr’s approaches towards culture as shown in Figure 1 above.6

1

The Journal of Psychology and Theology. That is, Fuller School of Psychology in Pasadena, California, and Rosemead Graduate School of Professional Psychology in La Mirada, California. 3 John D. Carter and Bruce Narramore, The Integration of Psychology and Theology: An introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 13. 2

134

4

Carter and Narramore, 92 Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper, 1951). 6 Ihan Martoyo, “E-Christianity: Sebuah Eksplorasi Kerangka Integrasi,” in The Integrated Life: Kehidupan Kristiani 5

WHAT IT TAKES TO INTEGRATE

Another comprehensive framework for integration comes from Brian Eck. 7 He divides the framework into 3 main paradigms: Rejection, Manipulative Integration (Reconstruction and Transformation), and NonManipulative Integration (Parallel, Correlation and Unification). The Against model from Carter and Narramore belongs to the Rejection paradigm according to Brian Eck, and the Of model is a part of the Manipulative paradigm. The Parallels and Integrates models from Carter and Narramore are the preferred Nonmanipulative paradigm according to Brian Eck. It is apparent that each typology or framework implies an ideal picture on how to perform integration. This ideal will in turn dictate the kind of person suitable for the integration project. We turn to this ideal picture of integration approach in the next section.

The Ideal of Integration Formulating an ideal picture for integration might be quite controversial for some, since it is not even agreeable that integration is needed in the first place. There are Christian psychologists who will argue that Scripture alone is sufficient for understanding and changing people. David Powlison, for example, in criticizing the integrationists writes, Integrationists attempt to wed secular psychology to conservative Christianity because they believe that Scripture is not comprehensively sufficient. Scripture, the Word of the Holy Spirit, is in some essential way deficient for understanding and changing people. The church, therefore, needs systematic and constitutive input from the social sciences in order to know what is true and to enable effective, loving counseling ministry. Integrationists aim to import the intellectual contents and psychotherapeutic practices of yang Seutuhnya, edited by Panitia Festschrift (Yogyakarta: PBMR Andi, 2006), 461-485. 7 Brian Eck, “Integrating the Integrators: An Organizing Framework for A Multifaceted Process of Integration,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 15 (1996): 101-115.

psychology into the church in a way that is consistent with biblical faith. Nouthetic counselors have claimed, on the contrary, that the imports consistently hijack biblical faith and ministry. This is not to say that biblical counselors should ignore or dismiss the various secular psychologies. But when we look at psychology we take seriously the pervasiveness of secular presuppositions and the malignancy of secular intentions. Thus, any utility secular psychology may have must be carefully qualified. Integrationists are not careful enough, and they import fundamental and systematic falsehoods. 8

Jay Adams, who was Professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS), triggers such an antiintegration attitude. In his book Competent to Counsel, 9 he severely criticizes psychiatry and psychotherapy as secular, humanistic, and opposed to Christianity. 10 Such a strong opposition is understandable as the history of WTS is observed. 11 After the Princeton Theological Seminary was reorganized under modernist (liberal) influences, four great theologians: Charles Hodge, J. A. Alexander, B. B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen founded WTS to preserve and maintain the Reformed faith. On the other hand, the modernist movement has aroused the boldness of free thinking, which in turn triggered new scientific progress including the field of psychology. Psychology was therefore seen as a part of the liberal movement, which had to be opposed. It is thus understandable that the strong Reformed theology group is currently still against psychology, even also in Indonesia.12 Despite this negative attitude, the integration approach flourishes in several institutions, for examples, in the Rosemead School of Psychology (John D. Carter, Bruce 8

David Powlison, “Critiquing Modern Integrationists,” The Journal of Biblical Counseling 11 (1993): 24-34. 9 Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970). 10 Eric L. Johnson and Stanton L. Jones, Psychology and Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 36. 11 "Westminster Theological Seminary – History," http://www.wts.edu/about/history/ (accessed June 6, 2013). 12 Stated by Susabda during his course.

135


Narramore), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Kirk E. Farnsworth, Gary Collins), Wheaton College (C. Stephan Evans, Stanton L. Jones), Baylor University (Robert C. Roberts), Fuller Theological Seminary (SiangYang Tan), Azusa Pacific University (Brian Eck), and also STTRI (Yakub Susabda). The ideal approach for integration can be distilled from the writings of the integrationists. Carter and Narramore and Brian Eck provide good examples. The integration framework from Carter and Narramore starts from the rather simple Against and Of model. The Parallels model is obviously seen as a better option compared to the Against and Of model. Carter and Narramore write, The Parallels model is a distinct improvement over the Against and Of models since it preserves the integrity of both psychology and Christianity. And it is probably the position most often taken by thoughtful psychologists who, while not minimizing the importance of either Christianity or psychology, want to be sure to avoid superficial attempts at integration that violate the unity and integrity of either.13

It is also apparent that Carter and Narramore prefer the Integrates model as the ultimate ideal for the integration process, because the model respects the integrity of both disciplines. They write, Believing in the unity of truth, proponents of the Integrates model do not look at psychological and theological understandings as distinct fields of study that are essentially unrelatable. Instead, they assume that since God is the Author of all truth, and since He is the Creator of the entire world, there is ultimately only one set of explanatory hypotheses. While the methods and data of psychology are frequently distinct (and the distinctions need to be maintained), followers of the Integrates model are looking for unifying concepts that will broaden the understanding that would come from either psychology or theology in isolation.14

Such ideal of integration is also reflected in Brian Eck’s framework. He arranges his 13 14

136

Carter and Narramore, 92. Carter and Narramore, 104.

framework to culminate in the Nonmanipulative Integration paradigm, which includes the Parallel, Correlation and Unification approach. Again, here the Parallel and Unification approach along with the Correlation approach are placed at the highest level similar to the Carter and Narramore scheme. Therefore, we can conclude that the Non-manipulative methods such as the Parallel, Unification (Integrates) and Correlation approach represent the ideal of integration project. Balance seems to be the orienting criterion for the ideal integration effort. Commenting on the four views presented by Johnson and Jones, James R. Beck points out that only one view (the integration view described by Gary Collins) seems to approach the two disciplines of psychology and theology with roughly equal attention.15 According to Beck, integrationists who seek to give roughly equal attention to the two would be working toward some sense of balance. Maier and Glass criticize the aim for balance in the integration effort described by Beck. 16 Maier and Glass respond quite strongly that Beck would imply other integration approaches as unbalanced, thus showing a lack of humility. This dialogue between Maier and Glass with James Beck, rather than negates, actually accentuates and emphasizes the importance of balance as the criterion for the ideal integration. The frameworks of integration (Carter, Narramore, and Eck) and the discussion of balance (Beck) show that the ideal integration approach will respect the discipline of psychology and theology equally. Only then, can both disciplines be approached without a reductionist attitude. Vande Kemp expresses this ideal as follows:

15

James R. Beck, “Balanced Integration: A Reply to Maier and Glass,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 24 (2005): 51-55. 16 Bryan N. Maier and John H. Glass, “A Matter of Balance? A Response to Beck,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 24 (2005): 46-50.


Thus, the task of integration is neither to construct a “Christian psychology” based entirely on biblical anthropology, which leaves out all the enriching aspects of the psyche, nor to construct a psychologically sophisticated theology, which would still ignore the unique issues of psychopathologizing and genuine soul-making. Rather, it is to construct a model which allows the process of soul-making (or mental health) to meet in the depths with the processes of sanctification, leading to a person who is both spiritually and psychologically whole.17

It is thus clear that the ideal integration is the most balanced approach, which does not ignore the inputs from either discipline.

Beyond the Ideal Integration However complex it may be, the integration enterprise is not only about relating different kind of disciplines. It is rather an incarnational effort to live out one’s life integratively. Carter and Narramore express it as follows: By now it should be apparent that from our perspective integration is more than simply a matter of relating separate subject areas. Integration can be thought of in a threefold manner. It is, of course, the relating of Christian and secular concepts. But it is more than that. It is also a way of thinking and a way of functioning. So far we have focused largely on integration as the relating of secular and Christian concepts. But underneath our discussion is the assumption that integration is also a way of living and a way of thinking. In fact, it seems to us that very little conceptual integration is possible without a degree of personal integration. That is, unless we as persons are open to the impact of a relationship with God in our lives and unless we are open to seeing our own maladaptive ways of coping, we will find it necessary to shut ourselves off from certain sources of truth and block any real progress in integration.18

17 Hendrika Vande Kemp, “The Tension Between Psychology and Theology: An Anthropological Solution,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 10 (1982): 205-211. 18 Carter and Narramore, 117-118.

C. Stephan Evans writes that integration is trying to see that faith, one’s basic trust and reliance upon God permeates every aspect of one’s being.19 Siang-Yang Tan also emphasizes this personal side of integration. He writes, Personal or intrapersonal integration is the most foundational area of integration. Bufford (1997) recently emphasized that Christian counseling is primarily about character, including the personal godliness of the therapist or counselor. 20 He pointed out that the person, life, and work of the counselor is therefore at the core of consecrated Christian counseling.21

During his integration course at STTRI, Susabda also emphasizes the significance of an integrated life more than the relating of psychology and theology. Rather than treating it as an afterthought of integration, Susabda focuses on the personal integration problem right from the start by discussing problematic cases in living an integrated life. One of the basic questions that he discussed at length is: “Why does the truth not set us free? What is happening actually in human psyche as he/she encounters the Word of God?” The fact that many Christians do not show any life transformation despite their professed Christian faith is indeed very disturbing. Even more disturbing is the fact that many Christian leaders are chasing big visions, but do not seem to accomplish real spirituality, for example by turning churches to businesses.22 Quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer in one interview Richard W. Dortch explains such chasing of a vision as follows: “God hates visionary dreaming. It makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary idea of a community 19 C. Stephen Evans, “The Concept of the Self as the Key to Integration,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 3 (1984): 4. 20 R. K. Bufford, “Consecrated Counseling: Reflections on the Distinctives of Christian Counseling,” Journal of Psychology and Theolog 25 (1997): 111-122. 21 Siang-Yang Tan, “Integration and Beyond: Principled, Professional, and Personal,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 20 (2001): 18-28. 22 See “Jesus, CEO: Churches as Businesses,” The Economist (December 24, 2005): 41-44.

137


demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands. He sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God himself accordingly. . . .” “He acts as if he is the center of the Christian community, and as if his dream binds men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes first an accuser of his brother, then an accuser of God, and finally a despairing accuser of himself.”23

Such cases prompt Susabda to take a deep questioning of how spirituality really develops. It seems that as God reveals the core beliefs, it does not automatically result in operated (practical) beliefs in the believers’ life. The core beliefs must go through a filter of theology, which unfortunately does not necessarily produce the appropriate operated beliefs.24 Beside this difficulty of turning the core beliefs into operated beliefs, the Christian faith itself seems to present an incomprehensible experience for the believers. Susabda puts Philip Yancey’s Disappointment with God on the reading list for integration,25 since Yancey touches on this puzzling faith experience. Yancey writes in his introduction, I found that for many people there is a large gap between what they expect from their Christian faith and what they actually experience. From a steady diet of books, sermons, and personal testimonies, all promising triumph and success, they learn to expect dramatic evidence of God working in their lives. If they do not see such evidence, they feel disappointment, betrayal, and often guilt. As one woman said, “I kept hearing the phrase, ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ.’ But I found to my dismay that it is unlike any other personal relationship. I never saw God, or heard him, or felt him, or experienced the most basic ingredients of a 23 Brian Larson, “Blind Spot,” Leadership Journal 15, no. 3 (July 1994), 78. 24 See Yakub B. Susabda, “Kebenaran yang Memerdekakan,” Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia 2, no. 2 (Juli 2012): 73-80. 25 Philip Yancey, Disappointment with God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988).

138

relationship. Either there’s something wrong with what I was told, or there’s something wrong with me.26

Kelly James Clark also points out that we mostly overestimate our faith as we go through our moments of darkness. He writes, We vastly overestimate our faith (as we do our goodness and wisdom). Propped up by our feeble rituals, our pat answers, our multitude of activities designed (perhaps subconsciously) to prevent us from seeing our true and divided self, we believe that we are men and women of God, ready to perish by Caesar’s sword.27

Thus it seems that even a good theology and religious rituals are powerless in producing real spirituality. Susabda also points to spiritual giants who achieved soaring spirituality despite their agony through the darkness of life, for examples, Mother Theresa and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Despite their fruitful life, they openly acknowledge the darkness that haunted their spiritual journey. Mother Theresa confesses, Lord my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your love – and now become as the most hated one – the one – You have thrown away as unwanted – unloved. I call, I cling, I want – and there is no One to answer – no One on Whom I can cling – no, No One. – Alone … Where is my Faith – even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness – My God – how painful is this unknown pain – I have no Faith – I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart - & make me suffer untold agony. So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them – because of the blasphemy – If there be God – please forgive me – When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven – there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. – I am told God loves me – and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a

26

Yancey, 9. Kelly J. Clark, When Faith Is Not Enough (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 49. 27


mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?28

Quoting Kolodiejchuk, Van Biema describes how beautiful was the spiritual struggle of Mother Theresa. He writes, The tendency of our spiritual life but also in our more general attitude toward love is that our feelings are all that is going on. And so to us the totality of love is what we feel. But to really love someone requires commitment, fidelity and vulnerability. Mother Teresa wasn’t ‘feeling’ Christ’s love, and she could have shut down. But she was up at 4:30 every morning for Jesus, and still writing to him, “Your happiness is all I want.” That’s a powerful example even if you are not talking in exclusively religious terms.29

Bonhoeffer experienced the similar struggle of darkness in his spiritual journey. He writes, The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34). The God who makes us live in this world without using him as a working hypothesis is the God before whom we are ever standing. Before God and with him we live without God. God allows himself to be edged out of the world and onto the cross. God is weak and powerless in the world, and that is exactly the way, the only way, in which he can be with us and help us.30

Susabda insists his students to set their eyes and learn from such faithful struggle in discussing the integrated life. His voice echoes through the small lecture room, demanding serious attention, “The real question is this,” he said, “Why does the truth not set us free?”

What Does It Take to Integrate? Carter and Narramore list several qualities required for a true integrative approach: (1) humility and an awareness of finite limitations, (2) ability to tolerate ambiguity, and (3) balanced expression of intellect

(cognitive) and emotions (affective).31 From all three, humility is the most basic quality without which no significant progress can be achieved. Eric L. Johnson and Stanton L. Jones emphasize the need for humility as follows: Yet the best Christian thinking about such things recognizes that human understanding is limited and partial. We see in a glass darkly, and standing in one place we can only see from one standpoint; as a result, under the best circumstances we finite creatures can never hope to obtain God’s perfect understanding. Even worse, depending on the limitations of our motives, methods, and sources, we can easily get things wrong. So while Christians seek God’s understanding, they acknowledge that God’s understanding alone is comprehensive and perfect, and theirs is only a partial reflection or reproduction of the whole.32

In relation to humility, Gary Collins offers a useful reminder for Christians (or theologians) in approaching integration as follows: Whenever a person approaches the Bible, he or she must be aware of both the text and the reader. Christians believe that the biblical text is objective, unchanging truth, but our interpretations will be in error if we fail to recognize the customs, rules, historical contexts, and ways of thinking of the biblical writers. Even when we genuinely seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, no human interpretation of God’s Word is infallible. The reader’s own assumptions, opinions, and expectations also influence interpretation, including the passages we choose to study or the versions of the Bible we consult.33

Humility is closely related to the ability to tolerate ambiguity. Toleration to ambiguity that stemmed from humility will enable one to keep an open mind. Thus seeming conflicts can be held in tension until a broader perspective or a new way of looking at things brings resolution. According to Carter and Narramore, this ability of tolerating ambiguity is a virtue that most Against theorists seem to

28

David Van Biema, “Her Agony,” Times, September 3, 2007, 29-30 29 Van Bierma, 33. 30 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from the Prison (New York: Touchstone, 1953), Letter of July 16, 1944.

31

Carter and Narramore, 118-122. Johnson and Jones, 246-247. 33 Quoted in Johnson and Jones, 116. 32

139


lack.34 In being anxious to find the answers, they shut themselves off too early from insights available from differing perspectives. Since balance is an important issue in integration, sufficient knowledge in both fields (for example psychology and theology) is required for a responsible integration. Les Parrot III and Les Steele note that if the works in integration are reviewed, they are predominated by psychologists; theologians, they said, have largely not engaged the question. 35 Therefore, it seems more reasonable to expect scientists to initiate the integration work, rather than theologians. One possible cause for this phenomenon is that Christian scientists must resolve the tension between their faith and their field of expertise, while theologians may simply embrace the Against model. It is clear that to be successful in the integration enterprise, a certain maturity level in faith development is required. Parrot and Steele use Fowler’s Stages of Faith to analyze the possibility of integration with undergraduate college students. In explaining Fowler’s Stages of Faith, Parrot and Steele write, Stage 1: Intuitive-Projective Faith. This stage includes the ages of about four to seven. Children in this stage construct their understanding of faith in magical and fantasy filled ways. Stage 2: Mythic-Literal Faith. Children seven to eleven tend to think concretely. This leads to an expression of faith in very literalistic ways. Stage 3: Synthetic-Conventional Faith. With possible beginnings in early adolescence this stage is one in which they begin to pull together various threads of a faith. They do so in conventional ways conforming to the majority. Stage 4: Individuative-Reflective Faith. Possibly in young adulthood, individuals begin to construct a faith that is uniquely their own. They are

questioning the faith given and are critically reflecting on their faith. Stage 5: Conjunctive Faith. Possibly by middle adulthood, individuals recognize the paradoxicalness of faith and begin to live comfortably with their faith and their questions. There is a re-discovery of the richness of symbol and mystery. Stage 6: Universalizing Faith. If this stage is to develop, it will not do so before middle-age. Persons of this stage are rare as they find themselves feeling at one with God and neighbor.36

Parrot and Steele explain that an Individuative-Reflective professor can be more productive in teaching integration to her students than a Synthetic-Conventional professor. Fowler notes that most adults stabilize at the Synthetic-Conventional stage (stage 3). At this stage, the individuals are conformists to the view of the majority. Here, the question of integration will only move them to assume the position of a leader, who is most charismatic.37 The next stage, the IndividuativeReflective stage, may usher a more personal and independent view of life and faith. However, if the individuals are highly dualistic, they may reject integration, and simply consider psychology as evil or theology as useless to deal with real human problems. In his lectures, Susabda offers an explanation on the psychodynamic in each Fowler’s stage.38 In the Intuitive-Projective stage the individual’s psychological structure meet the theological contents in religious symbols. In the Mythic-Literal Faith, there will be psychologizing of theology, where one’s psychological structure meets the theological contents in the mythical experiences. In the Synthetic-Conventional Faith, the psychological structure will adapt or conform to the theological contents. Ethics will be the meeting point between the psychological

34

Carter and Narramore, 119. Les Parrot III and Les Steele, “Integrating Psychology and Theology at Undergraduate Colleges: A Developmental Perspective,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 23 (1995): 261265. 35

140

36

Parrot and Steele, 263. Parrot and Steele, 264. 38 As far as the author knows, this is an original contribution of Susabda. 37


structure and theological contents in this stage. The development of a personal identity triggers one in the Individuative-Reflective stage to develop personal concepts of theology. The Conjunctive Faith is the stage where one’s psychological structure opens up to unknown possibilities and truths. At this stage, the psyche is open to theological contents, including their paradoxes. The culmination is at the Universalizing Faith stage, where theological contents transform and renew one’s psychological structure. If we compare Fowler’s Stages of Faith with the requirement to be able to tolerate ambiguity for integrators, it is apparent that the Conjunctive Faith is the fruitful stage for integrators. In the Conjunctive Faith stage, one is ready to recognize the paradox of life and to live in it. The Conjunctive Faith seems to be also the pre-requisite to arrive at the ideal of an integrated life. David M. Wulff rightly summarizes the qualities of the Conjunctive Faith as follows: Retaining the realization that ours is a relativistic world, the individual in this stage of faith is genuinely open to the truths of other communities and traditions and at the same time humbly recognizes that ultimate truth extends far beyond the reach of every tradition, including his or her own.39

In the Conjunctive Faith, one can tolerate not only the ambiguity of truths, but also the ambiguity of life itself. I believe that The transition to Stage 5 brings the opposite set of attitudes. Disillusioned and restless with Stage 4 neatness of clear distinctions and abstract concepts, the person moves towards a more dialectical and multileveled approach to life truth. The Conjunctive Faith (Stage 5) person develops the sensitivity to one’s social unconscious ideal images and prejudices built deeply into the self-system. He/she opens up to the voices of the “deeper self”, the paradoxical

realities of life and to the vulnerability of dialogue with the otherness.40

Fowler himself writes about the Conjunctive Faith as follows: Unusual before mid-life, Stage 5 knows the sacrament of defeat and the reality of irrevocable commitments and acts. What the previous stage struggled to clarify, in terms of the boundaries of self and outlook, this stage now makes porous and permeable. Alive to paradox and the truth in apparent contradictions, this stage strives to unify opposites in mind and experience. It generates and maintains vulnerability to the strange truths of those who are “other.” Ready for closeness to that which is different and threatening to self and outlook (including new depths of experience in spirituality and religious revelation), this stage’s commitment to justice is freed from the confines of tribe, class, religious community or nation. And with the seriousness that can arise when life is more than half over, this stage is ready to spend and be spent for the cause of conserving and cultivating the possibility of others’ generating identity and meaning.41

Due to the fact that most adults will remain at the Synthetic-Conventional stage and the integration effort ideally needs individuals in the Conjunctive Faith stage, the difficulty of the integration enterprise is understandable.

Conclusion A balanced and sufficient knowledge in both fields of expertise (for example psychology and theology) are required to perform any integration project responsibly. Humility and the ability to tolerate ambiguity are also the qualities that mark a good integrator. Moreover, it takes the spiritual maturity of the Conjunctive Faith stage to be fruitful for integration; since the ideal of integration is not only the relating of two different disciplines, but the display of an 40 Ihan Martoyo, “The Exclusive-Pluralist, A Psychological Approach to Religious Pluralism,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Graduate Student Conference on Indonesia (Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2009), 1-15.

39

David M. Wulff, Psychology of Religion (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997), 403.

41

James Fowler, Stages of HarperCollins Publishers, 1981), 198.

Faith

(New

York:

141


integrated life. Mother Theresa is one precious example as she writes, I can’t express in words – the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me – for the first time in . . . years – I have come to love the darkness – for I believe now that it is part of a very, very small part of Jesus’ darkness & pain on earth. You have taught me to accept it [as] a ‘spiritual side of your work’ as you wrote – Today really I felt a deep joy – that Jesus can’t go anymore through the agony – but that He wants to go through it in me. – TO NEUNER, CIRCA 196142

Bibliography “Jesus, CEO: Churches as Businesses.” The Economist (December 24, 2005): 41-44. Adams, Jay. Competent to Counsel. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970. Beck, James R. “Balanced Integration: A Reply to Maier and Glass.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 24 (2005): 5155. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from the Prison. New York: Touchstone, 1953. Bufford, R. K. “Consecrated Counseling: Reflections on the Distinctives of Christian Counseling.” Journal of Psychology and Theolog 25 (1997): 111122. Carter, John D. and Bruce Narramore. The Integration of Psychology and Theology: An introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979. Clark, Kelly J. When Faith Is Not Enough. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Eck, Brian. “Integrating the Integrators: An Organiz-ing Framework for A Multifaceted Process of Integration.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 15 (1996): 101-115.

42

142

Van Bierma, 32.

Evans, C. Stephen. “The Concept of the Self as the Key to Integration.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 3 (1984): 4-11. Fowler, James. Stages of Faith. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1981. Johnson, Eric L. and Stanton L. Jones. Psychology and Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Larson, Brian. “Blind Spot.” Leadership Journal 15, no. 3 (July 1994), 78-81. Maier, Bryan N. and John H. Glass. “A Matter of Balance? A Response to Beck.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 24 (2005): 46-50. Martoyo, Ihan. “E-Christianity: Sebuah Eksplorasi Kerangka Integrasi.” In The Integrated Life: Kehidupan Kristiani yang Seutuhnya, edited by Panitia Festschrift, 461-485. Yogyakarta: PBMR Andi, 2006. —————. “The Exclusive-Pluralist, A Psychological Approach to Religious Pluralism.” In Proceedings of the 1st International Graduate Student Conference on Indonesia, 1-15. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2009. Niebuhr, Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper, 1951. Parrot III, Les and Les Steele. “Integrating Psychology and Theology at Undergraduate Colleges: A Developmental Perspective.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 23 (1995): 261-265. Powlison, David. “Critiquing Modern Integrationists.” The Journal of Biblical Counseling 11 (1993): 24-34. Susabda, Yakub B. “Kebenaran yang Memerdekakan.” Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia 2, no. 2 (Juli 2012): 73-80. Tan, Siang-Yang. “Integration and Beyond: Principled, Professional, and Personal.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 20 (2001): 18-28.


Van Biema, David. “Her Agony.” Times, September 3, 2007, 26-33 Vande Kemp, Hendrika. “The Tension Between Psychology and Theology: An Anthropological Solution.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 10 (1982): 205211. Westminster Theological Seminary. "Westminster Theological Seminary – History." Accessed June 6, 2013. http://www.wts.edu/about/history/. Wulff, David M. Psychology of Religion. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997. Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988.

143


Ulasan Buku Cognitive Science, Religion, and Theology: From Human Minds to Divine Minds oleh Justin L. Barrett. West Conshohocken: Templeton Press, 2011. x+234 halaman. US$ 19.95. Cognitive science yang lahir pada tahun 1956 merupakan ilmu yang sangat baru bila dibandingkan “the old big three sciences”, yaitu fisika, kimia, dan biologi (19). Karena itu, tidak heran banyak kesalahmengertian terhadap cognitive science, sekaligus banyak kesempatan terbuka untuk pengembangan dan penelitian dalam ilmu ini. Buku karya Justin L. Barrett ini dapat menjadi salah satu pengantar yang melaluinya para pembaca mendapat pemahaman tentang cognitive science. Buku ini juga sekaligus akan menunjukkan sumbangsih cognitive science dalam agama dan teologi berdasarkan penelitian dan pengembangan yang telah dilakukan selama ini. Barrett memberikan penjelasan tentang cognitive science pada bagian awal dari buku ini. Hal pertama yang sangat ditekankannya adalah cognitive science bukanlah neuroscience, walaupun brain sciences memberikan kontribusi untuk cognitive science. Cognitive science sangat berhubungan dengan apa yang terjadi dalam “mind” (pikiran) manusia (7). Karena itu, cognitive science mencakup banyak area ilmu seperti psikologi, sains komputer, bahasa, neuroscience, filsafat, antropologi, dan arkeologi (13-14). Tercakup pula di dalamnya adalah agama dan teologi. Dalam hal ini, Barrett merasa perlu mengingatkan batasan, yaitu bahwa cognitive science tidak memberikan jaminan atau bukti untuk menentukan mana agama yang benar atau teologi yang benar. Cognitive science hanya memberikan dokumentasi terhadap jalan pemikiran manusia ketika memikirkan agama dan teologi. Oleh sebab itu, Barrett menyimpulkan, dalam perdebatan 144

antara sains dan agama, cognitive science bukanlah teman atau musuh untuk kubu kaum agama atau nonagama, tetapi suatu “alat” yang berguna. Entah “alat” itu akan membantu seseorang untuk mengubah atau meninggalkan kepercayaan dan kebiasaannya, atau malah makin memperkokohnya (ix). Jika cognitive science adalah “alat” yang berguna dalam perdebatan sains dan agama, maka seharusnya cognitive science tidak perlu dihindari terutama oleh orang Kristen, khususnya mereka yang curiga bahwa ilmu ini bermaksud untuk menjatuhkan kekristenan. Hal pertama yang ditunjukkan Barrett sebagai kegunaan cognitive science adalah pembuktian anggapan bahwa dalam diri manusia, bahkan sejak kecil, sudah ada pemikiran atau kesadaran akan Tuhan. Penelitian Barrett menunjukkan hal tersebut, misalnya ketika anak-anak melihat dunia ini maka mereka cenderung berpikir ada “Seseorang”, “intentional agent”, di balik semua pembentukan dunia ini (71). Ini menunjukkan adanya suatu ide tentang Tuhan yang ada dalam diri anak-anak yang bertumbuh bukan karena disengaja. Kesadaran akan Tuhan yang sifatnya “cognitively natural” ini dapat menjadi satu bukti bahwa Allah itu ada, kecuali ada bukti lain untuk menjatuhkan hal ini. Pada umumnya, seseorang akan meminta bukti bahwa Allah itu ada baru ia akan percaya bahwa Allah ada. Namun Barrett mengatakan bahwa kepercayaan akan keberadaan Allah itu “justified (innocent) until proven guilty” (109). Dengan cognitive science, seorang teolog/ rohaniwan dapat mengetahui “concern” para pendengar kontemporer sehingga dapat memberi reaksi/pemahaman yang tepat terhadapnya. Barrett memperingatkan teolog/ rohaniwan agar tidak mengabaikan kontribusi cognitive science dalam area ini dengan berkata,

ULASAN BUKU

The theologian who fails to appreciate the contributions of cognitive science will rapidly find himself or herself trafficking in outmoded ways of thinking and unable to connect with the concerns of contemporary audiences. Such a theologian will also self-impose an unnecessarily scholarly handicap (168).

Sebagai contoh yang berkaitan dengan bagaimana manusia berpikir tentang doktrin tertentu dalam kekristenan, Barrett mengatakan bahwa sebuah konsep doktrinal yang “counterintuitive” dengan cara pikir manusia akan menimbulkan kesulitan untuk diterima dan dilakukan. Karena itu, usaha lebih untuk mengajarkan dan menanamkan hal ini kepada jemaat sangat dibutuhkan. Cara yang dapat dilakukan adalah dengan bantuan “doctrinal specialists” dan “heavy repetition” dalam mengajarkan konsep teologi yang “counterintuitive” tersebut (142). Cara lain adalah yang disebut “context bias”. Artinya, lingkungan sosial dipakai sebagai sarana yang kuat untuk membentuk suatu pemahaman atau kepercayaan seseorang. Lingkungan sosial dalam hal ini terdiri atas “conformity bias” (yang dilakukan oleh kebanyakan orang dalam lingkungan tersebut), “prestige bias” (yang dicontohkan oleh seseorang yang dianggap berpengaruh), dan “similarity bias” (seseorang yang dirasa memiliki kesamaan) (143). Satu cara lagi adalah dengan menunjukkan bahwa konsep teologi yang “counterintuitive” tersebut sebenarnya masuk akal dan dapat dikaitkan dengan kehidupan sehari-hari. Cara-cara seperti ini lebih ampuh daripada sekadar mengadakan perayaan atau seminar gerejawi tentang topik-topik tertentu secara tahunan untuk mengajar jemaat (165). Selain banyak kegunaan, buku ini juga memiliki beberapa kelemahan. Mempelajari buku ini untuk mengenal cognitive science ternyata bukanlah hal yang mudah, sekalipun Barrett sendiri mengakui bahwa bukunya bukanlah buku filsafat atau sejenisnya (x), yang biasanya memang sulit untuk dipelajari dan dipahami. Hal ini menjadi satu tantangan atau kesulitan—jika tidak ingin disebut sebagai kelemahan—untuk para pembaca buku ini.

Diperlukan usaha keras dan banyak pengulangan untuk mempelajari dan memahami isi buku ini. Beberapa alasannya, antara lain, selain karena ilmu ini merupakan ilmu yang baru, beberapa terminologi yang ada di dalamnya seperti misalnya “context bias” terkesan asing bagi beberapa orang yang tidak pernah bersentuhan dengan ilmu atau subjek yang berdekatan dengan cognitive science. Perlu diketahui oleh pembaca Kristen bahwa buku ini sedikit sekali memuat contohcontoh yang secara eksplisit menyinggung pengajaran atau kehidupan Kristen. Ini bisa menjadi satu kesulitan bagi para pembaca Kristen untuk memahami konsep-konsep Barrett. Namun, hal ini bisa dimaklumi karena buku ini memang ditujukan kepada khalayak luas yang lintas agama, bahkan kelompok ateis atau agnostis. Untuk itu, Barrett menggunakan beberapa contoh yang berkaitan dengan agama lain selain Kristen, penelitian-penelitian yang dilakukan di beberapa negara di luar Amerika Serikat, dan juga pemba-hasan-pembahasan yang berkaitan dengan problema umum tentang keberadaan Allah. Melihat semua kesulitan tersebut di atas, saya hanya bisa merekomendasikan buku ini kepada kalangan yang terbatas, yakni para teolog, rohaniwan, dan pengajar, karena pasti akan menjadi satu “alat” yang berguna dalam pelayanan mereka. Tetapi, seperti yang Barrett juga sampaikan, undangan terbuka selalu diberikan kepada para pembaca ataupun orang-orang yang tertarik untuk bergabung mempelajari dan mengembangkan ilmu ini. Masih banyak area dalam ilmu ini yang bisa diteliti dan dikembangkan, mengingat cognitive science sangat bersentuhan dengan banyak ilmu di dunia ini. Begitu antusiasnya Barrett menyampaikan undangan ini hingga dia mengutarakannya di bagian awal dan akhir dari bukunya. Sebagaimana Barrett juga mengakuinya, cognitive science tidak banyak memberikan penyelesaian dalam problema filsafat dan teologi (x). Namun, bagaimanapun juga cognitive science dapat memberikan 145


satu kontribusi untuk memandang suatu problema dengan lebih baik, sebelum sebuah keputusan diambil terhadapnya. Akhir kata dari saya, “Segala kebenaran adalah kebenaran Allah.” Biarlah pernyataan ini selalu menjadi ingatan bagi tiap orang Kristen yang rindu untuk terus mempelajari pengetahuan yang baru, termasuk cognitive science ini. Soli Deo gloria. — Alfred Jobeanto

Tertikam oleh Pemberontakan Kita oleh Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, dan Andrew Sach, diterjemahkan oleh Maria Fenita. Surabaya: Momentum, 2012. xviii+368 halaman. Rp. 100.000,-. Melalui buku ini, tiga sarjana teologi yang memiliki latar belakang pendidikan doktoral berbeda berusaha mewakili kaum Injili membela doktrin substitusi penal (7). Mereka adalah Steve Jeffery (Ph.D. dalam bidang fisika dari Oxford University), Mike Ovey (Ph.D. dalam teologi trinitarian dari King’s College di London), dan Andrew Sach, (Ph.D. dalam bidang mekanisme otak dari University of York). Buku yang aslinya berjudul Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution ini memaparkan argumen ketiga penulis bahwa doktrin substitusi penal memiliki tempat yang sentral di dalam teologi Kristen, memiliki pengaruh yang signifikan secara praktis, dapat dipertanggungjawab secara historis, dan bahwa semua keberatan yang diajukan terhadap doktrin ini dapat dijawab secara komprehensif (19). Sudah banyak buku ditulis tentang substitusi penal, dari mulai yang bersifat akademis hingga yang bersifat populer. Jika sudah ada banyak buku membela doktrin subtitusi penal, mengapa buku ini masih diperlukan? Kompilasi tulisan ketiga penulis ini menjadi penting karena tiga hal. Yang pertama dan utama adalah karena “kritik146

kritik terhadap substitusi penal yang muncul dari kesalahpahaman tidak menunjukkan tanda-tanda akan mereda dan kebingungan yang diakibatkannya di dalam komunitas Kristen tampaknya justru semakin meningkat.” Dalam konteks inilah, muncul signifikansi kedua, yaitu bahwa ketiga penulis buku ini “berusaha mengumpulkan penelitian yang mendetail atas perikop-perikop kunci Alkitab, pertimbangan mengenai isu-isu teologis dan doktrinal yang penting, dan survei yang komprehensif tentang pengajaran gereja Kristen sepanjang zaman di dalam satu buku.” Para penulis juga menyampaikan satu signifikansi lainnya dari buku mereka ini, yaitu dalam hal penyampaiannya. Ternyata para penulis berupaya untuk dapat menghasilkan karya yang berada di tengah-tengah, maksudnya dapat dipahami (readable) oleh orang-orang Kristen tanpa pelatihan teologis formal, tetapi juga tetap dapat dinikmati oleh para sarjana dan akademisi (18). Doktrin subtitusi penal menyatakan bahwa Allah memberi diri-Nya sendiri di dalam Pribadi Anak-Nya sebagai ganti kita untuk menderita kematian, hukuman, dan kutuk yang secara adil ditimpakan kepada umat manusia yang telah terjatuh sebagai hukuman atas dosa. Namun doktrin yang menurut ketiganya merupakan “inti dari Injil” ini (9), telah mendapat tantangan dari berbagai pihak, bahkan dari kalangan Kristen sendiri. Selama satu setengah abad, doktrin ini mendapat tantangan dari “balik pintu-pintu tertutup akademi kesarjanaan liberal”, namun “belakangan ini kritik-kritik terhadap substitusi penal telah disuarakan oleh beberapa teolog dan pemimpin gereja Injili yang berpengaruh, dan menimbulkan badai kontroversi di dalam komunitas Kristen” (13). Beberapa teolog terkenal dan tokoh Kristen yang menggugat doktrin ini di antaranya adalah C. H. Dodd. Sebagai seorang direktur dari panitia yang memproduksi New English Bible (Revised Standard Version, 1946), Dodd mengaburkan rujukan “propisiasi”, sebuah konsep penting

ULASAN BUKU

dalam doktrin substitusi penal. Pandangan Dodd ditentang dengan penuh semangat oleh kaum Injili seperti Leon Morris dan Roger Nicole, juga oleh pengkhotbah terkenal seperti Martyn Llyod-Jones (11). Tokoh lain bernama Steve Chalke dan Alan Mann pada tahun 2003 telah menerbitkan satu buku berjudul The Lost Message of Jesus. Dalam buku itu mereka menyebut doktrin substitusi penal sebagai “bentuk pelecehan anak kosmis”, sebuah tuduhan yang menimbulkan kehebohan yang cukup besar. Kemudian dari kalangan Injili, tokoh terkenal seperti Joel Green dan Brian McLaren (seorang tokoh pemimpin gerakan “Emerging Church” di Amerika Serikat) juga muncul dan terhitung ke dalam kelompok penggugat doktrin substitusi penal (13). Secara garis besar, buku ini dibagi menjadi dua bagian besar. Bagian pertama—Bab 2 hingga Bab 5—adalah bangunan argumen dari doktrin substitusi penal yang dibela oleh ketiga penulis. Mereka menjelaskan, “Dalam Bagian Pertama buku ini, kami membangun argumen positif bagi substitusi penal, secara biblikal, theologis, pastoral, historis” (18-19). Sedangkan bagian kedua—Bab 6 hingga Bab 13—lebih bersifat apologetis, karena bertujuan untuk menjawab berbagai kritik yang dilontarkan untuk melawan doktrin ini. Argumen positif secara biblikal atas doktrin substitusi penal dijelaskan dalam Bab 2. Di dalam bagian ini, Jeffery, Ovey, dan Sach berusaha membuktikan bahwa doktrin substitusi penal diajarkan dengan jelas di dalam halaman-halaman Kitab Suci. Sebuah kalimat penting dinyatakan oleh ketiganya, yaitu bahwa “para murid Yesus dikenal melalui kepercayaan mereka yang rendah hati kepada segala sesuatu yang telah Allah katakan,” termasuk tentang doktrin substitusi penal ini, meskipun dunia mencemooh doktrin ini dan menyebutnya barbar atau tidak adil atau bodoh atau sebutan buruk lainnya (21). Dengan menggali beberapa nats khusus mulai dari Keluaran 12 hingga 1 Petrus 2 dan 3, Jeffery, Ovey, dan Sach

memperkaya pemahaman kita akan doktrin substitusi penal ini sebagaimana yang dinyatakan Allah melalui FirmanNya. Argumen positif secara teologis atas doktrin substitusi penal dijelaskan dalam Bab 3. Dengan menggambarkan bangun teologi Kristen sebagai sebuah jigsaw puzzle, Jeffery, Ovey, dan Sach berusaha menunjukkan “tempat” dari kepingan yang bernama “doktrin substitusi penal” di dalam “gambaran besar” teologi Kristen (95-97). Tema-tema besar dalam teologi Kristen yang diungkap ketiga penulis dalam buku mereka ini adalah tentang penciptaan, dekreasi/rusaknya ciptaan, konsekuensi-konsekuensi dosa, kebenaran, kebaikan, keadilan, keselamatan, dan penebusan. Dalam kesimpulan pemaparannya, ketiga penulis menyatakan, “Substitusi penal memiliki tempat yang mendasar di dalam teologi Kristen. Doktrin ini pas berada di tengah jigsaw untuk melengkapkan gambar yang luar biasa.” Jadi dalam bangun teologi Kristen yang digambarkan sebagai sebuah jigsaw puzzle yang besar itu, “substitusi penal terletak tepat di tengah-tengahnya” (147). Argumen positif secara pastoral atas doktrin substitusi penal dijelaskan dalam Bab 4. Di bawah judul “Menggali Implikasiimplikasi: Arti Penting Substitusi Penal secara Pastoral,” ketiga penulis berupaya menunjukkan bahwa doktrin ini berimplikasi pada keyakinan dalam diri orang percaya terhadap jaminan kasih Allah, kebenaran Allah, pemberian jawab atas hasrat manusia akan keadilan Allah, dan realitas dosa manusia. Tidak diletakkannya topik ini dalam bab terakhir dapat menjadi petunjuk bagi pembaca bahwa terkait doktrin substitusi penal ini, aplikasi bukanlah sebuah tambahan atau tempelan, melainkan satu bagian penting yang harus direnungkan (dan tentu juga dihidupi atau dipraktikkan). Terakhir, agumen positif secara historis atas doktrin substitusi penal dijelaskan dalam Bab 5. Bagi pembaca yang tertarik dengan sejarah, bagian ini menjadi bagian yang dapat memberikan kesenangan. Tidak hanya karena 147


dapat memperkaya pembaca dengan informasi tentang kehidupan tokoh-tokoh Kristen di dalam sejarah, namun juga dapat semakin meneguhkan keyakinannya akan kebenaran dan pentingnya doktrin substitusi penal yang selama ini telah dianutnya. Apalagi, sebagaimana dicatat Jeffery, Ovey, dan Sach, Pertanyaan tentang pedigre (silsilah) historis telah mendapatkan signifikansi lebih lanjut di dalam beberapa tahun terakhir ini, karena semakin banyak jumlah orang yang menyarankan bahwa substitusi penal adalah sebuah doktrin baru . . .” (164).

Di dalam Bab 5 ini ketiga penulis mendiskusikan dua puluh tiga orang dan organisasi, yang terentang dari para Bapa Gereja berbahasa Latin dan Yunani sampai sosok-sosok utama di dalam evangelikalisme modern (164). Meskipun tokoh-tokoh dan organisasi tersebut memiliki ciri khas teologi masing-masing, namun terkait doktrin substitusi penal, “semua penulis ini, tanpa terkecuali, mempercayai doktrin substitusi penal” (165). Jeffery, Ovey, dan Sach mengakui bahwa survei sejarah yang mereka ungkapkan sangat terbatas. Figur-figur penting seperti Martin Luther, John Wesley, dan Jonathan Edwards, dan juga para sarjana mulai dari Louis Berkhof hingga John Piper, telah mereka lewatkan. Meski demikian, poin yang dapat ditunjukkan terkait kepercayaan mereka terhadap doktrin substitusi penal adalah jelas, yaitu bahwa mereka semua mempercayainya (208). Selesai membaca bagian pertama, maka masuklah kita ke dalam bagian kedua yang bersifat apologetis. Salah satu kritik modern terpenting yang direspons dalam buku ini adalah tuduhan “pelecehan anak kosmis” dari Steve Chalke dan Alan Mann (124-125; lebih spesifik lagi lihat Bab 9, subbab 2). Jeffery, Ovey, dan Sach mengajak pembacanya untuk belajar mendengar dengan sungguh-sungguh kritik-kritik yang orang sampaikan tentang doktrin substitusi penal ini (dan ini berarti sungguh-sungguh menyimak dan bukan sekadar menampakkan sikap serius saja). Baru 148

kemudian pembaca dapat menghadapi keberatan-keberatan mereka dengan berani dan berusaha menjawabnya dengan cara yang bijaksana dan koheren (209-10). Dengan sikap ini, para penulis buku ini telah memberikan contoh yang baik bagi setiap cendekiawan Injili untuk berpolemik secara adil (berusaha sebaik mungkin membiarkan pihak lain bersuara dengan segenap kekuatan mereka), cerdas (dengan menunjukkan bukti-bukti), tidak memaksa (mengundang para pembaca untuk mengambil keputusan mereka sendiri), dan tanpa mengorbankan kesatuan Kristen (209-11). Jeffery, Ovey, dan Sach menekankan dan mengulang sekali lagi apa yang ditulis dalam bagian pengantar, Satu hal yang pasti: buku ini tidak akan menolong siapa pun jika satu pihak yang terlibat dari perdebatan ini memilih tidak mau berdialog. Tanpa diskusi, progresnya pasti lambat, jika bukan mustahil (212).

Bagi kepentingan pembaca yang lebih awam, saya menilai bahwa susunan bab mungkin perlu diubah agar lebih mempermudah pembaca mengerti isi buku ini. Bab 3 dapat diletakkan sebelum Bab 2, sehingga dapat menolong pembaca awam untuk lebih dahulu melihat letak penting doktrin substitusi penal dalam bangun teologi mereka. Apalagi di bagian awal dari Bab 3 Jeffery, Ovey, dan Sach memberikan definisi tentang apa itu substitusi penal (97). Sementara itu istilah-istilah teologis yang muncul, seperti misalnya, “propisiasi” (meredakan atau mengalihkan murka) dan “ekspiasi” (membersihkan atau mengampuni), dapat diletakkan dalam daftar kosakata tersendiri di halaman terpisah (73-74). Ini juga berlaku untuk istilah-istilah lain yang muncul kemudian, seperti misalnya: “partisi-pasi” dan “substitusi” (79); “Perspektif Baru Paulus” atau New Perspective of Paul (8087); “rekapitulasi” (126, 131); dan “simplisitas” (136). Ungkapan Indonesia “kebenaradilan” atau “benar-adil” yang dapat ditemui hampir di sepanjang buku ini, mungkin juga baik untuk dijelaskan dalam catatan kaki

ULASAN BUKU

sebagai terjemahan bahasa Indonesia untuk kata righteousness dalam bahasa Inggris. Terlepas dari beberapa kesalahan ketik minor di beberapa halamannya, buku ini saya percaya akan meneguhkan iman banyak orang Kristen akan hal terpenting dari apa yang dipercayainya selama ini. Bagi para mahasiswa teologi tingkat pertama, buku ini dapat menjadi semacam peta untuk memahami, secara khusus, doktrin substitusi penal, dan secara umum, doktrin keselamatan. Bagi para penginjil dan pengkhotbah, bagian apendiks buku ini sangatlah penting, karena bagian ini membahas tentang penggunaan ilustrasi yang tepat untuk menggambarkan aspek-aspek doktrin substitusi penal. Dan bagi setiap orang Kristen, baik kaum akademisi maupun orang-orang Kristen pada umumnya, buku ini merupakan karunia Tuhan yang lahir di zaman kita untuk menolong kita melakukan apa yang Tuhan sendiri kehendaki, yaitu untuk bersiap sedia di segala waktu untuk memberi pertanggungan jawab kepada tiaptiap orang yang meminta pertanggungan jawab tentang pengharapan yang ada pada kita dengan lemah lembut dan hormat, dan dengan hati nurani yang murni (1Pet. 3:1516). — Nurcahyo Teguh Prasetyo

149


Pedoman Penulisan Artikel dan Ulasan Buku 1. Salinan naskah artikel atau ulasan buku yang diserahkan kepada JTRI haruslah yang belum pernah dipublikasikan oleh penerbit lain dalam bahasa apapun, kecuali atas permintaan tertulis dari JTRI dan atas seizin penerbit sebelumnya. 2. Semua referensi identitas penulis tidak boleh disertakan baik dalam teks maupun catatan kaki naskah yang diserahkan. Di halaman terpisah dari naskah, penulis harus menyertakan profil singkat yang berisikan: nama lengkap, gelar akademis, jabatan atau posisi akademis, afiliasi institusional, alamat tempat tinggal, dan alamat email. Naskah beserta halaman profil singkat dapat dikirimkan via pos dalam bentuk compact disc (CD) atau via email dalam bentuk lampiran (attachment). 3. Semua naskah haruslah diketik rapi dengan spasi ganda dan mengikuti aturan The Chicago Manual of Style (Turabian) yang terbaru. 4. Semua naskah artikel dan ulasan buku yang diserahkan kepada JTRI akan melewati proses blind peer-review system dengan melibatkan para akademisi dengan bidang keahlian yang sesuai sebagai mitra bestari (reviewer/referee) JTRI. Penelaahan artikel oleh mitra bestari dilakukan secara anonim. Penulis juga akan menerima masukan dalam bentuk komentarkomentar dari mitra bestari secara anonim melalui dewan penyunting JTRI. 5. Proses evaluasi oleh dewan penyunting dan mitra bestari memakan waktu sekitar 3 bulan. Keputusan akhir publikasi setiap artikel merupakan hak dewan penyunting JTRI. 6. Naskah artikel ditulis sesuai dengan kaidah tata bahasa (baik Indonesia maupun Inggris) yang baik dan benar, dengan panjang sekitar 5 sampai 12 ribu kata, termasuk catatan kaki. 7. Naskah artikel yang diserahkan haruslah esai akademis dalam bidang teologi, filsafat, dan psikologi yang terintegrasi di dalam semangat Reformed Injili. 8. Naskah ulasan buku hendaknya berkisar antara 500 sampai 1000 kata, tergantung kepada buku yang hendak diulas. Informasi bibliografi harus tertera di awal ulasan buku, dengan menggunakan format seperti contoh di bawah ini: Ikhtisar Dogmatika oleh R. Soedarmo. Cetakan ke-15. Jakarta: Gunung Mulia, 2009. xv + 260 halaman. Rp. 39.000,-. 9. Penggunaan huruf besar: a. Huruf besar hanya digunakan untuk nama Allah (Adonai, Tritunggal, Logos, Anak Manusia); nama buku (Alkitab, Naskah Laut Mati, Talmud, Apocrypha, Pentateukh, kitab-kitab Injil); nama atau gelar dari pribadi yang dikenal secara umum (Yohanes Pembaptis, Sang Juruselamat, si Jahat, Antikristus); nama peristiwa-peristiwa kunci dan doktrin (Penciptaan, Kejatuhan, Penyaliban, Penebusan, Kebangkitan, Gereja Mulamula, Reformasi); nama sakramen (Perjamuan Kudus, Ekaristi, Baptisan Kudus) 150

PEDOMAN PENULISAN ARTIKEL DAN ULASAN BUKU

b. Huruf besar tidak digunakan untuk kata-kata sifat turunan dari nama-nama yang disebutkan di atas (talmudik, kristologis, trinitarian, reformasional, kristiani, kekristenan). Perhatikan penggunaan huruf besar untuk kata-kata sifat turunan yang juga berfungsi sebagai nama: Kristologi, Kristen, Reformed. 10. Penulisan halaman: Gunakan penulisan halaman yang inklusif, misalnya: 166-167, dan bukan 166f. Dalam catatan kaki jangan menggunakan singkatan hal., tapi indikasikan nomor halaman dengan jelas seperti contoh berikut: artikel: Yakub B. Susabda, “Teologi Reformed Injili,” Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia 1, no. 1 (Juli 2011): 3-10. buku: R. Soedarmo, Ikhtisar Dogmatika (Jakarta: Gunung Mulia, 2009), 20-25. 11. Penggunaan singkatan: a. Jangan menggunakan ibid., op. cit., loc. cit., art. cit., dan ad. loc. Sebagai gantinya, untuk referensi yang diulang gunakan nama penulis dan judul buku atau artikel yang diperpendek seperti beberapa contoh di bawah ini: Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, trans. G. T. Thomson (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 15. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 47. Charles Chaney, “Missionary Dynamics in the Theology of John Calvin,” Reformed Review 17 (1964): 24-38. Chaney, “Missionary Dynamics,” 35. b. Untuk referensi dalam catatan kaki, tulis judul jurnal secara lengkap dan tidak disingkat. Contoh: Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia, bukan JTRI. c. Gunakan nama lengkap untuk referensi kitab-kitab dalam Alkitab di dalam isi artikel. Untuk referensi di dalam tanda kurung atau catatan kaki, singkatan kitab-kitab dalam Alkitab harus mengikuti petunjuk LAI sebagai berikut: Perjanjian Lama Kej. Kel. Im. Bil. Ul. Yos. Hak.

Rut 1Sam. 2Sam. 1Raj. 2Raj. 1Taw. 2Taw.

Ezr. Neh. Est. Ayb. Mzm. Ams. Pkh.

Kid. Yes. Yer. Rat. Yeh. Dan. Hos.

Yl. Am. Ob. Yun. Mi. Nah. Hab.

Zef. Hag. Za. Mal.

1Pet. 2Pet. 1Yoh. 2Yoh. 3Yoh.

Yud. Why.

Perjanjian Baru Mat. Mrk. Luk. Yoh. Kis.

Rom. 1Kor. 2Kor. Gal. Ef.

Flp. Kol. 1Tes. 2Tes. 1Tim.

2Tim. Tit. Flm. Ibr. Yak.

151

Para Kontributor

Armand Barus adalah Pendeta GBKP Rawamangun-Pulomas dan Dosen Biblika Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Cipanas dan Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Reformed Indonesia. Nathaniel Gray Sutanto adalah mahasiswa program M.A.R. di Westminster Theological Seminary. Yuzo Adhinarta adalah Dosen Teologi Sistematika dan Historika dan Direktur Program Pascasarjana Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Reformed Indonesia. Ihan Martoyo adalah Dosen dan Ketua Jurusan Teknik Elektro Universitas Pelita Harapan dan mahasiswa program M.T.S. di Duke University. Alfred Jobeanto adalah Rohaniwan Gereja Kristen Abdiel Gloria, Koordinator Kerohanian Sekolah Kristen Gloria, Surabaya, dan mahasiswa program M.Th. Teologi Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Reformed Indonesia. Nurcahyo Teguh Prasetyo adalah Pembina Pemuda Gereja Kristen Kalam Kudus Jayapura dan mahasiswa program M.Th. Teologi Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Reformed Indonesia.

152

Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia

Recommend Documents