Reformed Indonesia - Covenantal Thoughts

Transcription

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
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, 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
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
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
54
55
92
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
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
69
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
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
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
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|
(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|
(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
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
116
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.
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
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
Emphasis mine.
39
40
41
Laurence, 115. Emphasis mine.
42
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,” 335-336.
6
7
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
13
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,” 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
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
27
Michaelsen, “Change,” 323. Cf., Perkins, “A
Treatise,” 757ff. col. 1D.
28
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
37
38
118
39
40
Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 112 col. 2-114 col.
1.
41
43
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
46
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
49
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
Baxter, “A Christian Directory,” 8 col. 1. Cotton
Mather, A Conquest over the Grand Excuse of Sinfulness and
Slothfulness (Boston, 1706), 29.
54
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.
59
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
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
69
70
71
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
75
76
Michaelsen, “Change,” 327; cf. Baxter, “A Christian
Directory,” 239 col. 1-2.
77
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
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
81
82
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
85
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
88
Michaelsen, “Change,” 334-335.
89
90
91
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
“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,” 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
100
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
103
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.
106
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
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
111
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
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
120
121
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
125
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
128
129
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
132
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
131
135
137
138
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
2.
140
1, 321 col. 2.
141
142
143
“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.
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
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
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
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

Reformed Indonesia - Covenantal Thoughts

Transcription

Similar documents

Pengurusan Landskap oleh Pihak Berkepentingan

TandaslMalaYSla Jasinraihgangsa

ppt-pdf - Retno Mastuti – Plant Physiology (Plant Tissue Culture)

KOLOKIUM PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIK DAN SAINS 2012 KERTAS

MTIB Impian Lifestyle With Wood

Buletin Akademik Jun 2012 - Terengganu

It - Pernec Corporation Berhad

KerajaanSelangoFmahuse[llq`fPBTgOnabahan`,bol

Rises from the ruins

Volume 5 - Pharmaniaga