A Theology of Disagreement

New Testament Ethics for Ecclesial Conflicts

Christopher Landau

• Publisher: SCM Press
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780334060451
• eBook ISBN: 9780334060475
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Even the most casual contemporary observer of Christianity must recognise that the notion of Christian community being identifiable through the mutual love of its members (John 13: 35) is difficult to reconcile with the schismatic reality of current ecclesial life. Nonetheless, disagreement remains an ethical subject neglected by theologians.A Theology of Disagreement: New Testament Ethics for Ecclesial Conflicts examines how New Testament texts inform Christian approaches to disagreement. Drawing on New Testament themes, the book explores the nature of an ethic of disagreement, and its practical implications for the church's public theological witness, as well as its liturgy

Part 1: Disagreement in the New Testament

1. The Paradox of Jesus: Both Biographical Paradigm and Moral Teacher

The biographical accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus, found within the Synoptic Gospels, offer a logical location for the beginnings of our search for examples of disagreement from the New Testament that can resource an emerging theology of disagreement. In our particular context, this also means applying Richard Hays’ methodology for ethicists using Scripture to our reading of the Synoptic Gospels. Following Hays, we will mostly be responding to the narrative concerns of the text itself; the primary focus of this chapter and those that follow in Part 1 is a descriptive consideration of instances where disagreement occurs or is discussed within the texts of the New Testament.

Given our focus on internal disagreement within the church, there is a significant distinction to be made from the outset, between the legacy of Jesus’ example – his own engagement with others as recorded biographically by Gospel writers – and his teaching. We will consider how Jesus promotes an ethic of loving unity within the kingdom, and therefore within the church, while rigorously and sometimes vituperatively challenging morality and other practices that stand in contradiction with the kingdom. There is a tension here, with inescapable implications for the formulation of a Christian ethic that responds to the fact of disagreement within the church. In Richard Hays’ terms, we might describe this distinction as a tension that, having been identified, needs to be allowed to stand – for now at least – in the context of this initial, descriptive task.

In the sections that follow, it is a distinction that prompts theological reflection on how contemporary discipleship may best be understood in the context of the facing of disagreement within the church, and whether to be a faithful disciple means following Christ’s teaching, his example or both. The seemingly uncontroversial Christian call to Christlikeness is one that is particularly complex, and potentially ambiguous, for disagreeing Christians. The use of anger in contemporary ecclesial disagreement is sometimes justified with reference to Jesus’ angry engagement with his religious opponents; my concern will be to show that a distinction should be made between Jesus’ words and actions when defining the kingdom in debate with those who stand beyond it, and the ethic of mutual loving relationship that he both models and commends among those who have chosen to follow him. The extent to which Christians might appropriately use anger in disagreement with those outside the church, perhaps appealing to Jesus’ engagement with the Pharisees as justification, is beyond the scope of our discussion: our focus is on the moral theology that can be discerned from the New Testament to resource approaches to disagreement within the church.

As we shall see, many of the virtuous attributes that might ordinarily be associated with Christian discipleship are not necessarily found in the person and attitudes of Jesus – but crucially, his anger and rancour tend to be visible on occasions where the way of the kingdom is being articulated or defended. Part of my discussion will involve a consideration of what place anger, insult and provocation may have within recognizably Christian discourse, while acknowledging that my focus is those disagreements that happen within the bounds of Christian community.

As will become evident with particular clarity in our subsequent consideration of John’s Gospel, the biblical scholar pursuing hermeneutics, and the ethicist with a concern for moral theology, may well not both find material of interest in the same biblical verses. In my exploration of disagreement as an ethical theme within the Synoptic Gospels, my task is to discern examples where instances of disagreement can help resource a theology of disagreement – and this process is carried out within the biblical narrative as we have received it. This is not to be naive to the complexities of the biblical text; but it is to underline the essentially interpretative, theological role that the Christian ethicist has in mind as they approach the Bible, drawing on the fruits of specifically textual scholarship as necessary.

The conclusion of this chapter includes some preliminary reflections on the possibility of a theological synthesis regarding disagreement in the Synoptic Gospels, though this ‘synthetic’ work, and Hays’ ‘hermeneutical task’, will largely be undertaken in Part 2, with all the relevant New Testament texts before us. The fourth ‘pragmatic task’ in Hays’ scheme, ‘Living the Text’, concerns applied ecclesiological questions, which are addressed in relation to disagreement in Part 3. In this chapter, we can be confident to focus our Synoptic consideration on the words and deeds of Jesus, relating other instances of disagreement to his own example. But this needs to be done having carefully distinguished between different sorts of encounter between Jesus and others within the Gospel texts: it is to such instances that we now turn.

Jesus as paradigm

Jesus’ disagreements with those who oppose him or do not follow him

The disagreements between Jesus and those he encounters in an oppositional way in the course of his public ministry often follow a strikingly similar narrative pattern: Jesus hears criticism, is provocative in response and may out-wit or out-manoeuvre his interlocutors rather than answer their questions directly. A series of three encounters with different groups in Matthew 9 is instructive. In response to the scribes, who accuse him of blasphemy, Jesus questions his critics: ‘Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven”, or to say, “Stand up and walk”?’ (vv. 4b–5). Following this exchange, the Pharisees’ questioning of the dubious company kept by Jesus is met with a response that might easily be characterized as blunt: ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick … I have come to call not the righteous but sinners’ (vv. 12–13). Finally, in this chapter, a question about fasting is put to Jesus by the ‘disciples of John’. Again, Jesus responds obliquely, with a series of metaphorical questions and observations that do not engage with the specific question of fasting, but which do underline that his life and ministry inaugurate a new and distinctive approach to religious observance (see Matt. 9.14–17).

When faced with disagreement with figures in religious authority, Jesus regularly speaks in ways that hardly seem designed to appease or ingratiate. The account of his speaking in the synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4 offers a particularly striking example of his inflammatory approach to public speech. The rage of his Jewish hearers following his account of historical examples of favour shown towards Gentiles (Luke 4.24–27) leads to a moment of dramatic impending violence resolved only by Jesus’ apparently miraculous passage through the midst of the furious crowd. Later in the same Gospel, the indignation of the leader of another synagogue following a Sabbath healing is met with an accusation of hypocrisy by Jesus. Luke records the impact of Jesus contrasting a willingness to give water to animals on the Sabbath with a refusal to heal humans on the same day: ‘When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing’ (Luke 13.17).

Here we witness that Jesus’ strident approach to disagreement is central to the communication of his message: the humiliation of opponents enabled the crowds’ clear understanding of the substantial change in religious attitudes that he was promoting. So disagreement, in such cases – of which there are many – enables Jesus to distinguish his own ministry from inherited Jewish practices. The account of the healing of the paralysed man in Mark 2 adds a further dimension to our understanding of Jesus’ approach to disagreement, when scribes present ‘were sitting there, questioning in their hearts’ (v. 6). Here, Jesus uses his own spiritual insight to perceive the scribes’ disagreement with him. Without their actually uttering a word, Jesus questions them with characteristic forthrightness, and then proceeds to command the paralysed man to stand up and walk. In this instance, Jesus’ engagement with his opponents does not involve a verbalized disagreement, but highlights his readiness to confront thoughts as well as actions that represent opposition to his ministry.

A sequence of encounters between Jesus and opponents in Mark 12 further underlines the willingness of Jesus to engage in strident disputes – but here, crucially for our purposes, this antagonistic approach to disagreement is found in the closest possible proximity to Jesus’ articulation of the double love command. After some Pharisees and Herodians have challenged him on a question regarding taxation, and he has responded bluntly, some Sadducees’ question about marriage in the resurrection draws a scathing response: ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?’ (v. 24). Jesus ends by telling them that they are ‘quite wrong’ – disagreeing emphatically. The verses that follow in Mark’s account are of primary interest as we consider a theology of disagreement. When, in verse 28, ‘One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another’, disagreement is clearly established as the context for what follows. Amid the rancour and arguments concerning the questions being put to him by those in religious authority, Jesus gives primary importance to the commands to love God and neighbour – and the scribe responds, ‘You are right, Teacher’ (v. 32). In the space of a few moments, dispute has been replaced by affirmation, and Jesus comments that the scribe is not far from the kingdom of God. As William Lane notes, ‘The love which determines the whole disposition of one’s life and places one’s whole personality in the service of God reflects a commitment to God which springs from divine sonship.’1

In Part 2 I will consider the ethical significance of the double love command as a potential methodological foundation for Christian ethical reflection. Importantly at this stage, we need to recognize the narrative weight of these two commands and the extent to which they can offer a robust basis for scripturally grounded theological reflection. It is, after all, hardly controversial to suggest that Jesus makes clear his ethical priorities when he states that ‘there is no other commandment greater than these’ (Mark 12.31). But what is often lacking in theological ethical discourse is an attempt to use this as a starting point from which to approach particular questions in moral theology. In the context of a theology of disagreement, the immediate scriptural context is tantalizing, for it is in the midst of an angry and combative disagreement with opponents that Jesus outlines some of the key ethical teachings of his earthly ministry. His appeal to the centrality of love – an appeal too often made with bland generality in contemporary church disputes – comes in the midst of his own argumentative exchanges, which can hardly be described as straightforwardly loving in their approach towards the other with whom Jesus disagrees.

There is a need to distinguish between the recorded words and actions of Jesus as he confronts opposition to the kingdom, and his theological teaching as he establishes how the kingdom on earth becomes visible, including what sort of moral practices are compatible with its inauguration. In relation to the former, his approach can be combative and dismissive of opponents, but crucially such instances refer to critique of the current situation rather than a description of life in the kingdom he proclaims. Tom Wright points out that Jesus’ anger and controversy was ultimately concerned with kingdom matters: ‘It was precisely Jesus’ eschatological programme which led him into opposition with a good many of his contemporaries, and which finally steered him towards the actions which provoked his death.’2 But Jesus’ approach in such instances does not offer a straightforward paradigm for the subsequent facing of disagreement within the church as an expression of the kingdom. The invitation to kingdom life points to a new beginning for human relationships, grounded in the priority given to unity among disciples. In Mark 3, the scribes who came down from Jerusalem accuse Jesus of demonic activity. He responds, ‘If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand’ (vv. 24–25). In these words, rebutting the scribes’ suggestion that he uses demonic power to cast out demons, Jesus indicates that any kingdom derives its strength from its unity. As we shall go on to see, unity among believers as an expression of the presence of the kingdom of God is a key New Testament theme that has its own bearing on how disagreeing Christians might choose to approach occasions of disunity.

Our discussion thus far, considering Jesus’ engagement with those with whom he disagrees publicly, has focused on his interaction with figures from the religious establishment that he sought to criticize. His encounter with the Syrophoenician woman is, however, an important final example of a disagreement involving Jesus, noteworthy on several counts, and unique in that it represents an example of Jesus’ mind being changed as a result of a moment of disagreement. In Mark’s Gospel, immediately after an exchange with the disciples where he tells them that dietary laws are to be overturned – food not being responsible for the generation of evil intentions – Jesus fails to enter a house without being noticed and is confronted by ‘a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter’ (Mark 7.26). The subsequent exchange between the woman and Jesus deserves sustained reflection as we explore instances of disagreement within the Synoptic Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life.

Morna Hooker suggests that the key challenge presented by this narrative is

its presentation of Jesus as almost churlish in his reluctance to help the Gentile woman, and erratic in the way in which he then changed his mind. Most readers of the gospel feel that this is out of character with what they would otherwise know of Jesus. Yet it seems unlikely that such a story would have been invented.3

Viewed in the context of Jesus’ mission to the Jews, this episode constitutes a crucial indication that Gentiles too are welcome at the heavenly banquet, even though Jesus’ own ministry is focused on Israel. Nonetheless, the offensive nature of ‘dogs’ as a Jewish term for Gentiles is inescapable. As R. T. France notes, ‘It is the sort of language a Gentile might expect from a Jew, but to find it in a saying of Jesus is shocking.’4 Alongside this uncompromising language is the culturally unexpected phenomenon of a Gentile woman challenging a male Jewish teacher. The reader is left in little doubt that it is as a result of her retort, ‘Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs’ (7.28), that Jesus chose to heal her daughter.

The woman’s clearly expressed faith in Jesus’ ability to heal is coupled with her willingness to challenge Jesus at the point that they disagree. Moreover, it is through the act of disagreement that the way is opened for healing to occur – and this after Jesus has first sought to dismiss her. Craig Evans points out that the account of the same incident in Matthew’s Gospel intensifies the unexpected nature of Jesus’ engagement with a Gentile. In verse 24 Jesus affirms that he ‘was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’, making this interaction beyond the Jewish people all the more significant. Evans notes that the exchange should not be read in a way that implies parity between Jew and Gentile at this point in the New Testament: the woman ‘is not attempting to put herself on an equal footing with the people of Israel. Implicit in her reply is the conviction that God’s grace is so great that there is more than enough to go around, even while it is being extended to Israel first.’5

This incident in the life of Jesus is particularly striking in two ways: it highlights the caustic nature of the language used by Jesus in the context of verb...

Table of contents

• Copyright information
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part 1: Disagreement in the New Testament
• 1. The Paradox of Jesus: Both Biographical Paradigm and Moral Teacher
• 2. Johannine Perspectives on Loving Unity
• 3. Disagreements Faced on Mission within the Acts of the Apostles
• 4. Pauline Ethics of Relationship within the Body of Christ
• 5. The Priority of Holy Speech and Conduct in Other New Testament Texts
• Part 2: Disagreeing Christianly: Constructing a New Testament Ethic of Disagreement
• Introduction to Part 2
• 6. The Recovery of the Double Love Command in New Testament Ethics
• 7. Living Out the Double Love Command: A New Theology of Disagreement
• Part 3: Ecclesiological Implications of a Theology of Disagreement
• Introduction to Part 3
• 8. Public Theological Witness: Theological Ethics for Christians Disagreeing in Public
• 9. Pneumatology: Invoking the Holy Spirit in Christian Disagreement
• 10. Liturgy: The Place of Worship in the Pursuit of Loving Disagreement
• Conclusion
• Bibliography