Preachers, Performatives & Pragmatists
why Fr. Kimel’s right about how the doctrine of justification functions
Below is my response to Fr Aidan’s Preaching Gospel as Gospel, or Why the Churches Still Need the (Lutheran) Reformation.
After they had both heard the Gospel preached by the missionary bishop Paulinus, an advisor of King Edwin of Northumberland said to him:
The present life of man, O king, seems to me, in comparison of that time which is unknown to us, like to the swift flight of a sparrow through the room wherein you sit at supper in winter, with your commanders and ministers, and a good fire in the midst, whilst the storms of rain and snow prevail abroad; the sparrow, I say, flying in at one door, and immediately out at another, whilst he is within, is safe from the wintry storm; but after a short space of fair weather, he immediately vanishes out of your sight, into the dark winter from which he had emerged. So this life of man appears for a short space, but of what went before, or what is to follow, we are utterly ignorant. If, therefore, this new doctrine contains something more certain, it seems justly to deserve to be followed.
re: justification and the performative mode of promise
Does the doctrine norm how we speak — such that the proclamation of the gospel may be likened to an ex operato sacramental act, which accomplishes what it signifies?
Does the doctrine function, as Fr Aidan asks, by “actually shaping discourse and praxis in light of the free gift of redemption.”
If it is true, as Fr Aidan continues, that — ‘We are justified by faith’ stipulates that the church’s audible or visible promise of righteousness must be so structured rhetorically and logically that it accepts no lesser response than faith. If the gospel is rightly spoken to or enacted for me, it places me where I can finally say only ‘I believe, help my unbelief’ or ‘Depart from me.’
then, how and why is that true?
Of all the philosophers interested in the performative significance of utterances & proclamations, the American pragmatists, Peirce & James, are among my favorites.
Consistent with Fr Aidan’s notion that “the gospel, when rightly spoken to or enacted for me, places me where” is James’ description of faith as a live, vital (momentous) & forced option.
By “live” option, we mean truly reasonable & practicable.
By “vital & momentous,” we refer to a response that’s not trivial but is invested with a profound existential import.
By “forced,” James means unavoidable, where even “not to choose” is to choose.
The Peircean-inspired Walker Percy, in his essay, Message in a Bottle, can add further context. Percy likens our human predicament to that of island castaways, who are in dire need of rescue & looking for news from across the seas. He draws a distinction between news & knowledge and says we must understand the Gospel as a piece of news (from across the seas) & not a piece of knowledge.
If the Gospel as news does indeed present us with James’ live, vital & forced option, then we best turn to Percy’s criteria for the acceptance of a piece of news:
The news must be –
relevant to the hearer’s predicament;
likely & practicable; &
from a newsbearer, who is trustworthy.
As King Edwin’s advisor suggested, if the doctrine contains something more certain, it seems justly to deserve to be followed.
While the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity’s Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification largely addresses the kerygmatic content of the doctrine, i.e. what the doctrine says, among its source documents one will find guidance for how the doctrine functions, especially in _The Condemnations of the Reformation Era. Do they Still Divide? Edited by Karl Lehmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Minneapolis, 1990_, hereafter LV:E 69.
Look at the excerpts, below, from LV:E 69 and pay attention to how the doctrine functions:
the doctrine of justification—and, above all, its biblical foundation—will always retain a special function in the church. That function is continually to remind Christians that we sinners live solely from the forgiving love of God, which we merely allow to be bestowed on us, but which we in no way—in however modified a form—‘earn’ or are able to tie down to any preconditions or postconditions (LV:E 69).
For Lutherans and Catholics, the doctrine of justification has a different status in the hierarchy of truth; but both sides agree that the doctrine of justification has its specific function in the fact that it is ‘the touchstone for testing at all times whether a particular interpretation of our relationship to God can claim the name of “Christian.” At the same time it becomes the touchstone for the church, for testing at all times whether its proclamation and its praxis correspond to what has
been given to it by its Lord’ (LV:E 69).
Finally, it is precisely my belief in the above criteria for how the doctrine of justification is to function in shaping our proclamations & corresponding praxes, that one should seriously consider Fr Aidan’s universalist implications of the metalinguistic rule. See, therefore, his essay “Preaching Apokatastasis: St. Isaac the Syrian and the Grammar of the Kingdom,” Logos, 58 (2017): 197–213.