Andrew M. McCoy PhD thesis

219 Pages·2009·1.53 MB·English

FAITH AT THE FRACTURES OF LIFE:
AN EXAMINATION OF LAMENT AND PRAISE IN RESPONSE TO
HUMAN SUFFERING WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE
THEOLOGY OF WALTER BRUEGGEMANN AND DAVID FORD
Andrew Michael McCoy
A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD
at the
University of St. Andrews
2009
Full metadata for this item is available in the St Andrews
Digital Research Repository
at:
https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/824
This item is protected by original copyright
UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS
ST MARY’S COLLEGE
!

FAITH AT THE FRACTURES OF LIFE:

AN EXAMINATION OF LAMENT AND PRAISE IN
RESPONSE TO HUMAN SUFFERING WITH
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE THEOLOGY OF
WALTER BRUEGGEMANN AND DAVID FORD

A THESIS SUBMITTED BY

ANDREW MICHAEL MCCOY

TO THE FACULTY OF DIVINITY
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

S A , S
T NDREWS COTLAND
A 2009
PRIL
ii
Abstract

This thesis explores the role of lament and praise in the respective theological
approaches of Walter Brueggemann and David Ford for the purpose of examining how
Christian faith transforms human response to suffering.

The first three chapters trace Brueggemann’s engagement with Israel’s lament psalms,
beginning with his observation that their typical dual form mirrors the collective shape
of Israel’s psalter as well as all biblical faith. Influential interactions with sociology
eventually lead Brueggemann to propose faith not simply as response to God’s
faithfulness, but rather through rhetorical tension maintained between conflicts
perceived in aspects of scripture such as praise and lament. We critique this view of
irresolvable textual tension for leaving Brueggemann with an unresolved understanding
of divine fidelity which obscures biblical expectation that God will respond faithfully to
human lament.

The fourth and fifth chapters concern David Ford’s consistent engagement with praise
and subsequently, Christian joy. His early collaborative scholarship proposes praise as
the result of faith in who God is through the suffering person and work of Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, continued ethical concerns lead Ford to identify Christian faith as an
inextricable relationship between joy and responsibility resulting from “facing” Christ’s
life and suffering death. We critique Ford for failing to clarify !"# such “facing” is
made possible through #!"$God is in Christ, rendering faith merely the result of human
expression of Christ’s example, and thus obscuring any real reason for praise amidst
suffering.

Beyond a synthesis of Brueggemann and Ford’s respective approaches to lament and
praise, the final chapter argues that a trinitarian approach to Christ’s atonement is
necessary to propose how God confronts both suffering and sin thereby producing
faithful human response amidst persistent evil. We conclude by arguing that a trinitarian
understanding of praise cannot be proposed apart from either who God is in Christ’s
atonement or how the atoning Christ is humanly faithful in lament.
iii
Declarations

I, Andrew Michael McCoy, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately
80,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out
by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree.

Date .......................... Signature of Candidate ...................................................

I was admitted as a research student in September 2004 and as a candidate for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in April 2005, the higher study for which this is a record
was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2004 and 2009.

Date .......................... Signature of Candidate ...................................................

I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and
Regulations appropriate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of St.
Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that
degree.

Date .......................... Signature of Supervisor ...................................................

In submitting this thesis to the University of St. Andrews we understand that we are
giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations
of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in
the work not being affected thereby. We also understand that the title and the abstract
will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona
fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for
personal or research use unless exempt by award of an embargo as requested below, and
that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as required
to ensure continued access to the thesis. We have obtained any third-party copyright
permissions that may be required in order to allow such access and migration, or have
requested the appropriate embargo below.

The following is an agreed request by candidate and supervisor regarding the electronic
publication of this thesis:

Access to printed copy and electronic publication of thesis through the University of St
Andrews.

Date .......................... Signature of Candidate ...................................................

Date  ......................... Signature of Supervisor ..................................................
iv
Acknowledgements

I bear no little gratitude at the end of this arduous road towards submission of a doctoral
thesis.

Thanks must first go to my esteemed supervisors Jeremy Begbie (now at Duke
University) and Trevor Hart of St. Andrews for their help and guidance of this project.
Tremper Longman of Westmont College in Santa Barbara, CA also kindly read drafts of
my chapters on Brueggemann, and David Ford himself generously entertained me for an
afternoon in his office at Cambridge during the earliest stages of my work. Additionally,
I owe a very great debt to Dan Allender of Mars Hill Graduate School in Seattle, WA
and his matchless wife Rebecca. This project would have scarcely begun apart from
Dan’s thought and influence and would have faltered in the end without his and Becky’s
ongoing care and attention.

Many dear colleagues shaped the years and experiences shared by my family and
myself in St. Andrews, especially those who worked alongside me in the Duncan room
of the Roundel. I will never forget the camaraderie known with Grant Macaskill, Ian
Werrett, Casey Nicholson, Allison Connett, Emily Hearn, and in particular, Jeff
Oldfield. Nor can I fail to recount with deep affection the many conversations shared
amidst the wider St. Mary’s community including Cindy Burris, Andy and Stacy Cooke,
Chris and Lisa Chandler, Jeremy and Sarah Gabrielson, Matt Jenson, Mariam Kamell,
Jen Kilps, Gisela Kreglinger, Reno and Dana Lauro, Suzanne MacDonald and Andrew
Rawnsley.

St. Leonard’s Parish Church, and the Very Reverend Alan MacDonald, weekly
shepherded our family in faith, worship and community, even when our beleaguered
household had little to offer in return. We remain humbled by the love shown to us by
several St. Andrews families: the Curries, the Fraisers, the Fields and the Irvings. Also,
back in the U.S., Cecilia Belvin and the Prayer Ministry Team of Cypress Creek Church
in Wimberley, TX, regularly prayed for both our family and this project.

Invaluable friends from my seminary days offered continual encouragement throughout
this process, especially Bill Bedell, John Cake and Nathan Ecklund. Most of all, Peter
Altmann, while engaged in his own doctoral studies at Princeton Seminary and the
University of Zurich, remained my constant support, sounding board and chief source of
sanity in dark times. I thank the Holy Spirit, British Telecom and the Internet for
keeping our hearts so tightly knit together.

The same sentiments must be expressed for two mentors of mine outside of the
academy, Stan Smartt and Steve Sellers. Their irreplaceable influence has kept life close
to my theology even as theology has become increasingly central to my life.

Family have been relentless in their care and unflagging in their support. My parents,
Mike and Myra McCoy, as well as my wife’s, Shelby and Ann Robertson, and everyone
in the McCoy and Robertson families have sacrificed much to make this work possible.
I also cannot imagine life apart from the constant blessing and challenge of my children
Rylan, Lucas, Anna and Nathan, the latter two who arrived to our family in Scotland.
Their faces never cease to fill my days with wonder and delight.
v

Finally, no expression or acknowledgement is equal to the gratitude I feel for Laurel. In
moments of great adversity, she has time and again steered my anguish back to lament
and praise before our Holy God. Her steadfast love and commitment on behalf of not
only our family and me, but also the work herein, has made all possible.

A. M. M.
Blanco Chapel at McCoy Ranch
Kyle, Texas
Easter 2009
vi
Table of Contents

Abstract ii
Declarations iii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents vi

Introduction 1

Chapter 1—Faithful Response to Suffering: The Lament Psalm in
Brueggemann’s Biblical Scholarship 6

I. Brueggemann’s Formative Influences
A. Form Criticism and the Psalms
i. Hermann Gunkel
ii. Sigmund Mowinckel
iii. Claus Westermann
B. The Centrality of Lament for Biblical Faith
i. “From Hurt to Joy, From Death to Life”—Brueggemann’s first
study
ii. “The Role of Lament in the Old Testament”—Westermann’s
mature statement
II. Forming His Own Approach—“The Formfulness of Grief”
III. The Message of Brueggemann’s New Typology
A. “The Psalms and the Life of Faith: A Suggested Typology of Function”
B. %!&$’&(()*&$"+$,!&$-()./(0$1$%!&"."*23).$4"//&5,)67
i. Psalms of orientation
ii. Psalms of disorientation
iii. Psalms of new orientation
C. The concluding message

Chapter 2—Faithful Response or Constitution of Our Faith? The
Lament Psalm in Brueggemann’s Developing Theology 35

I. Brueggemann’s Theology in Transition
A. Seeking the Proper Shape of Faith
i. Reshaping the Message
ii. “A Shape for Old Testament Theology”
1. Structure Legitimation
2. Embrace of Pain
iii. The Shape of Faith to Come
B. Reshaping Faithful Response to Suffering
iv. “The Costly Loss of Lament”
v. Rethinking Response both Human and Divine
II. 8(6)&.9($-6)2(&: Constituting Faith Beyond Response
A. Reconsidering Mowinckel—Socially and Theologically
B. The Power of Imaginative Reconstructions
vii
C. Reconstituting Psalm Function in Rhetoric
D. Reconstituting Response to God
III. Transforming Faith and the Reality of God

Chapter 3—Maintaining the Tension or Tension Beyond
Maintenance? The Lament Psalm in Brueggemann’s Mature
Biblical Theology 67

I. %!&"."*7$"+$,!&$:.;$%&(,)/&5,: Tracing the “Fundamental Tension” of Biblical
Faith
A. A Metaphor Encompassing Tension—Overview of %:%.
B. A Subtitle Establishing Tension—%&(,2/"57<$=2(>?,&<$1;@"3)37
C. A Lament Psalm Focusing Tension—%:%’s Central Role for Psalm 88
D. Faith )5; God Defined in Tension—The Evolution of Reorientation
II. Tension Beyond Maintenance: Expressing Expectation of God Amidst Suffering
A. The Culmination of Lament in Brueggemann’s Theology
B. God as the “Fray”: Dividing Divine Fidelity from Sovereignty
C. Faith In Excess of the “Fray”: Human Expression of Suffering and
Expectation of Divine Response

Chapter 4—Faith Overflowing: Praise in Ford’s Early and
Collaborative Theology 99

I. A?B2.),&: Ford’s Collaboration with Daniel Hardy
A. Theological “Mosaic” of Praise
i. Praise in Human Life
ii. Praise in Text and Tradition
iii. Praise in Christian Existence and the Existence of Evil
iv. Praise and the Triune God
B. Putting the Theological Pieces Together
i. Viewing the Big Picture
ii. Deflecting the Reality of Suffering or Reflecting the Reality of
Christ?
II. ’&)525*$)5;$%6?,!$25$C$4"625,!2)5(: Ford’s Collaboration with Frances
Young
A. Reflecting God’s Glory: Conceptualizing the Overflow of Faith in 2
Corinthians
i. God’s Glory and Paul’s Overflowing Faith
ii. Powering the Overflow in Cross and Resurrection
B. Beginning to Face the Source of the Overflow

Chapter 5—Facing the Overflow of Faith: Joy and Suffering in
Ford’s Mature Theology 135

I. From Praise to the Joy of Facing Christ
A. Joy and Tragedy: Dialogue with MacKinnon and Levinas:
i. “Tragedy and Atonement”
ii. Atonement Facing Tragedy
viii
B. Joy and Responsibility: Dialogue with Jüngel and Levinas
i. “Hosting a Dialogue”
1. Selfhood
2. Language
ii. “On Substitution”
iii. Joy, Responsibility and the Face of Christ
II. Facing Christ as the Human Response to Suffering
A. D&.+$)5;$D).@),2"5: Ford’s Mature Soteriology
i. “Dialogues”: Overview of Part I
ii. “Flourishings”: Overview of Part II
B. A Responsible Overflow: The Culmination of Praise in Ford’s Theology
C. Identifying Atonement as God’s Human Response of Faith Amidst
Suffering

Chapter 6—Lament, Praise and the Reality of Christ’s
Atonement: Faith as Human Participation in the Trinitarian 176
Response to Suffering

I. Atonement for Sin "6$Suffering? Revisiting Westermann’s Concern and the
Work of Christ as Proposed by Brueggemann and Ford
II. Confronting Suffering )5;$Sin: Faith and the Necessity of God’s Own
Human Response in Christ
III. Examining a Trinitarian Alternative
A. Gunton’s Proposal: Praise as Result of Participation in Atonement
B. Gunton’s Problem: Suffering and the Question of Participation in
Lament
IV. Participation in Suffering on Joy’s Behalf: Towards a Trinitarian Theology
of Praise and Lament

Citation and Selective Consultation Bibliography 201
1
Introduction

This thesis examines how Christian faith transforms the human response to
suffering. Suffering arises whenever and however humanity must endure that which
fractures its very existence. No aspect of human life can escape suffering, whether
physical, mental or spiritual. Pain afflicts all, regardless of age, gender, race, nationality,
cultural orientation or social standing. Such is the reach of suffering that it can be
difficult to separate from the being of life itself. As the American playwright Tennessee
Williams reputedly said, “Don’t look forward to the day you stop suffering because
when it comes you’ll know you’re dead.”
People of faith, however, believe something more. By its very definition, faith
arises as transcendence of humanity and commonly means a reliance on the divine, a
trust in someone or something B&7"5;$human experience. Of course, this reality is made
all the more complicated by pain and affliction. “Suffering,” writes Paul Ricoeur, “is a
scandal only for those who see God as the source of all that is good in creation.”1 For
Christian faith, which proclaims God’s healing of creation through redemption in Jesus
Christ, this scandal is particularly acute.2 How can Christianity proclaim redemption
5"#, when the end to all suffering is so clearly 5",$7&,?
An analytical framework for answering this question is precisely what this
project does 5",$seek to pursue. Despite two millennia of Christian reflection, the
problem of producing an adequate theodicy, arguably, remains yet to be resolved.
Wolfhart Pannenberg states, “Even from the standpoint of reconciliation and
eschatological consummation, of course, it is an open question why the Creator did not
create a world in which there could be no pain or guilt.”3 Herein, I assume the existence
of faith does not depend upon knowledge of why God allows creation to suffer but

1 Paul Ricoeur, [email protected]$1$4!)..&5*&$,"$-!2."(">!7$)5;$%!&"."*7 (trans. J. Bowden; New York: Continuum,
2004), 70.
2 Stanley Hauerwas, F)/25*$,!&$D2.&53&(0$G";<$’&;2325&$)5;$,!&$-6"B.&/$"+$D?++&625* (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990), 78-9, “The problem of evil is not about rectifying our suffering with some general
notion of God’s nature as all-powerful and good; rather, it is about what we mean by God’s goodness
itself, which for Christians must be construed in terms of God as the Creator who has called into existence
a people called Israel so that the world might know that God has not abandoned us. There is no problem
of suffering in general; rather, the question of suffering can be raised only in the context of a God who
creates to redeem.”
3 Wolfhart Pannenberg, D7(,&/),23$%!&"."*70$H".?/&$C$(trans. G. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994), 165.