Sitting in my living room, at the ripe old age of 35, typing on a laptop while the winds howl and the rain dances upon the metal cap of our fireplace–somehow all of this compels me to the full assurance that I know what the theological task is for this generation. (Ok, the fact that I’m and INTJ might have something to do with my confidence, but bear with me.)
In the post-conservative Christian circles in which I run, people have often experienced a shift. From an entry into Christianity that is all about Jesus dying for my sins, people later discover a Kingdom of God that demands active engagement with the world.
Within the world of Pauline studies a parallel distinction is sometimes highlighted. On the one hand, there is Jesus dying “for me,” with its concomitant substitutionary language of justification and the like. On the other hand, there is my “dying with Christ,” with its concomitant participatory language of co-crucifixion, co-glorification and the like.
And over the past century in Western Christianity, I would say that different parts of the church have held on to different halves of this story. The conservative evangelical types have grabbed hold of the atonement as the gospel, while the liberal mainline types have grabbed onto the world-changing life of Jesus as the gospel.
I see the ask of our generation to overcome this false dichotomy by (1) insisting that it’s not a dichotomy after all; and (2) articulating atonement in such a way that action and transformation are inherent to the saving story of Jesus.
There are many ways to put the question we must answer.
At the Institute for Biblical Research this year, Tom Wright put the question, “What does the Kingdom of God have to do with the cross?”
Or, as I put it in my Mark class, “What does Mark 1-8 [the wonder-working, healing, cleansing, parables, feeding, stilling] have to do with Mark 8-16 [the road to the cross, the disruption of the Temple, the prediction of coming suffering, the Supper, Garden, arrest, trial, and death]?”
It seems to me that we are going to have to step back and reconsider how we tell the story. We are going to have to find fresh ways to articulate what the death of Jesus is all about, so that it wraps up a life of transforming power.
We are going to have to find fresh ways to tell the story of Jesus’ inauguration of the Kingdom of God, so that we are not left, like Peter at the transition point in Jesus’ ministry, wondering why on earth death of the Messiah is the logical culmination.
In fact, I might suggest that until we can so tell the story of Jesus’ life that the death is not only the inevitable (from an earthly point of view) but necessary (from the divine accomplishment point of view) outcome, that we have not yet comprehended the Kingdom of God.
And, until we can so tell the story of Jesus’ death such that his life is not only an anticipation (in a preparatory sort of way–you know, like keeping Jesus free from sin and all that) but inseparable from his atoning death, that we have not yet comprehended what it is to say that Jesus died for our sins.
I don’t think we’ve done it yet.
But I believe we can.
Ripe old age? Pllllleeeeaaassseeeeee . .
Irony, Mary. Irony.
I’m in virtual lock-step here, Daniel, and I’ve found Wright helpful in this endeavor.
I’ll share an anecdote that illustrates the real on-the-ground need for this kind of thinking and acting in our world. I apologize for having no citation for this, as I heard it from a message from Lance Wallnau.
Evidently, Dallas, TX, and its vicinity possess the greatest percentage of people who attend church on a regular basis in the US. Dallas-Forth Worth is loaded with Bible believing Christians. On the other hand, Dallas is no better off in terms of social ills than any other metropolitan area in the country. That is, the teen pregnancy rates, the crime rates, the drop out rates, etc. are all on par with other cities in America.
The question, then, is why our beliefs aren’t making a tangible difference in transforming the communities we live in?
I certainly believe an integration of the cross & the Kingdom would be a big step in that direction.
Exactly, Mike.
Thank you ….. those are my thoughts too, about the false dichotomies we have. I think we (Christians) have been deceived by that evil genius into believing them. Or maybe it is just our crazy western way of thinking. I feel we should move away from an “epistemology” type of thinking to something more Jewish as reflected in the wisdom literature (of the bible). I hope this makes sense.
But you are 35??? I feel old.
Thanks for the post – I was having very similar thoughts when I blogged last night. Tom Wright states that simply understanding the atonement bit of the gospel is a “great place to start, but a sad place to end”. This is such a brilliant statement as, it seems, progressives often need to learn to appreciate that truth while conservatives often need to push beyond it. W all fall somewhere on that spectrum and should strive, as you said, to realize that it’s not a dichotomy at all.
I have been inspired by Irenaeus and a Danish theologian named Regin Prenter:
Salvation has a purpose: Restoring and redeeming creation. Put simply: Salvation isn’t the purpose of Christianity. Life, creation, goodness and love is. But without salvation we would be trapped in guilt, without the Spirit we would be poorer in relation to God, ourselves and the world.
Though as a member of the Lutheran tradition, I always return to the cross, I quickly, growing up with an unanxious faith in the love and grace of God, found myself asking: What next? I’m saved and – glory to Christ – will stay so, but what do I do now? What is the purpose of my Christian life. And what is the role of ethics in my life as a Christian? Does God care for ordinary human life or is he just counting believers?
And luckily, in came Iraeneus with his view that salvation has the purpose of restoring creation. In came also the Norwegian Crossroads-movement, which focuses on seeking Christ, promoting justice, building community and simple ways of life.
Jesus unites divinity and humanity, service and faith, grace, charity and love. There is no way for me to do the same without grace or the Spirit. But the longing for a theology that isn’t one-sided, self-contented or out-of-this-world is luckily finding fresh expressions, hopefully bringing the Kingdom closer! Thanks again for sharing!
Post-conservative INTJ at the ripe age of 37:
As a 51 year old INTJ, I think you are ripening quite nicely.
The questions you raise are the issues I was wrestling with at a Nazarene University in the late ’70s. My journey led me away from the Wesleyan atonement/piety fixation of my upbringing to the PCUSA. I soon discovered the very imbalance you identify in the other direction. There is near absence of any meaningful atonement or eschatological theology in the Mainlines.
I’m still happier with my PCUSA home but I’ve yet to find a denominational community that effectively captures the twin issues you are raising.
I’m encouraged that it seems like people are starting to see this issue outside of academia. I have hope for our generation (I’ll be 30 this year) that we might move the American church towards a more holistic faith narrative.
Is it true that what you are suggesting is to start from dying with Christ to reach the world, which then leads to Christ died for me and the redemption it brings?
Contrasting with the common sequence of understanding that Christ died for me, and I should die with Him to reach the world.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to rethink our methods or strategies of culling substitutionary and participatory themes from the story of Scripture, seeing them not through realism glasses but perspectival ones which take the final canonical text in stride with its original, founding context.
And that is not an easy thing to do!
Though, I have a minor critique regarding the depiction of your setting or backdrop of salvation:
“In fact, I might suggest that until we can so tell the story of Jesus’ life that the death is not only the inevitable (from an earthly point of view) but necessary (from the divine accomplishment point of view) outcome, that we have not yet comprehended the Kingdom of God”
.. Is death inevitable from an earthly point of view, or is it, rather, inevitable from a postfallen situation which extended from our misuse of life without death/sin? An earthly point of view does not necessitate death. Or, as James KA Smith says, finitude does not mean fallenness and sin..
See what I am getting at? This has implications for how we approach the salvation story, for to see earth as primarily something which is blessed and fully functional, and also something which predates the need for salvation, is crucial to understanding atonement in Christological ways.
And so, narratologically speaking, we ought to be careful of the ascent toward plot conflict, scoring the good grounds of exposition first; this gives us better eyes to see the resolution.
I don’t think we can retreat from the necessity of death, given that Jesus did, in fact, come in a post-fall situation.
Mark 8: “It is necessary for the son of man to suffer…”
Nevertheless, he came as the Second Adam, no?
If we rush into postfallen categories then we miss the truest intent of salvation — to restore what was originally without sin.
In fact, even with sin, can it really separate heaven from earth?
“Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jer. 23:24).
To denote earth = inevitable death and heaven = eternal life is a dualism which is foreign to the Bible.
Of course he’s second Adam–and that language centers around the cross and resurrection!
I don’t think it’s “rushing” to post-fall: that’s simply the world into which he came to declare and bring about the nearness of the Kingdom. The kingdom-bringer had to die. This is at the heart of what it means for him to be second Adam given the lot of the people whose lives are determined by the first.
Adam centers around the cross.. agreed. But sin has no place whatsoever in the Kingdom, right? — Death shall die. But, according to your logic, if “earth” equals inevitable, inexorable death, then that means earth has no place in the ensuing kingdom. And we know that isn’t the case, as we see with the image of heaven descending upon earth in Revelation, joining earth in matrimony — not divorcing it.
No, I’m talking specifically about Jesus’ inauguration of the Kingdom in his earthly life, a ministry that ends up with Jesus on the cross.
Maybe you are right. I am just not seeing in the Bible where it says that earth=death and heaven=life.