In the last series of posts and comments, I noticed something. There is a glass with only half the water in it. Several times I read, "That we live in a fallen world..." That is bad theology. And what is worse it is only half true. The keepers of the truth say we live in a fallen world are only giving half the message. It is the same message that when you die you will be saved and go to heaven. Period. It is not about now, but about later. The new earth and such. There is a lot shaped by that thinking. It is weak and very Dispensational. Do we think that Christ only died for the apostolic movement. The apostolic movement didn't stop in the first century AD, it continues today.
The disciples became the apostles when they were sent out, not when they were chosen. Hence the name, Apo stolons (which means sent on a mission) We who are sent and speaking of the good news that in spite of the fallen world, there is a redeemer who has overcome the world, we are the apostles. We hold the message of hope not "reality." It is not enough to say our institutions are fallen, it is that we are keepers and, hopefully, spreaders of hope. I am not down on institutions because they are fallen, I am trying to wake them up to the hope that they have. Yes, many do have and preach hope. Yes, many are, moving into areas of despair and bringing hope.
I have this vision of some presbyteries and churches: I am driving by a church with a marque out front and it says "vival tonight" on the sign and there are a few letters that have fallen and lay face down in the grass below. So I drive up and attend the Revival meeting but it isn't what I thought. I walk out to the marque and look down at the letters, pick them up and instead of seeing an 'R' and an 'E' I see an 'S', a 'U' and an...
4 comments:
Tony, the concept that we live in a “fallen world” is one of the most foundational concepts in both the New Testament and every major stream of orthodox Christian theology I know. You call this “bad theology”?
1 John 5:19 "We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."
If the world is not “fallen”, then the message of Genesis 1-11 is false and this world is simply as God wanted it to be. I suppose you could argue that it was fallen and has now been redeemed by Christ’s death, but then why would the balance of the New Testament writers continue to see the fallen world as an opposing force to God’s desires.
For example: Gal 3:22 "But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."
Augustine developed this idea classically in “The Two Cities”. Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin all follow him in this idea. I would not casually dismiss a concept with this kind of support. To suggest that great Christians like these men are only giving “half the message” or that their views are “dispensational” is simply folly.
Is this a “glass half full” theology. Perhaps. It accepts that this world is effected by human free will and sin and will never be perfect, even if individuals within it are redeemed by Christ.
As such, any human attempt to follow God will somewhere manifest our flaws to greater or lesser degrees.
Is this simply an excuse to not do our best? Is it like the pathetic excuse “I’m only human” people use when they screw up and don’t want to be held accountable for their actions or a need to improve. Certainly not!
Rom 6:1-2 "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? {2} By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"
But, it does recognize that even our best efforts will never be perfect.
That said, even a half full glass looks pretty good when your thirsty.
Al, are you really picking these things up for the main idea?
"The anatomy of a blog makes serious conversation all but impossible." - Alan Jacobs
The division that exists among the churches is the direct result of our sinfulness. As such, it is something that we have to confess and something for which we must receive forgiveness. Acknowledging that these statements are true is far from saying that that's all there is to the story. It is, however, an important part; its the introduction to the story from which the church is allowed to proceed with the kind of humility commensurate to her being.
Acknowledging the need, praying for, and working toward reconciliation among the churches is a bit like taking the plank out of our eyes before we start preaching... As Hauerwas is wont to say, our witness is only made credible by our actions. Commitment toward reconciliation is entirely oriented on the here and now rather than the hereafter - even if it does acknowledge that, at best, the visible church can only be a dim reflection of the perfect unity already present in Christ.
Tony, I think you're being too harsh by accusing your readers of constructing a shallow dispensationalist theology simply because they call attention to the fact that the brokenness of the church is part and parcel of the sin-wearied world. Nobody said that was the end of the story. As far as I can tell, you were asking your readers to consider whether it was appropriate to maintain the institution qua institution and whether denominationalism was an anachronistic concept. Some of your readers responded: outdated concept or no, it's the situation we're in and it's broken.
Saying that Lazarus is dead is not the same as saying that Jesus can not raise him to life again. If anything, acknowledging death is the preamble to resurrection.
I suppose that points toward the limitations of this particular medium - one feels it inappropriate to go on at length and so takes the calculated risk that the reader will understand his or her comments in the spirit in which they are written. As this latest string of posts and comments has shown, such a hope is not very well grounded.
I confess - because I haven't been around you lately - I find myself uncertain of whether I really know what you are trying to communicate or if I am just playing language games in order to fit what you're writing into some artificial conceptual framework from which I can derive an approximate meaning. Don't get me wrong, I know you well enough to know that you are trying to prod us toward more faithful witness to Christ.
That last comment was me, by the way.
Post a Comment