Re: We have to go back, but not to square one

I suppose I’m just wondering whether you see any weaknesses at all in your position, Andrew. I think a major weakness of your position is that you seem to deny the possibility of any weaknesses.

As regards the Christendom concept - I question it because it is being used to support the supposed need for a new paradigm, either ecclesiologically or theologically or both, because it supposedly represents an era which has just recently come to an end. So what is it? Nobody has ever clearly defined what Christendom means. Did it ever exist? Politically, one branch of the church became, from the time of Constantine onwards, a power that rivalled the political powers, and played the same power games. But the actual history of that relationship, and how the church came to influence culture and society is very complex. So I’m questioning the validity of invoking Christendom and its demise as a basis for arguing the need for a ‘new paradigm’. The reality is rather that Christianity never influenced society and politics in quite the simple way that the supposed Christendom model is made to suggest.

From my perspective, the church is in exactly the same relationship to the power structures now as it always has been, and I believe a close inspection of church history, both within the so-called ‘Christendom’ paradigm and outside it (where a substantial proportion of the church has always been, continuously throughout the period, and not just as a marginal, minority position), bears this out. So I’m against oversimplified generalisations, which then become a platform for propounding theories of church and theology.

As regards how any creational promise to Abraham is fulfilled now, the point I am making and still make from your model is this: it suggests that the activity of Jesus in the 1st century, and the purpose of the NT writings, was simply to facilitate the progress of the church through that never-to-be-repeated time. So given that that is all left behind in history, who is the Christ who fulfils creation’s purposes now, and how does he do it, if the content of the NT doesn’t describe what he is doing through the church now? So that’s why I describe your portrayal of Christ as existential. All we have left, as far as the content of his activity is concerned, is a prophetic witness and a focus on creation backed up by a very contentless and anarchic biblical hermeneutic.

On the other hand, if all the lines of the biblical story converge on Christ, including the promise to Abraham of how his seed would fill the earth, and if the NT events and writings are relevant in total for today, and not just for a 1st century survival and passage of God’s people into the so-called age to come, then we have a huge amount of content to fill out how Christ works today to renew creation, beginning in his people, of whom, as I said, he is the chief cornerstone of the temple. It is all in him, and through him, and in relationship with him. The focus is preeminently on him.