Towards a ‘Hopeful’ Christological Missiology
In his recent post Is Theology Such a Bad Thing?, (www.opensourcetheology.net) Andrew commented that, “It may not always be obvious, and maybe I’m just fooling myself, but I think that the Spirit of God is in the process of reconstructing a viable Christian worldview following the collapse of Christendom.” I wholeheartedly agree with that. There is undoubtedly a movement of the Spirit afoot to create missiological communities of faith that are learning to speak powerfully into our postmodern context. As Christendom continues to crumble, so these new communities continue to emerge. It is an exciting period of Church history!
However, the question continues to be asked – and is nowhere near fully answered yet – as to which of the ‘old bricks’ can be successfully re-used in the building of the new viable Christian worldview. It would be contrary to God’s character to dispose of all the old bricks and use only new ones (he did, after all, re-use even Noah after the flood!) Part of our task in the Emerging Church Movement is to scavenge what we can from the collapsed temple that may be of use in building the New. It is a dirty job. We will get covered in dust. We will cut our hands and bruise our feet. We will need imagination to see how an old piece of masonry may look beautiful in a new mosaic. But the hard task will be worth the effort.
The argument of this article is that Christological eschatology is one of those bricks worth salvaging and polishing for an Emerging missiology. To be sure, it needs cleaning up and will need some careful cementing. Nevertheless, with care and attention, I believe that Christological eschatology can once more look beautiful and will have a pivotal role to play in the missiological task that faces the church in the 21st-century.
A Hitchhikers Guide to Christological Eschatology
The word ‘eschatology’ is a mid-19th-century word, meaning ‘talk about the last things’ or ‘discourse on the last things’. As such, eschatology is the context of all our thought about God. Everything we do as Christians, everything we think as Christians, is done and thought in the context that, one day, Christ will return and this world will be wrapped up for good (however you may choose to interpret that). We are heading towards a new heaven and a new earth and everything else should be placed in that context. Indeed, it was Karl Barth who, in The Epistle to the Romans (p.314) commented, “If Christianity be not altogether thoroughgoing eschatology, there remains in it no relationship whatever with Christ.” The ultimate question of eschatology is simply this: “How does God relate past, present and future to us now?” Just as pertinently, how are we to relate to God in the light of the past, present and future? Eschatology, essentially, is about the history of the world. It deals with the realities of today’s world, which are working together to bring about God’s future. Eschatology is the big picture, if you like – although perhaps not a metanarrative.
Traditionally, there have been two main divisions in eschatology; general eschatology and individual eschatology. General eschatology deals with those issues which have to do with the wider picture: creation, the consummation of the Kingdom, the nature and purpose of the second coming of Christ and so on. Individual eschatology deals with those issues of a more personal and individual nature: physical death, the nature of the soul, judgement and so on. It is a biblical theme that has roots in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, both aspects of which are intimately linked to the Person of Jesus Christ.
Admittedly, there is not a huge amount of teaching on the type of eschatological themes mentioned above in the Old Testament. But that is not to say that the Old Testament does have a lot of eschatological teaching. There are six key themes to unpack.
1. The expectation of a coming Redeemer
From Genesis 3:15 onward, there is the expectation that the Redeemer will eventually come: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” This, of course, is an eschatological idea; the idea of a cosmic battle between the forces of darkness and the Redeemer.
2. The Kingdom of God
The term ‘Kingdom of God’ is not actually used in the Old Testament but there are many, many references to God as King. Because Israel is so lost in sin, the story of the Old Testament is one in which God’s rule is only imperfectly realised. The prophets look forward to the day when the Kingly rule of God will be fully consummated, which is an eschatological theme. The Book of Daniel is the main book where the coming of God’s Kingdom is outlined most. In Chapter 2, there is mention of God’s Kingdom that will be set up and will never be destroyed and which will break into pieces all other kingdoms. Again, in Chapter 7, there is the idea of the Son of Man who will be given everlasting dominion and power. So, in Daniel, we see a linking together of these two eschatological ideas: the coming Redeemer and the Kingdom of God.
3. The new Covenant
The idea of Covenant – the fact that we live in a covenant relationship with God – is a central idea in the Old Testament. In fact, it’s the idea on which Old Testament theology is built. Because Israel constantly broke their covenant obligations, there was the need for a new covenant and this is an eschatological idea which we find, for instance, in Jeremiah 31:31-32: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke.” Of course, that new covenant is ushered in by Jesus and becomes fully realised at the Second Coming.
4. The restoration of Israel
The nation of Israel was divided into two Kingdoms: Israel and Judah. These two kingdoms sank into disobedience and Israel was scattered and Judah was taken into exile. Again, it is Jeremiah who predicted the restoration of Israel (23:3): “I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply.” This view is echoed by Isaiah and Ezekiel and, not least, Joel who prophecies the outpouring of the Spirit as a sign of the restoration of the people Israel: “And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes.”
5. The Day of the Lord
This is a complex idea in the Old Testament. Sometimes, the Day of the Lord refers to God’s judgement on Israel’s enemies (Obadiah, for example, speaks of the judgement of Edom as being the Day of the Lord) but it can also have an eschatological aspect too. For example, we read in Isaiah 13:9-11 about God’s judgement on Babylon. However, it is also written in eschatological language which conveys a deeper meaning too:
“Behold, the day of the Lord comes,
cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,
to make the earth a desolation
and to destroy its sinners from it.
For the stars of their heavens and their constellations
will not give their light;
the sun will be dark at its rising
and the moon will not shed its light.
I will punish the world for its evil,
and the wicked for their iniquity.”
6. The new heaven and the new earth
Isaiah 65:17 states, “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.”
The pattern of Old Testament eschatology is clear. From the Garden of Eden, there were eschatological expectations and, as time went by, these expectations became more highly developed and more diverse and complex in their various forms. But certainly, eschatology is an important aspect of Old Testament literature.
Likewise, eschatology is an important theme in the New Testament too. There are three threads in particular to draw out.
1. The Old Testament eschatological event has happened
The Christ-event was the fulfilment of literally hundreds of Old Testament prophecies. In Matthew, Jesus’ birth was prophecied in the Old Testament and so was his flight into Egypt, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. There are many other prophecies we could draw on from the Old Testament which were fulfilled in Jesus’ life and death, proving that there is a clear understanding in the New Testament that this eschatological Kingdom, which was anticipated in the Old Testament, was ushered in by Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was the eschatological Messiah and the eschatological Son of Man. Because the eschatological event has happened in Jesus, the New Testament writers were absolutely convinced that they were living in the Last Days. So Peter, on the Day of Pentecost quotes from Joel’s prophesy and Paul, particularly in his early Epistles, was convinced that Jesus was about to return at any time.
2. The realisation that eschatology is a two-fold movement
The eschatological event had come to pass in Christ but the New Testament writers were also clear that the first coming of Christ was just the first part of the two-fold eschatological movement. The present Messianic age would be finally consummated in the age to come.
3. The blessings of the present age are the guarantee of greater blessings to come
The first coming of Christ is the guarantee and pledge of his second coming, Acts 1:11: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” The eschatological promise for the future is rooted in what has happened in the past. Christ won the victory in the past on the Cross and the future consummation of the Kingdom of God and all the blessings we will receive as Kingdom children is founded on that victory. The reason we have so much hope for the future is not because we have so little now but because we have so much now: so many riches, so much grace, so much mercy.
Making the links to missiology
So what does all this have to do with a missiology appropriate for an Emerging Church movement in a postmodern society? Is there anything that we can learn from the Biblical data that will provide guiding principles for us in the 21st-century? My belief is that the Biblical data does indeed provide the core principles for a contextual missiology that takes eschatology seriously, for this reason; our contemporary culture is an age of tension and ontic anxiety and Biblical eschatology speaks into that in such a way as to provide a platform for relevant missiological praxis.
Paul Tillich, in The Courage to Be, explored this in some depth, noting three forms of anxiety in particular, all of which “are immanent in each other but normally under the dominance of one of them” (p.50). First, there is what Tillich called “ontic anxiety”, a preoccupation with death. Second, there is anxiety about personal guilt and anxiety. Third, there is a spiritual anxiety of emptiness and loss of meaning. The 21st-century is one in which we live with heightened levels of anxiety. The threat of global terror, ecological disaster, work-related stress, dysfunctional families, civil wars, increasing levels of violence in society, financial worries caused by increasing levels of debt are signs of the times. The threat of death and the feeling of personal guilt are compounded by a deep societal sense of emptiness and loss of meaning. Reflecting on the Church’s response – or lack of response – Hall, “Confessing Christ in a Post-Christendom Context” (The Ecumenical Review 52.3 (2000): 410) is right to pose the question, “Why have we Christians failed to produce soteriologies that speak to the anxiety of our age in the way that Anselm and the Reformers spoke to theirs?” His critique is that the Church is hesitant to enter into the anxiety that shapes our societies, that the Church is somehow paralysed and thereby prevented from speaking into the spirit of the age. There may be truth in that. Arguably, the witness of the Church in the face of ontic anxiety is to make generalised statements that affirm a certain doctrinal position at best, ambiguity at worst: God stands with the poor, God condemns social injustice, we are to be stewards of creation, the breakdown of the nuclear family is to be lamented and so on. The prayers in our churches often reflect that generalised approach, with priest and laity alike fearful of praying ‘the wrong thing’ that may cause offence, not so much to God, but to their fellow worshippers. So we pray for “wisdom for our leaders” but we pass by the opportunity to name before God the specifics of their political wrongdoings. We ask for a “spirit of generosity” rather than actually proactively giving of our own money to the poor in our communities. We intercede for “peace in war-torn regions of the world” rather than acknowledging our responsibilities to protest and campaign and hold our political masters accountable for their indifference. Ontic anxiety will never be relieved by generalisations. Ontic anxiety will only ever be dispelled by pragmatic, culturally-specific and localised responses. As Tillich concluded, “The contents of the tradition, however excellent, however praised, however loved once, lose their power to give content to-day” (p.55).
It is this agenda, to meet the ontic anxiety of the age through pragmatic, culturally-specific and localised action, that so drives the Emerging Church Movement in the 21st-century. This is particularly pertinent to our study in the light of Tillich’s conclusion that, “It is significant that the three main periods of anxiety each appear at the end of an era.” Why should this be the case? Quite simply, states Tillich, because “Conflicts between the old, which tries to maintain itself often with new means, and the new, which deprives the old of its intrinsic power, produce anxiety in all directions” (p.68). Clearly, a new missiology is required. A Christological missiology that takes seriously the ontic anxiety of the age through eschatological contextualisation can offer that.
The simple fact is that eschatology is to do with Ontic Tension. This is necessarily the case, almost by definition, since Christian eschatology is founded on the paradox that a) The Kingdom of God has already come in Jesus and b) The Kingdom of God has not yet come. Christian ministry is most often about helping others to come to terms with – and live peaceably within – that paradox. It is the context for a missiology that speaks powerfully into the human situation.
There are all sorts of tensions into which the Gospel speaks: tension in our spiritual life (Romans 7:18,19,25b); tensions in our use of time (2 Peter 3:8; Philippians 4:5); tensions in our use of wealth (1 Timothy 4:4; Luke 16:13); tensions between suffering & glory (Acts 14:22; 1 Peter 4:12,13); tensions between sickness & health (Matthew 11:4,5; 2 Corinthians 12:7); tensions between faith & doubt (1 Corinthians 13:12) and so on. Increasingly, in a society driven by Ontic Anxiety, the task of the Emerging Church will be to embody a missiology focussed on the Christ who brings healing to those who live with the paradox of those tensions. The message, increasingly, will need to be a message of hope; not that the tensions will be eradicated but that there can be peace and wholeness – and, crucially, hope – in the midst of Ontic Anxiety rather than through the eradication of it.
Towards a ‘Hopeful’ Christological Missiology
In the light of the missiological endeavour that faces the Emerging Church, we would do a lot worse than looking to the prophetic teaching of Jurgen Moltmann on the Theology of Hope. Perhaps, more than ever, his teachings should be embraced and applied. Moltmann, the German prisoner of war whose personal experience of Ontic Anxiety led him to write the brilliant 1967 ‘Theology of Hope’, was concerned to relate the Biblical teaching on eschatology to the experience of human beings living in a time of rapid social change. Forty years later, his words are of profound importance to our era.
The genius of Moltmann has been to really ground eschatology (and therefore hope) in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He wrote (p.17), “Christian eschatology does not speak of a future as such…Christian eschatology speaks of Jesus Christ and his future…Hence the question whether all statements about the future are grounded in the person and history of Jesus Christ provides it with a touchstone by which to distinguish the spirit of eschatology from that of utopia.” The Christ-event, the first coming of Jesus is absolutely crucial for eschatology and, for Moltmann, the resurrection is the pivotal point. The resurrection is the bridge between the hope of Jewish prophecy and apocalyptic writings on the one hand and the eschatological mission of the church on the other. It is the Resurrection which provides the content of hope to the experience of the people of Israel. It is the Resurrection which provides the content of hope for the church and its mission in these last days. For Moltmann, Christian eschatology is based on the history of God’s promises and their fulfilment.
The story of Scripture, the story of the Church since Scripture – maybe even our own story – is that God’s promise does not correspond to reality as we know it. God’s promises and the hope he offers often contradicts our perception of reality. In our worldview, we see guilt and anger and hostility and confusion. For many of us, suffering and guilt and death are our experience of the world. But the promise of hope to us, made through the resurrection, is that, actually, God’s reality is very different and the glories of the Kingdom of God are there for all through Christ. But the very fact that there is a qualitative difference between our present experience and the ‘Theology of Hope’ which God offers puts Moltmann’s ideas into the eschatological realm. By experiential definition, there is something ‘now’ but ‘not yet’ about the hope of the Christian faith. There is always the possibility for us to return to despair, doubt and temptation because we are living in that unresolved period of Ontic Anxiety. However, there is also the possibility for us to cling on to the divine promise (p.103): “The expected future does not have to develop within the framework of the possibilities inherent in the present, but arises from that which is possible to the God of promise.”
Because he’s got an eschatological context, Moltmann says that of course it is impossible to fully know God in this present age. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:7 we are walking by faith, not by sight. In Moltmann’s language, we are living in a promise for the future and it is in the future when all things will be revealed (p.281): “All proofs of God are at bottom anticipations of that eschatological reality in which God is revealed in all things to all.” So eschatology is something to be worked towards, not something we can fully claim for the here and now. Of course, this has tremendous ramifications for an Emerging missiology. There are, for example, new horizons of possibility for believers; there is hope for the future based on a solid historical reality. We are freed to become missionary people working for the renewal of the world. It is also true, for example, that all things become possible in Christ; institutions can be transformed, societies can be changed and injustice can be challenged. In a wonderful quote, Moltmann assures us (p.338) that, “Faith can expend itself in the pain of love, and assume the form of a servant because it is upheld by the assurance of hope in the resurrection of the dead.”
An apologetic for eschatology in a postmodern era
You may well ask the question why it is that the creation of a Christological eschatology is needed at all in a postmodern era. Has eschatology not been one of the most controlling metanarratives the Church has used to oppress throughout history? Is there any way of developing a Christological eschatology that liberates rather than oppresses? My argument is that there is – and Moltmann’s Theology of Hope points the way forward.
The most powerful purpose of eschatological theology in the last thirty years or so is the way in which it has stimulated social action and social responsibility. A Christian Marxist called Nicholas Lash, in A Matter of Hope: A Theologian’s Reflections on the Thought of Karl Marx (p.161) stated that, because of eschatology, Religion is not the opium of the people. Rather, it is the stimulant of the people. Certainly the existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard glimpsed that too when he commented that, “Hope is passion for the possible”. However, I think Christian hope is more than that in its eschatological sense. Hope is not so much passion for the possible. Hope is passion for the Promised.
What is most exciting for an Emerging Church agenda is that this ‘Promised’ is not just individual but communitarian too. Hope, in this postmodern, connected world in which we live, is not just an individualistic concept. Hope is for all of God’s creation too. Creation spiritualities – and Ionic spiritualities too – have a strong eschatological content as well as context. But more important still, when we consider the nature of hope, is that modern eschatology has demanded a re-writing of the Doctrine of God. Moltmann’s emphasis on the future promise has been taken up, by some, as a doctrine for God not ‘Who Is’ but a doctrine of a God who ‘Will Be’. So, for some theologians, like Schillebeeckx, God as a future promise is more important than the idea of God in the here and now. That doctrine of God helps suffering communities and the marginalised have a renewed sense of Hope when they cannot find God in their present context. Most important of all in this regard are the writings of Karl Rahner who says that God is firstly God of the future rather than a God of the present. In A Theology of Liberation, Gutierrez comments that, “The liberating action of Christ – made man in this history… - is at the heart of the historical current of humanity; the struggle for a just society is in its own right very much part of salvation history.”
For too many years, the Church has allowed eschatology to be hi-jacked by theologians and institutions who have oppressive political agendas. In its passion and desire for a new contextual missiology that speaks into the Ontic Anxiety of the present age, the Emerging Church Movement must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Eschatology need not be oppressive. A Christological Eschatology that has Hope at its very heart could be immensely liberating, both for individuals and communities. Ultimately, spiritual liberation – both for individuals and communities – is the mandate of the Church.
Latest comments