I know as ‘postmoderns’ we’re supposed to distrust creeds and statements of faith, but sometimes it becomes necessary to try to articulate, if only tentatively and imperfectly, what one believes – just in case anyone should ask. This is a personal statement of faith and is certainly not intended to represent the beliefs of the whole emerging church community. It is not exhaustive and will probably get revised from time to time.
(The image is William Blake’s ‘The Ancient of Days’.)
1. I believe in a God who is creator of all things; I believe that we have been created with a capacity to know this God. This belief is not rationally grounded: I cannot account for it or prove it; it is simply present in my mind, like an obsession, and cannot be deconstructed or expunged. ‘Whither shall I flee from your presence?’
2. I believe that humanity is flawed – and that in some sense this is our fault. However we account for it, we are inescapably subject to alienation, suffering and death and we are inescapably perpetrators of harm to ourselves, to others, and to our environment. The instability of our knowledge of God is further symptomatic of this ‘fallen’ condition. At the same time, however, I would not want to diminish humanity’s capacity to achieve both ordinary and extraordinary ‘goodness’ (ethical, relational, intellectual, aesthetic, technological, and so on) quite apart from any particular knowledge of God.
3. As a believer in Jesus the Messiah I have made myself part of Israel’s disjointed story. Israel believed that as a nation it had a unique relationship with the God of the whole earth, whom it called YHWH. God ‘chose’ this people for two fundamental reasons: i) to be the place where both the identity and reality of God were experienced and preserved; ii) to make that identity and reality manifest to all nations – for the sake of the glory of God and for the blessing of all people. I am impressed with the idea that this people is to be a kingdom of priests for the world. The boundaries and purpose of this relationship were inscribed in the various ‘covenants’ that Israel made with YHWH.
4. In the end Israel failed to live up to its calling to embody and manifest the reality of God in the world. The concrete result of this failure was national disaster at various points in its history, most notably in the form of the exile to Babylon. Jesus’ message to the people was a warning of a final and catastrophic ‘judgment’ that would overtake the nation. The Roman war of AD 66-70 and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple were the fulfilment of this core prophecy.
5. Who was Jesus? He was the one who would save Israel from this catastrophe, not in the end by averting destruction but by providing a way through it so that a renewed people would emerge on the other side of the fires of judgment.
6. He died for the ‘sins’ of a recalcitrant nation, but the realignment of the people around Jesus himself – as king, son, word, temple, high priest – meant that the door was now open for Gentiles to become part of the people of God. Indirectly, therefore, this was a death for the whole world.
7. The resurrection was the vindication of the one who suffered out of obedience to God. Existentially it was a sign that death would not have the final word; eschatologically it was a sign that the enemies of God – Rome was at the forefront of people’s minds – would not overcome the church: the kingdom was taken from the ‘fourth beast’ and given to the Son of man.
(Something needs to be said at this point about the Christ who is worshipped in the church, but I’m not sure at the moment how to articulate that belief.)
8. ‘Salvation’ in the New Testament, therefore, functions on three levels. i) For Israel salvation meant the historical continuation of the ‘people of God’ as a community reconfigured around Jesus. ii) For Gentiles who came to believe in Jesus salvation consisted in their reconciliation to God, in their incorporation into the covenant community, and in their participation in the blessings (principally the Spirit) of the age to come. iii) For those who suffered ‘for the sake of Christ’ during the crisis that marked the end of the age, salvation acquired a more ‘mythical’ dimension: the assurance that death would not finally separate them from the love of God, the promise of resurrection with Christ and a share in his kingdom during the coming ages.
9. To be part of the restored people of God still means both to be blessed and to be a blessing: on the one hand, to experience and respond to the reality of God in a corporate context, as church, as a people defined by baptism and the gift of the Spirit of God; on the other, to be advocates and practitioners of the idea of God in the world, to be agents of righteousness, to be priests and prophets, to ‘declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light’ (1 Pet.2:9).
10. I believe that there will be a final defeat of evil. There will be a resurrection of the dead; the dead will be ‘judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done’ (Rev.20:12); death will be destroyed; anyone who’s name is not written in the book of life will likewise be destroyed. There will be a new heaven and a new earth.
aye
Thanks for those, i could say those with you.
hey, Andrew. That's superb.
hey, Andrew. That’s superb. Thank you. I’d add one word right at the end: “There will be *another* new heaven and new earth.” I think the apostles describe the kingdom after Jerusalem’s destruction (i.e., our age) as a new heavens & earth.
How many New Heavens and Earths?
(Paul’s comments have been moved to a separate discussion thread.)
Narrative Creed
Hey Andrew -
I’m way late on this one, but I actually saw it some time ago and have been thinking about it on and off.
Something I really like about it is the narrative structure of your creed, particularly as it develops between points 2 through 8. They *narrate* theology; belief is rooted in the contingent story of a single people - the Israelites - as it develops to the climax at Golgatha, then flows into its denouement in the church and the final (more universalized) completion of points 9-10. (The universal view of points 1-2 could be fairly said create the backdrop.)
I like this specificity; it removes faith from the realm of pseudo-universalistic abstraction and returns it to its grounding in space and time.
Of coure, this suggests an interesting question about the normativity of the isrealite narrative: what would happen if a NT scholar were to narrate his creed from the POV of the church rather than Israel - or if a foundational theologian from that of the history of religion and philosophy - or a German monk in Wittenburg from that of theology and social questions in the late middle ages - or a Tibetan monk from that of the history and sufferings of his country.
These are all very different narrative POVs. Are they all views from the branches of a primal growth (some of the perhaps more or less obscured views?) - or could they have some separate standing - some rootedness - in holy ground all of their own?
Somewhere in these thoughts, the idea of a meta-narrative raises its head. (And some would fear the gaze of Medusa.)
Peace,
Mike
Grounding the Ongoing Story
First off, Andrew I love the approach you took to articulating your creed. It paints the whole picture for people (with some areas you have yet to develop) instead of fragments that need to be put together somehow or simply stand alone and disjointed. I think you could include something about how to make the story of God my own story and maybe that comes in under the piece you have yet to develop.
Next, I think Mike does bring up an interesting point. Can we say there is a meta narrative here that our personal, contextual narratives stream from? Is there a way to ground our story in the story of Israel that continues its history today in and through the church? I wonder if we don’t just create problems when we say every story has to be interpreted and unique or have separate standing or rootedness. Couldn’t we say that all our stories come from the same root (those proclaiming to follow Christ) and are now being contextualized in our local setting? I know there is and are some issues with what is emphasized based on one’s situation but I think there is some beauty and necessity in keeping the story of the church linked to its historical setting. Even if a scholar wants to narrate his creed from the POV of the church, he has to deal with the history of Israel and the narrative found in the scriptures as the background and launching point of the church. Good thoughts. Hope that makes sense as I think outloud online :)
The failure of Israel
This is a very helpful articulation of faith, Andrew, and echoes much of the understanding that I feel I’ve been led into on my personal journey of faith.
I would, though, like to ask you to think about your number four a little, with me. This is a line of thought I’ve returned to again and again over the past six years or so, since I was first introduced to it. I find it exciting and thought provoking.
Israel as ransom nation. Alongside the other elements of their calling which we are more familiar with, there is this sense of sharing the calling of the “suffering servant,” of Isaiah 49-53, the one whom we, as Christians, more easily identify with the Messiah, Jesus.
In Jewish thought, the Messiah and Israel, of course, share a mystical overlap. Both “Son of God” (see Matthew 2.15) [note: ancient Jewish literature Enoch 105.2, 4 Ezra 7.28-29, 13.32-52, 14.9 refer to the Messiah as the Son of God; see also Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics for exposition of this idea], the Messiah “identifies with and embodies national Israel”; the servant in Isaiah 49 is both Israel and he who restores Israel, etc.
What does this inform us of Israel’s judgement and rejection and suffering? Unlike the Messiah, their suffering is not seperate from their own sin and disobedience. But did Israel simply, as you put it,
Is it not rather, possible to say that their “failure,” - like the “failure” of Jesus, the crucified, rejected prophet - was actually necessarily ordained by God’s eternal purpose and, in fact, the very epitome of their calling and service to God?! If this is the case, we begin to see that as a nation, they are the ultimate servant nation - a “ransom nation” - chosen by God to suffer his rejection, that all nations might be brought into the knowledge of God’s “kindness and severity.”
Let’s take a close look at some key verses from Romans 11: verses 8-11 and 25-26, (I am using the Complete Jewish Bible) in an effort to substantiate this idea.
The way I read it is this: Israel’s stumbling over the stumbling stone (1 Peter 2.8) “makes room” in the purposes of God for the Gentiles to come in. Israel paid the ultimate price, as a servant, by being rejected and cut off from the Messianic covenant, in order that we Gentiles could enter into it. In this sense, they share in the Messiah’s suffering.
Will they then share in his vindication?
Yes! It is in this extraordinary way that Israel will be saved, vindicated, ressurrected, joined to the Messiah again, wholly, completely, Jew, Gentile reconciled as One New Humanity in Yeshua, Jesus.
So, was Israel a failure? Or is it (still) a suffering servant, to whom we Gentiles should show extraordinary love, respect and humility towards? I say yes, and that our role towards them in showing this love is to “provoke them to jealousy” over their Messiah:
[note: I am aware that the CJB translation can be objected to; there is not room to justify its renderings here, but suffice it to say, I believe that they are justified and they are certainly explained in the accompanying Jewish New Testament Commentary, DH Stern, JNT Publications, Maryland, 1992]
As ever, interested in your thoughts (and, those of others, of course).
What is the role of the Creed?
I appreciate greatly the wording of your creed. I like that it is clear to follow, and also chronological as has been said already. However, I know of another Creed out there called the Nicene Creed. Now, to many I’m sure that’s a HUGE symbol of the “modern” church the emerging chuch is moving away from, but wasn’t that creed written long before the modern period? Has it really been tainted by the modern church to the point that we discard it?
I guess what I don’t understand is why this new creed here is anything different than just a rewording of the ideas of the Nicene creed into the language of postmodernism. Now, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because generalizing the more concrete ideas of the Nicene Creed into a creed that deals more with the spiritual realm is an important task, especially in a world today with many (“fundamentalist”) Christians that get far too caught up in the concrete word and forget the spiritual realm that *is* what faith is all about. I just wonder how it fits in to the bigger picture of the emerging church, which by definition doesn’t have a creed(?)
Even postmoderns feel the need for creed
I was at a meeting of emerging church types last night, and a very important question was asked - what is essential?
It seems to me that in order to start an emerging congregation that can worship together and share their lives together and actually DO stuff (help widows and orphans, feed to poor, etc) - you must have some understanding of what the common beliefs are. In order to be God-breathed, emerging theology must link us TO other believers, not drive wedges in between.
Now, I think the modern church has gone too far - incorporating many personal preferences into the realm of creed. The Baptists’ "don’t dance or drink" comes to mind. But how can you have a real heart-to-heart community without some common cords linking you together?
At the very least, the creed of every Christ-centered community needs to include an understanding that He is Mono-genes - the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father. If post-moderns take away the Cornerstone, what can be left? Why is it anti-postmodern to try to quantify the truth as we know it. Certainly, questioning the truth is fair game in an emerging setting (unlike in the modern framework), but if you never come to SOME answers, then aren’t we destined to spinning our theological wheels at the expense of doing the work of Christ in the world we live?
The Nicene Creed is a place to start, I guess. It has certainly stood the test of time. To connect with it is to connect with church history - which to me is part of the appeal of post-modern movements. To question the tenets of faith is OK, but for what reason? Is it because we fear that they’re not Truth or are we just trying to please men instead of God? Are we trying to water down the teachings of Christ to the point where those who don’t bow their knee to Him can feel comfortable and inculded? If it’s the latter, I don’t think we’re doing them any favors.
Even in a post-modern setting, we need to reaffirm the authority and Lordship of Christ.
Do we need the same creed to work together? I don't think so...
Orthodoxy, orthopraxy and creed
Kia-ora,
While this may be true, I’d be more concerned over falling into behaviourism than into an over-emphasis spiritual belief. Of course we need to agree with something (creed) in order to connect with other people in such a way that we could claim ‘membership’ or ‘inclusion’.
As an example, if you went to a party you could connect relationally with dozens of people on a shallow level; you could share experience and, if everyone does what the social code expects, you could say it was a good party. If people are unaware of the social convention they embarress themselves and their host. Most people will not want to associate with them further. This is social behaviourism. However, in order to connect more deeply (in most circumstances) we need time, shared experiences and transparency…and we must like what we see. This give and take forms a type of ‘common agreement’ (creed) for the relationship.
When more people get together we can continue without a formal creed, but this leads to a dangerous situation where people are expected to conform to unspoken rules and agree with unspoken common beliefs. They are certainly punished if they don’t.
To return to the main point, at the end of the day I don’t believe God inherits our beliefs or our practices; I believe he inherits ‘us’. Christ offers us more than "baptised behaviourism" [1], although as our actions are based on our beliefs, true orthopraxy relies on orthodoxy.
[1] I first heard this term from David J. Riddell of Nelson, NZ.
I am interested in your ident
I am interested in your identification of "mono-genes" as the cornerstone of Christian faith. I would have thought that would be something more like "Jesus is Lord."
One way to prevent creeds from splintering the church is to leave out of them everything except those issues which define what a true brother in Christ is. So, for example, I’d leave out most things regarding the end-times, as I’m willing to consider my Christian brothers pre-tribbers, post-tribbers, pretarists, pre-mils, a-mils, etc. I may believe something specific myself, but don’t consider the issue crucial for determining who a Christian is.
This of course lessens a creed’s usefulness for certain other legitimate purposes.
Are we talking about philanthropy or being the Church?
There is only one Church. God sets the "creed" for that. We can create "churches" - the building at the end of the street with the steeple or the home where people meet together or the coffee shop where poetry is read. But in the end, isn’t the job of the Church to add to the Kingdom. Christ’s parting shot from earth was "go and make disciples". To make disciples, there must be SOMETHING to follow.
Can we do good things in the world in conjunction with people of other faiths or no faith at all? Sure. But that’s not Church. Personally, I’d like to see the Church become more involved in social causes and not be scared of those who don’t share our own personal beliefs exactly.
But to be the Church, we must prescribe to what the Head of the Church - Christ Jesus - teaches. This is the minimum. We may say as a congregation that we want to be as inclusive as possible. To be a true vine, we can only be as inclusive as Jesus was. We can only remain in Him as He remains in the Father. Go outside of His teachings and make our own rules - or ignore his rules - and we’re no longer the Church. You’re only a joke and pretenders.
The question of creed is not so important in an individual sense. But God does not intend the Christian life to be lived individually. We need community. If I don’t know what a community believes in - at least to some extent - how can my interaction with it be anything more than superficial? To truly share life, we must share some values.
I’m not saying define pre- post- mid- trib or whatever. But tenet #1 should probably be something like "Jesus is the Christ - the only begotten of the Father - and the way to forgiveness of sins and eternal life". This should be a tenet because it’s what Christ taught. I’m not saying get all caught up in defining every little thing. But we need something or else we’ll just become a bunch of coffee-drinking do-gooders that everybody likes and wants to be around. Not everyone will like our tenets. Not everyone will believe them. But that doesn’t mean we should throw them out. It’s what our Lord teaches us. How can we deliver a different message?
By the way, I’m not knocking the name of the site or even the idea. I’m obviously attracted enough to it that I’m posting here. But just for the record, Open Source software isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It had advantages, but in the long run, there are plenty of dead ends. It seems to depend on the intelligence and skill of the programmers and there are plenty of BAD programmers out there. Is this really what we want with theology? Isn’t it written that we’re to depend our God’s strength and not our own? To beware the philosophies of men and the rudiments of this world? It’s one thing to build relationships with everyone, but you have to know good code from bad code or the whole thing will tumble like a house of cards.
Whether or not we "want&
Whether or not we "want" our theology that way is another story, but the fact is that just like free software, as a community of faith we are limited by our humanity. Just like the quality of free software is limited by "bad" programmers as you call them, our ability to grow as a community and learn theology is limited by our individual disconnected imperfect human nature as well. That is why I think the parallel between open-source software and open-source theology is so strong for me. There isn’t an earthly authority other than the community in both cases, and both communities are guided by higher principles.
You also assume, grifgraf, that it is possible to distinguish in an absolute sense between "good code" and "bad code." In the case of computer programming, this is certainly not always possible, since there are many ways to solve the same problem, and each way has its own limitations and strengths. It’s often an open question as to which method to use in which place. In a very real sense, I think that whether we like it or not (you seem not to, but…) we are in a very similar place with our theology. There are many things that we do know about, just as in programming there certainly is an "accepted" way to solve many problems in many cases. However, those known spiritual things are not interesting. The unknown parts, that is, the parts we still feel the need to discuss with one another, are the interesting parts. By definition, those are the parts of faith that are not certain, not concrete, not adressed bad-Sunday-school-style with a single verse saying "Verily, Verily" or "thou shalt not," and in some cases (the nature of the Trinity for example) are not even accesible to human logic or even human knowledge at all. So, when I think of things like this, talking about theological "good code" and "bad code" doesn’t seem like the right way of thinking or the right language to use for a discussion.
quality and practise
In many areas of society, which includes NGO’s in the voluntary sector, not just commercial enterprises, as well as within education and health sectors etc, the concept of best practice and quality assurance is well rehearsed. By many accounts, including my own experience — perhaps because so much church-based Christian work relies upon relatively untrained volunteers? —the concept of "quality" and "best practise" seems so very often to be sadly lacking within Christian work. I wonder if it is not this same attitude which also feeds our theological laxity, rather than genuine openness and tolerance?
Now, BS5950 may not yet have found its way into open-source software, let alone o/s theology, but I do think there is room for developing the concept of quality within theological discussion.
There are so many levels to which theological discussion can be taken. When an expert on a given area is "in the house" many of us will have to nominally bow to that persons learning whilst recognising that faith, belief, of course, goes beyond intellect for many Christian people and movements, whereupon academic excellence is only going to be acceptable if it confirms inner conviction and "revelatory" comprehension and understanding. Indeed, in a post-modern setting all that is very acceptable (even if the belief isn’t acceptable, we are ‘instructed’ to discuss it but ultimately to tolerate it as an "experssion of truth" held to by others).
Nevertheless, I think that theology, that is the genuine study of ("-logy") of God ("theo") etc. is someting that can be done with degrees of excellence and observable quantity. If we wish to build upon a firm foundation within our intellectual understanding of the Christian faith, this needs acknowledging, does it not, and ultimately, being allowed to transform our thinking and our own personal theologies?
Quailty Control..?
And "liberals" get accused of conceding to the standards of the "world"? Refering to "quality control" may be the ultimate concession to the world’s standards, since it is literally accepting one of them into theology. This view is not satisfactory to me. I think that as Christians we have a way of knowing that is fundamentally different than the world.
accusations and accomodations
Yes, it’s amazing what is said when we begin accusing each other of things within the body of Christ…
Really? Just referring to it? Wow! Strange. I thought accomodating to the world might have looked a little more, say… sinful?
In what way, sbryan, I wonder, is wanting to recognise quality of study within what used to be known fairly universally as "the queen of the sciences" —yes, Theology—falling into one of these categories?
Shalom!
something or someone
I think you make some needed points in this posting, grifgraf, and I personally appreciate what you are trying to work towards with your emphasis.
Regarding the making of disciples, which I agree is central to the work of the Christian community, you say:
Would it be more helpful to say:
That can be overspiritualised, even though it may be accurate, if we say that the SOMEONE is Jesus. Probably there must also be someone(s) else in whom the Spirit of Jesus can be seen, who embodies the teaching of the Head, through practical obedience.
When the gritty, in-your-face, person-to-person aspect of discipleship is removed, we instead endeavour to make disciples, it would seem, through seeking adherence to patterns, creeds and, perhaps most powerfully of all, through subtly requiring allegiance the culture of the Christian organisation ("church")—the very thing which is the least accountable to God and man and the most resistant to change.
Re: Are we talking about philanthropy or being the Church?
"But to be the Church, we must prescribe to what the Head of the Church - Christ Jesus - teaches. This is the minimum. We may say as a congregation that we want to be as inclusive as possible. To be a true vine, we can only be as inclusive as Jesus was. We can only remain in Him as He remains in the Father. Go outside of His teachings and make our own rules - or ignore his rules - and we’re no longer the Church. You’re only a joke and pretenders."
Do you celebrate as Jesus did? Do you pray as Jesus did? Do you go to Temple as Jesus did?
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
A question… When you say
"6. He died for the ‘sins’ of a recalcitrant nation, but the realignment of the people around Jesus himself – as king, son, word, temple, high priest – meant that the door was now open for Gentiles to become part of the people of God. Indirectly, therefore, this was a death for the whole world."
What gentiles where there? Are you speaking of the people of other nations, of other beliefs? You are basically saying that god only accepts the faith of people who believe in the torah and the new testament? I doubt that Jesus, or God, would have not acceptted anyone. Afterall, isn’t God and Jesus all about love and respect?
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
So what you are saying is that either you are Jewish or you believe in Jesus and therefore will go to heaven? I would think that Christians would have to be considered Jewish if, for no other reason, their savior was as well. To follow Jesus would imply following not just his words but his faith. Would it not?
I guess my problem is that I cannot accept that God would put terms on faith. And whatever that calling might be would be unique to each person. Not all of us can be priests or rabbis, pilots or senators, cooks or actors, good or bad. The basis of God’s calling and one’s faith must come from ones’ heart and cannot be dictated by terms. For example, you might feel it is your calling to preach the gospel of Jesus and based upon your interpretation of faith, that deed meets God’s terms of membership. I might feel it is my calling to enter public service and feed needy people, and based upon my interpretation of faith, that deed meets God’s terms of membership.
Andrew - I am truely enjoying this conversation!
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
I think the Jewish option is becoming a bit of a distraction here. What the New Testament sets out is a reconfiguration of the historic people of God around the person of Jesus - he takes over the defining symbols of king, priest, torah, temple, sacrificial system. In the process membership of this people is redefined: non-Jews can approach the God who revealed himself to Israel by sharing in Jesus’ relationship to the Father. The old symbols no longer apply - Judaism is superseded by a way of being the people of God based on a relationship of trust.
Notice the emphasis in this on being part of a people rather than on going to heaven. ‘Going to heaven’ is (in my view) a ‘reward’ for those who suffer on account of their faith in Christ. Being part of this ‘people’ entails both privilege and responsibility - the responsiblity to live in a way that genuinely reflects the fact that the true God dwells in its midst through the Holy Spirit. What should ensure the authenticity of this claim is that members of this community are disciples of Jesus Christ.
Obviously this must be a response of the heart - but it is a response to a calling. Jesus calls people to be part of the community that gathers around him, that identifies itself with him through baptism and sharing in the Lord’s supper, that has the same ‘spirit’ that Jesus had, that provides a metaphorical temple in which the God of the whole world is encountered.
So if you believe that Jesus is calling you to enter public service and feed needy people, then he is calling you to do so as part of a community of disciples, followers, apprentices, who have committed themselves to him, marked out from the rest of the world by a new covenant in his blood.
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
Sorry, I did not mean to place Judaism as an option - I was just trying to understand the point you were making. I take issue with your statement "Judaism is superseded by a way of being the people of God based on a relationship of trust." since it implies that there was no relationship of trust between people and God prior to Jesus.
I prefer not to get into the realm of heaven/hell since I don’t see it as meaningful in terms of faith. Society has rules that determine good & evil and there are tangible rewards and penalties.
Being a part of any people (Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, aethiest, whatever) entails both privilege and responsibility. The holy spirit is a symbol of God’s pressence but his/her pressense alone should not be reason why people do good.
As to the feeling of community - this is where I started with my first post - I am convinced that while belief in Jesus creates a community of like minded people - it divides the greater community. These divisions are more dangerous than helpful. If this is truely a temple of "God of the whole world" then belief or not in Jesus or any particular religion would be irrelevent.
Actually, my calling (this was purely an example) was out of my personal interest to help others. Maybe this had some foundation in faith, maybe not.
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
Just a quick diversion here, Andrew, because these terms of reference come up every now and again…
Jews obviously participated in the Jewish nation on the basis of race. I think it is questionable to conflate race and torah observance together as the basis of participation in the covenant.
Jews participate in the covenant on the basis of faithfulness to the covenant calling, primarily expressed through circumcision, something that a careful reading of the NT (Acts 21.21, 24:13-20 et al) doesn’t appear to change - for Jews, not Gentiles.
It seems that an important NT issue was turning torah observance into a set of religious rules which could be followed without faith, without reliance upon God - for which Paul coined the term "upo nomos" - usually translated "under the law" or referred to as "legalism" - the letter without the Spirit.
Meanwhile, Hebrews 11 confirms that faith has always been the manner in which God was pleased with (mainly Jewish) faithfulness - and thus faith is not a NT invention. The wider framework suggests to me that faith and torah observance could probably be described as being the same thing. It is in correctly understanding what torah is that faithfulness to the calling is worked out.
Hebrews 8.6 according to certain Messianic Jewish commentators suggests the new covenant itself "has been made torah" - the "torah as upheld by the Messiah," (1 Corinthians 9.21 JNT) - that is torah, as understood and taught by the Messiah.
I recognise we may not want to get into responding about the finer details of these things, but if you can comfortably respond to the main point about faith’s relevance to the former covenant, that would be helpful - I note your other correspondent takes issue with you on the same point.
shalom! - john
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
You have crystalized my thoughts eloquently.
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
I fully agree with the basic point about the foundational character of faith in the Old Testament - the lack of clarity arises from trying to say too much in too few words. Sorry about that. I noticed that Larry had also drawn attention to this.
I wonder, though, if we don’t make too much of the faith issue, in this respect: Israel was under judgment (experienced concretely as foreign oppression and the prospect of war) not because of a lack of faith but because of a lack of righteousness, a failure of obedience (= idolatry, immorality, injustice).
The question that then arises is: How should the people respond to this state of failure? How can righteousness be recovered and the destruction of judgment avoided. Isn’t it right to say that Jesus called a people to receive forgiveness (still understood primarily in national terms) and righteousness as a gift of grace (cf. Dan. 9) in himself, centred around him. To the extent that this hope was realized and people experienced reconciliation with YHWH and a renewal of spiritual life in the Spirit, Jesus came to replace the structures and practices of Israel’s political-religious life by which people had sought to deal with the crisis that the nation faced. These ‘structures and practices’ included the major religious symbols, but we could also include separationism, asceticism, and armed rebellion. None of these things would ensure the concrete, historical ‘salvation’ of a covenant people.
I’m not sure if this is helpful or not, but there is perhaps something to be gained by recognizing that at the heart of this whole question is not the more abstract religious debate over faith and works but the call to be a God-centred and righteous people. Of course, that ‘call’ is already a matter of grace, but it is a call not to be a people of faith primarily but to be a people who genuinely express in their lives the character (or spirit) of the living God. Am I getting this all screwed up?
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
This part I do not understand…
"I wonder, though, if we don’t make too much of the faith issue, in this respect: Israel was under judgment (experienced concretely as foreign oppression and the prospect of war) not because of a lack of faith but because of a lack of righteousness, a failure of obedience (= idolatry, immorality, injustice)."
Israel (or I am guessing more accurately you are saying the people of Israel or Jewish Race) was under judgement? Was this judgement any more or less then individuals, communities, or nations are under every day? From what I understand, Israel was under occupation by The Romans and had to do what they had to do to survive.
The true "lack of righteousness" came from the Rabbis who enjoyed their wealth and power (at the hands of The Romans) and the Romans who not only tortured but murdered Jesus (and many other Jews). Both the Rabbis and The Romans saw Jesus as a threat to their power and used coerision to motivate their followers to feel this way. It was because of this greed that there was idolatry, immortality, injstice…etc.. If Jesus had not been murdered would we be having this discussion today? Noone knows.
The question that I have is can this really be considered a "state of failure"? This type of situation has been going on from the beginning of time and continues today. It is not so much a state of failure but evidence of the imperfection of mankind. Unfortunantely we have not learned from history.
How did Jesus replace any structure or symbol in or of Israel? If that was true all Jews would have accepted him as Christ. Certainly Moses was the closest thing anyone had at the time to a Christ and even he was not seen as the one.
One more question - why do you have to be god centered to be righteous?
Israel's self-understanding
No, there was nothing exceptional about the experience as such. But the prophetic tradition in Israel consistently interpreted the historical experience, especially national catastrophe, as divine judgment. Jesus continued this interpretive tradition: he warned those who had responsibility for the spiritual condition of the nation that unless they repented, Jerusalem and its temple would be destroyed. In other words, there is a prophetic-narrative framework to Israel’s situation in the first century that sets it apart from, say, the experience of other nations under Roman occupation.
Yes, inasmuch as Israel believed itself to have a special calling from God to live according to the terms of the covenant with Moses. Ultimately, being under threat from Rome was understood - at least by a certain prophetic stream within Jewish belief - to be a consequence of the failure of Israel to keep the covenant. Again, the issue here is not the general one of human existence (‘the imperfection of mankind’) but the particular one of Israel’s self-understanding as a ‘chosen people’ - which, of course, raises a whole different set of issues, not least the following:
In general terms I suppose it’s fair to say that you do not have to be ‘God-centred’ to be righteous. But we are not talking in general terms here. The Bible defines ‘righteousness’ for the covenant people (whether we are talking about the old or the new covenant) as fundamentally ‘God-centred’. The community that is ‘in Christ’ inherits the obligation both to love God and to love our neighbours. That is what it means to be the ‘people of God’ in a biblical sense. Of course, if we move outside the biblical framework, we are free to define righteousness in other ways.
Re: Israel's self-understanding
Then again, just because folks thousands of years ago believed something does not make it so. Right? Mankind was still looking for answers and without such answers "God" was used in it’s place. "God" was also used as way to control mankind - to set laws and enforce them by forcing people to imagine the ultimate penalties. Througout history there have been many catastrophes. Once science advanced we were able to determine the cause of these catastrophes. Once the study of the nature of man progressed we were able to determine why there is murder, oppression, etc… Do the catastrophes that happen today (ie. Tsunami, Katrina, Holocaust, etc…) happen as a result of some divine judgement or did that only happen in biblical times (or biblical tales)?
Sometimes I wonder if we take these books too literaly?
Re: Israel's self-understanding
It is not necessary theologically to attribute all catastrophes to divine judgment or divine intervention. All I’m saying is that Israel interpreted certain national disasters as divine judgment. They would also, no doubt, have recognized that invasion, war, exile, famine, etc., have natural or political causes. But the point is that within the story that Israel told about itself at this time, an event such as Babylonian invasion was bound to be seen as in some way an expression of the will of God - especially since prophets had warned in advance that something like this would happen.
I don’t think this is simply a matter of finding explanations for things that happen - this is a very modern preoccupation. it has to do with the fact that a covenant people (including the church) sees itself as being in a dynamic relationship with God that is not above history, that in fact is expressed through the visissitudes of history.
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
on failure : see my earlier post above for an alternative view of this
on being righteous: my understanding of righteousness is that is means little more than being in right relationship with God - from his point of view - thus it’s about how he invites us into relationship, the ‘ground’ so to speak onto which he invites us to stand.
Traditionally this has been related by a host of theological jargon (as in ‘technical language,’ not ‘mumbo jumbo’). Part of the interest and conversation of "emerging" faith communities is rediscovering the realities that lie behind the jargon, many of which get overlooked by the culture and doctrinal emphases of various Christian traditions.
shalom! - john
righteousness
‘Righteousness’ is one of those words hi-jacked by the reformation and modernism, and very much in need of reconnecting with its biblical roots.
Rather than being in general terms ‘in right relationship with God’, or ‘right with God’ as it is sometimes popularly interpreted, which might lay itself open to modernist abstractions, its OT roots link it more specifically with covenantal, as opposed to more generally moral, categories.
God’s ‘righteousness’ is therefore his faithfulness to the covenant - rather than his abstract, moral qualities in themselves.
Our (or Israel’s) righteousness is not, as N.T.Wright insists, a moral quality which is shared with God and which he imparts to us, but something rather distinct - a state of acquittal, or vindication, at God’s tribunal.
Israel’s problem therefore was unfaithfulness to the covenant - and failure to see (Paul calls it lack of knowledge in Romans) how that unfaithfulness could be remedied. Forgiveness of sins did not come about through stricter adherence to the covenant, but through the sacrifice which Jesus came to offer on Israel’s behalf (and, by proxy, ours as well - since this was Israel’s elective destiny and purpose).
In passing, since it has a bearing on the conversation, forgiveness of sins was something very much on Israel’s mind in the light of a geographical return from exile, but absence of spiritual blessing which would have signified a reversal of the curse of the exile. So the exile continued - into Jesus’s day - and temple liturgy of the period indicates that Israel was still praying and hoping for a reversal of exile, and blessings which would accompany it, at the heart of which was forgiveness of sins.
Modernism has hi-jacked ‘righteousness’, and with a little help from Luther and his friends, made it an individual moral quality (or imputed moral quality, to take a theological term which has no biblical basis whatsoever), in the light of a misunderstood translation of ‘iustitia dei’ - the ‘righteousness of God’. Luther saw this as a term describing God’s ‘distributive justice’ - whereby an angry God required satisfaction for his broken law, and Jesus bore the penalty of God’s wrath. He misunderstood the meaning of ‘iustitia’ - taking it as a more general legal term (he was a law student) instead of seeing it as covenantal term.
right all along?
Hello Peter
Yes, thanks for the clarification. I’m not from a reformed background and, although the inputed idea is not unknown by me, I’ve had a covenantal understanding for some time, even before reading NT Wright. You are right to make the clarification though, because a Lutheran understanding of righteousness is the normal "default setting" I suppose - a point I made in the book review… did you get a chance to read after your patient anticipation?
My understanding of righteousness is therefore that being in right relationship with God is about "keeping covenant faithfulness." I wonder how you would view "keeping covenant," Peter (or others)? Is it something we can do - or are we abject sinners, incapable of anything good, except being passive recipients of supernatural grace? How do we exhibit "trusting faithfulness" to the new covenant?
Is "keeping covenant" different from the tribunal aquittal or vindication that Wright speaks of? Doesn’t he suggest that in reality this is something that will take place in the eschaton and that what we have now is a fore-telling of the vindication, a promise, a downpayment? Is that what we are somehow taking hold of with our trusting faithfulness?
I would also be grateful to know how you personally understand "covenant," Peter?
Incidentally, I thought your description of the nature of Israel’s problem as not so much a failure of faithfulness as their…
… was very interesting. I will be thinking about that one some more, but if you wanted to enlarge further upon it, do go ahead.
Meanwhile, I wonder, did you not misplace the "not" in this sentence:
It seems to read as though you disagree with Wright, rather than upholding him, as I think you intended to do.
shalom! - john
Wright all along
Thanks John - the sentence was misleading: should have been something like "Wright insists that righteousness is not a moral quality shared with God’" etc.
My understanding of Wright is that everything points to the eschaton, the vindication of God’s people, but that we can experience the effects of that vindication in some measure now. This is his explanation of ‘justification’ - the understanding of which has of course been massively (and in his view, erroneously) influenced by Luther, but is now being given a significantly different interpretation.
Incidentally, this may be a key difference between Wright and the approach being suggested by Andrew - where everything hinges on a parousia (and maybe eschaton also) which took place in A.D.70, rather than an eschaton yet to come.
In what sense is ‘righteousness’ a covenant term today? I suppose loyalty to Jesus in the new covenant parallels the loyalty to Jahweh of the old covenant (an emphasis that seems to get played down or even ignored in some presentations today). And like the old covenant, the new covenant begins with something received, rather than, as is popular supposed, a contrast between ‘works’ in the one and ‘faith’ in the other.
The evidence of righteousness would be Spirit-reception and the joining with God’s people who are characterised by the life of the Spirit - gifts and fruit - having Jesus as the focal point and object of their worship and loyalty.
This is a slightly (very?) simplistic summary, but it brings into play some of the key features which I think would be relevant in a discussion of ‘righteousness’.
By the way, thank you for your review of ‘The coming of…’; being an unreformed cheapskate I have held back from buying a copy, but now have one on order from our cathedral bookshop which offers 10% discounts to members of the clergy. I’m not ordained, but pleading ‘the priesthood of all believers’ always works and we do hold a parish account at the shop.
coming right along
Excellent, Peter!
That got a lol (laugh out loud), "priesthood of all believers" - cheeky, but cheerful.
There is certainly a lot to discuss once a few of us have digested a copy. I didn’t get a chance to enlarge upon it at all, but one of the concerns I wanted to highlight was how the eschatological framework Andrew proposes, affects how we actually perceive "the faith entrusted to us" - including the nature of salvation, for example. The book (deliberately) stops short of a lot of these kind of answers, but (equally deliberately) raises the questions.
Meanwhile, I’m interested in pursuing the covenant issue a bit further -
Could this (tongues-in-cheek) simpy be interpreted as "baptism in the Holy Spirit and going along to one of those charismatic churches that exhibits the fruit of the Spirit"? Is there really no more to new covenant righteousness than that? I appreciate you did say it was overtly simplified.
(What do you say to opening up another forum post, where we properly frame the question we are trying to answer?)
shalom! - john
Re: coming right along
John - I don’t think evidence of ‘righteousness’ would mean at all certain types of church practice/tradition to the exclusion of others. While I am part of the kind of church you describe, I also hold to the view that one Spirit reception (accompanying belief in Jesus) suffices for both Christian initiation and empowering for mission (although there may be many subsequent fillings with the Spirit). So I’m not a two-stage man - in the Menzies/Dunn debate.
I also hold the view that fruit and gifts of the Spirit are evidenced in all kinds of groups (Christian, that is) -whether there is a belief in pentecostal gifts, baptism in the Spirit or not. There may be different ways in which these are expressed, and a prevalence of certain kinds of gifts in come churches which are not so evident (or evident in different ways) in others. Overall though, I wasn’t making a distinction between some types of churches/groups and others.
In my view, the true test of the Spirit’s presence in any group is the presence of the character and practice of the deeds of Jesus amongst those who profess to be committed to him. This would be evidence of righteousness, which is another way of saying that the new covenant was operative in that group.
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
I agree with your implicit suggestion that the term "faith" easily becomes one of those jargonistic words that can refer to a host of things to different religious groups. In that sense, I would agree with you that it is possible to make too much of it.
Nevertheless, I think the wider issue which lies behind faith is what David Stern terms "trusting faithfulness" - a subtle blend of obedience, trust and allegiance, even love and biblically, throughout both testaments, the single path to righteousness.
In that sense Israel’s lack of righteousness was because of their lack of trusting faithfulness and, in turn, the reason why they didn’t fully recognise and embrace the Messiah. I agree that the goal of faith is the right relationship of a people of God that is demonstrated by that blend of character and service that is implied by this understanding of "trusting faithfulness" - to calling, to the very person of Jesus…
You go on to mention the reorientation of the call to trusting faithfulness around him. I noticed in your book, if I understood you correctly, andrew, that you suggested that, had a wider body of Jews accepted the Messiah - or perhaps implicitly, the national / religious leadership? - this might have led to the developement of a more Hebraic character to the Christian faith. I found that quite interesting.
I wonder, therefore, whether you would see value in the retrospective search for the Hebraic character and cultural understanding that many scholars and Christian movements (Messianic Judaism, Jewish roots etc) are engaging in?
shalom! - john
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
"In that sense Israel’s lack of righteousness was because of their lack of trusting faithfulness and, in turn, the reason why they didn’t fully recognise and embrace the Messiah. I agree that the goal of faith is the right relationship of a people of God that is demonstrated by that blend of character and service that is implied by this understanding of "trusting faithfulness" - to calling, to the very person of Jesus…"
Couldn’t it also be argues that the people of Israel where simply following God’s rules by not embracing Jesus as the Messiah? Afterall - the first commandment was "You shall have no other Gods but me." Giving the people of Israel the benefit of the doubt one could say that to believe in someone embodying God on earth would be a violation of the very first commandment.
Re: My (tentative) beliefs
"I noticed in your book, if I understood you correctly, andrew, that you suggested that, had a wider body of Jews accepted the Messiah - or perhaps implicitly, the national / religious leadership? - this might have led to the developement of a more Hebraic character to the Christian faith."
Had the Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah there probably would not have been Christianity.
Additionally, if Jesus had not been murdered there might not have been Christianity.
I believe it is those two items that began a new religious movement.