“There are multiple problems with King’s theology as well as Padgitt’s…the kingdom of God and not the cross of Jesus Christ stands at the center of the liberal theological system.”
Mark Driscoll in response to Doug Padgitt in Listening to the Voices of the Emergent Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 145.
Robert Dugan makes fun of my overuse of the words “ontological” and “epistemological.” This is probably warranted, but my defense is that they are useful categories for understanding the relationship between many things in life including the “two legs” (to borrow a term that Doug Padgitt used this weekend) of soteriology.
I grew up with a one leg understanding. I know about the epistemological leg. The leg that rightly informs us that we need to confess Jesus as our savior in order to be saved. It is the leg that is steeped in Paul, knows all about justification by faith alone as well as Paul’s claim to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified.
But something happens. Children die around the world because of aids. Economic and social inequality widens in our communities. There is talk of water shortage around the world and food for everyone is a glaring problem. Suddenly I find myself engaging the social work students who sit across from me in my seminary class rooms and feel as though I haven’t really been embracing the whole picture of salvation.
Why does the whole creation long for redemption? Why is there no talk about belief in the sheep and goats passage? Why does Jesus spend so much time restoring if we all die in the end anyway?
I learned of my need for two legs…and so I discovered the ontological leg of salvation. The leg that has dire need of seeing salvation participate in the now. It’s the leg of salvation that asks you not just to receive something, but to participate in something. It is the leg that people stand on when who they have become is laid against the backdrop of God’s all consuming reality at the end of the Lewis’s The Last Battle.
The best thing I learned this weekend was this. Someone asked if we can separate Jesus from the Kingdom of God? I’m still not entirely sure what was meant by that, but Doug pointed out this verse in Acts 28:31 “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.”
In our journey towards God there is this beautiful interplay between taking one step on the epistemological leg and meditating on the person and work of Jesus and then letting that reality empower your stride with the alternative, ontological leg. The leg that participates in the Kingdom and experiences the KOG today and finds eternal life today.
My response to Marc Driscoll is that I understand the logical priority of the epistemological leg, but not the theological priority. Though the liberal protestants have pushed the ontological leg to the distorted forefront of the picture picture, I don’t think the right backlash is to pit the epistemological leg against and push for the priority of the same.
My thoughts.
Carney
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Well put,... Your thoughts remind me of another’s words.
"Hasn't the individualistic question about personal salvation almost completely left us all? Aren't we really under the impression that there are more important things than the than that question (perhaps not more important than the matter itself, but, more important than the question!) ? I know it sounds pretty monstrous to say that. But fundamentally, isn't this in fact biblical? Does the question about saving one's soul appear in the Old Testament at all? Aren't righteousness and the kingdom of God on earth the focus of everything, and isn't it true that Romans 3:24 is not an individualistic doctrine of salvation, but the culmination of the view that God alone is righteous? It is not with the beyond that we are concerned, but with this world created and preserved, subjected to laws, reconciled, and restored. What is above this world is, in the gospel, intended to exist for this world; I mean that, not in the anthropocentric sense of liberal, mystic, pietistic, ethical theology, but in the biblical sense of the creation and of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
- May 5th 1944
It seems nonsensical that those of us who are joined in the body of Christ, would spend time arguing about our claim to salvation in Christ without acknowledging Christ's claim on us. Yet this is the state of the American Church. We have systematically created for ourselves, Christ v. cross v. Church v. salvation. In so doing we have created half gospels from which to chose, either making no claim to salvation, or no claim on us.
-But we are once again driven right back to the beginnings of our understanding. Reconciliation and redemption, regeneration and the Holy Spirit. In these broken times we need hope. Hope that can only be offered by the Gospel itself. We are now waiting on a new language born out of prayer and action for justice on behalf of people. It is not yet the time for this language though the day will come. We hope in Jesus Christ. One day "They shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provided for it (Jer. 33:9). Until then the Christian cause will be a silent and hidden affair, but there will be those who pray and act for justice and wait for God's own time. May you be one of them, and may it be said to you one day. "The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter till full day" (Prov. 4:18)
Grace and Peace
Todo que te hablas/piensas es un producto de tu educacion theological serio, y tal vez quiere que todos, y mas o menos todos tus amigos piensan equal a ti, porque tienen un trasfondo cerca de ti. Pero, hay "minoridades", como te dice, y muchos algunos otros que, tal vez, pensativos, no piensan como ti en todo tus piensamientos serios, ni te intienden tampoco.
Si quieres usar palabras religio impresionante, usa la - y yo lo mantere escribiendo y hablando en espanol.
Que te vaya bien, amigo mio, y que Dios te bendiga. Tu hijo es muchisimo curiosito!
what the hell did robert just say?!?!
I was asking the exact same question after reading J's post, April. Catch up.
Verde es bueno, que son divertidas. Español no es lo que yo tenía en mente cuando se refiere a un nuevo idioma. En cuanto a la utilización religiosa de las grandes palabras, son un mal necesario. El detalle de la gestión es fundamental para la tarea de un teólogo. J's amigos comprender bien los detalles de su posición, que también son compasivos. Plomo con amor no teología.
La gracia y la Paz
Mi punto exacto, carnal. Y a vezes se fundieron los plomos. Como me dije, hay vezes que necesita usar palabras empresios, y hay vezes que necesita usar ideas y idiomas con un punado de tierra para el resto del mundo, como yo, los sabionderos.
I think your post is a good, especially the second to last paragraph where you talk about taking one step with the epistemological leg and than another with the ontological, or something like that. The biggest problem, it seems to me, with all of this talk is that we have abstracted the person and work of Christ into epistemological and ontological categories, turning soteriology into a subset of both of these. Making Christ an abstract proposition, in either the form of epistemology or ontology (pray the prayer vs. ethics alone) domesticates the gospel, making it more palatable and easier for our humanity to control and use for our own advantage. I'm not saying anyone in this debate is doing this, but the beauty of the gospel is its all-encompassing call our lives and the transforming power of all of reality; it changes how we think, and changes how we live, and surprises us (or ought to) at every turn. Only if we keep epistemology and ontology in service of the good news of Jesus Christ, which establishes both, can we rightly understand how great, beautiful, and life-altering this gospel really is (Rom. 8:32).
Erik,
what is the gospel?
Funny how we throw that word around as if its self-evident what we're talking about. I guess I should have been more careful in defining it.
Luke 4:18-21 puts the life-altering, world-changing gospel like this: "The spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
Without getting too descriptive, I think Christ is putting forward a new way of living, consistent with the vision of Torah and the prophets, a concrete and lived reality in the year of Lord's favor (from the OT), which depends upon people hearing (epistemology) but is only brought about because of who he is (ontology).
Does that answer your question, or do you want more?
The reason I think it might have been unclear as to what the gospel is stems from the fact that I wanted to make clear that discussions regarding epistemology and ontology in regards to Jesus Christ and salvation only really make sense if we understand the gospel as a new vision of reality, with the center being the person and work of Jesus Christ. They really shouldn't be pitted against each other (which I don't think you're doing), because they both are necessary for the gospel. How can we live in light of Christ's way of life (the gospel and Kingdom of God) unless we know this way of life?
Post a Comment