I'm wrestling with notions of history a lot these days. One of the complaints, and I think it is justified, against evangelical theologies are their ahistorical quality. Certainly where such theologies disdain pre-parousia life this is true. But one of the cautions evangelicals have about Liberation Theologies and even the Social Gospel is the way it fully situates God's activity within historical forces. Within a kingdom theology (Laddian) perspective, might it not be better to find a middle way? The activity of God belongs to God alone. However, God is not passive or waiting, but actively at work undoing the effect of sin. As we align ourselves with God, we begin to do what we see the Father doing, as Jesus modelled. And in doing so we participate with God's effective work in history. However, this work is not salvific but redemptive - where salvation is secured in the consummation when God will bring an end to human history but redemption is the preparation of all things for the return of God. Does this model maintain the sovereignty of God, the significance of human action without reducing God's activity to just a historical force? What I want to articulate is a God who, while outside of history, is active within history: a God who is both now and not yet.
Thoughts?
7 comments:
As a lover of history, I think you are on the right track. I always felt that God is a God of history in that He works through the lives of people. There is a reason why a majority of written Scriptures is written as history.
I don't think this view weakness God's sovereignty or strengthens significance of human action as they are both so intertwined. In fact, I think trying to split them into two is a mistake. Humanity can not exist without God and God, while He can exist without humanity, has bound Himself so close to us that our future is His future. We are couple dancing on the floor of history surrounded by a fog of mystery that only He can see through.
I'm finding this particular blog entry harder to decipher than most of yours. Not sure if that's me or you...
Mike this is part of a highly technical discussion so I was really trying to get some feedback from theologians like Josh here. I wanted to get it up quick because I need to address some of the concerns I raise in the chapter I am about to write.
In plain English I'm saying that maybe the evangelical tendency to not care that much about historical context is deliberate. Evangelical generally want to avoid reducing God to some sort of historical force. I want an option that is somewhere in the middle. Does that help at all?
Oops I left out a sentence when I edited that. Let me try that again:
In plain English I'm saying that maybe the evangelical tendency to not care that much about historical context is deliberate. Evangelical generally want to avoid reducing God to some sort of historical force. I want an option that is somewhere in the middle. I want to take history seriously and I want a God who is much more than just historical processes. Does that help at all?
While not being much of a theologian, I would say that it would seems strange to me that God doesn't care deeply about history as it seems that his most important document contains a whole lot of it.
Hey Kevin! The problem is what kind of history are we talking about. Most post-enlightenment people think of history in an almost scientific fashion - that we can line up the dates and have an accurate accounting of the past. But it is highly debatable if the authors and redactors of Scripture had that in mind. And when we consider the postmodern addition of questioning the ability of ever having an objective understanding of history and it gets even more complex. Definitely there is a memorial aspect to Scripture, and even the Judeo-Christian religions. God's historical faithfulness testifies to God's continuing faithfulness, for example. But that is a different purpose for history than say reconstructing an accurate picture of the daily life of say a 1st century Jew.
But that doesn't address your insight - does God care deeply about history. When I'm talking about God's action in history I'm talking about where we can expect God to show up, and how we can expect God to show up. Theologians vary a great deal on this issue. From our own mutual experiences we can contrast the cessationists expectations with the charismatics expectations.
I think history has covered up the true message of the Gospels. I have recently found a book, Cover Up: How the Church Silenced Jesus's True Heirs by Lawrence Goudge, that exposes the cover up. In this new book Goudge proposes that the Jewish followers of Jesus preserved the beliefs and practices of the original apostles: Peter, James and John. Therefore, the true heretics were those who created the new religion of the dying God (anathema to Peter James and John). Cover-Up: How the Church Silenced Jesus's True Heirs exposes the church's hypocrisy in first silencing those who truly followed Jesus and then exterminating them, just as they did the Cathars. I just learned of a new book – Cover Up: How the Church Silenced Jesus's True Heirs by Lawrence Goudge. I found it here http://tinyurl.com/69cazll. Let me know what you think of it.
Post a Comment