This is a response to a response of David Fitch to a response of Ben Sternke to David's interview of Frank Viola... This is a model of missio Dei theology that I'm working out. Take it for what its worth (which is probably not much at all compared to what these guys bring to the table!).
I'm particularly responding to this statement of Ben's:
In the end, I think that any paradigm that seeks to place missiology "ahead of" or "prior to" ecclesiology (ala Hirsch) is problematic, because the church always ends up being provisional and/or optional.
To put it bluntly: Yes, God needs the church.
It seems much, much more "problematic" to me to think of God a
s needing anything than it is to think of the church as ending up "provisional and/or optional." It is a problematic dilemma of which I am sure anyone can spot: How can God, a perfect being, need anything?
In our theology of the missio Dei, it seems clear to me that a paradigm of Divine abundance would be far superior to a paradigm of Divine need.
This is a model of abundance that seems to make more sense to me. It seems to make more sense to me that God doesn't need the Church (the corpus Christi) in the process of re-creation and redemption any more (or any less) than he would need the Adam (the imago Dei) in the process of creation. As I see it, it was not out of a lack in Himself, or a 'need' for human co-creativity that he created the Adam. It was out abundance, out of the overflow of God's joy and ("It was good") pleasure in His creative activity. Out of the excess (not need), He wanted to share this joyful vocation of creativity with humanity.
As there seems to be a striking analogy between the imago Dei (the Adam) and the corpus Christi (the Second Adam), it appears also that this analogy might hold true between the missio Dei via imago Dei and the missio Dei via corpus Christi. It would likewise not be out a lack or need that God in Christ missions through the Church. It is out of excess and abundance of joy. We are graced by the overflow--not recruited because of the need--to be participants in the joyful, life-giving re-creativity of Christ.
At least that's what seems to make sense to me. But this is, of course, based on a chain of reasoning into which I could not go in depth here.
1 comment:
Real God or The Divine Conscious Light which is alive as quite literally every-"thing" doesnt need the "church" at all.
Which church, whose church?
The fear-saturated church as exemplified by Calvin (who is very big at the moment). Where executions, drownings, and burning at the stake for "heretics" and "miscreants" were the "order" of the day. And where any kind of pleasure, laughter, singing, colour, bells, incense were banished.
True Religion is a celebration of The Beautiful. Anything less is an abomination.
Plus you dont really believe that Jesus (or any radiantly alive Saint) would be welcome at the Vatican, or Canterbury Cathedral, or at the seat of administrative power of ANY Christian denomination. Or at Wheaton, Biola, Calvin College etc etc.
Or at any of their self-congratulatory conventions, rallies, seminars or talk-fests.
Why do you think Jesus was executed. Because his radiant presence was unacceptable to the then religious establishment.
So too today---even more so.
Post a Comment