When the Gospel is reduced to a feeling, a mood, the space for growth in grace and knowledge has been negated. Theologians (docents) become irrelevant; not to mention the pastors who seek to preach deeply the Word of God. What fills the vacuum are the ear ticklers and the professional musicians. God help us.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I don’t think most know this: but every decision a person makes in this life is informed by theology. That doesn’t mean it is being informed by a genuinely Christian theology, but theology just the same. Many people presume that they aren’t religious, and thus further presume that they simply live a-theological lives. But the problem with that, one anyways, is that in a world that is contingent upon God’s Word, His eternal Logos, Jesus Christ, for its ongoing existence, everything in such a world necessarily becomes theological (“religious” even). If this is true (and be sure, it is!), it behooves the Christian and the non-Christian alike to work at having the good theology; indeed, as that is delivered afresh anew as Jesus Christ at the Father’s Right Hand, in-breaks into this world by the Holy Spirit into each one of our lives on the daily (second-by-second). You might think you’re free from this, oh dearest self-proclaimed “non-religious” person. Jesus makes clear that the Holy Spirit comes convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. And so, this invites each and every one of us to live the repentant life. The life that Christ first lived for us every step, every breath He took for us as He lived here among us some two-thousand years ago. It is the life of the cross; we are called to take up the cross of Christ daily and follow Him. To be sure, He has already done that first for us. Hence, He has called us, and is calling us, and is calling you to walk in the power of His might, who is the Holy Spirit of the living God.
We are all theologians in this world, whether we might like it or not. Even if you think you’re an a-theologian (think atheist or agnostic, or “non-religious”), even so, you make “theological” decisions every day of your life. It is impossible not to whilst we inhabit a world that has been graciously created and recreated by the triune God; in a world where every single human life is held and made in the image of God, who is the image of Christ.
More engagement with a Mormon (a different one this time).
On Mormonism as a Form of Gnostic Arianism
No, it’s because the Mormon Jesus is equivocal with the Christian Jesus. In other words, the Mormon Jesus is not understood to be the second person of the Trinity (along with the Father and Holy Spirit), i.e., not βπππππ’π πππ (of the same exact being) with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Mormon Jesus, at best, is a philosophical demiurge deployed by the Father (who alone is God) to point the LDS to their inherent need to be freed from the physical body and become “Father-Gods” themselves (with a harem of celestial wives … which I would imagine you’re aspiring towards). In the primitive church what Mormons present the world today with is what was known as Gnosticism (and a form of Arianism in regard to the Son) then. Yes, none of this is original to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young (barring their own respective historical idiosyncrasies and lack of intellectual sophistication).
In the end, the Mormon would do well to heed the Patristic theologian’s, Athanasius’, words against the Gnostic and Arian understanding of salvation and Godself, as he writes: “Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to signify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him Unoriginate.” (Athanasius, πΆπππ‘ππ π΄ππππππ 1.9.34.)
On Mormon Deification and Theosis
Mormon notions of deification have zero correspondence with Christian and or Patristic (early church) thinking on deification. The LDS appeals to language like deification, but they do so only under the pressures of their own doctrine of ‘Godhead.’ The Christian notion of deification is purely grounded in the Christian God’s theopoiesis for us. This entails the notion that it required God to ‘become us that we might by grace and adoption [not nature] become Him,’ that is, that He freely became us in the grace of Christ’s life that we might by the faith of Christ by the Holy Spirit, come into spiritual union with Christ’s resurrected humanity, thereby becoming adoptees of God, and thus become participant in the triune life of God; indeed, just as the Son, in the bosom of the Father, has always been in the glory of the Father as the Father has been in the glory of the Son by the bonding glory of the Holy Spirit (one in three / three in one), see John 17. Since Mormons reject the Nicene (biblical) doctrine of the Trinity, they can only hope to be like their exemplar, Jesus (a creature, spirit-brother of Lucifer, in their view), and attain a life-like Father-God in the eschaton someday (where the man can have their own planet with a celestial harem, populating their respective planets with celestial children had by their celestial wives, just as the Father-God now did with Mary by birthing Jesus::they downplay this though). And this, based on their climbing a ladder of knowledge (so, thematically, Gnostic-like), which they identify as ‘covenant-keeping’ (which of course is based on their own striving, not grace as understood Christianly). Ultimately, for Christians, historically we do not believe that we become gods, instead we believe that we become fully human in the πβππππ‘βπππππ (Godman) humanity of Jesus Christ; who alone is God for us, and brings us into His Sonship (not by nature but grace) by which, as adopted children of the Father, as it were, within the triune Monarxia, we live in the beatific vision of the Godhead. That is, we inhabit the triune God’s inner-life, in all the mystery that entails; which sounds like Heaven to me.
So, when a Mormon appeals to ‘deification,’ which is a contested term itself in the history of orthodox Christian interpretation, it has zero correspondence with the Christian teaching on deification or theopoiesis. The Mormon holds to a doctrine of godness wherein the hope, through knowledge attainment (i.e., covenant keeping), is that the men, again, will become exalted Gods themselves; just as the Father is now (in their schemata). They try to downplay discussion about ultimate or eschatological things because they know it sounds strange, and thus ends up exposing the disparity there is between their respective understanding of Jesus, Father-God, the Holy Spirit and eternal life vis a vis actual Christian doctrine; not to mention with the contextual biblical teaching itself.
Here is a βdiscussion,β of sorts, Iβve been having today with some LDS (Mormons) on X/Twitter. Iβm sharing this in hopes that it might be helpful for other Christians who engage with the LDS. Typically, you have to educate them on what they believe first before you can then compare, contrast, and defeat it as a viable βChristianβ belief system. That is what I experienced with the following fellow, which of course is not unusual.
Brigham Young
Mormon 1. I am leaving the Catholic Church and joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints What an absolute BANGER I selected βIf You Could Hie to Kolobβ for the opening song of my LDS baptism on Sunday βThe Spirit of Godβ to close YT Dei Misericordia Love you Saints!
My Response to Mormon 1. Dude. At least stay orthodox and become evangelical. LDS is based on demonstrable historical fabrications; it is polytheistic; and looks more like the Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods and goddesses than it does Christian.
Mormon 2. You don’t know what polytheism is. And the rest of Mormon 2βs Responses to Me (compressed). Well, you call us polytheists when we worship one God the Father. Full stop. Believing there is a Godhead doesn’t mean polytheism when two members of the Godhead work under the direction of God. We do not worship multiple gods aka, not polytheism. Yeah, maybe try not telling me what we believe. There is only one God. God the Father. And to misrepresent us in any other way is disingenuous to us, and quite frankly the Bible. You can call Monolatry if you want, but our “interpretation” is closest to the Biblical God.
My Responses to Mormon 2 (compressed). Sure, I do. My MA and BA degrees in bible theology ought to indicate as such. Help me out though. Explain it to me like I donβt understand what polytheism entails in a way that demonstrates you do. No, you believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are lesser gods relative to the Father. But beyond that, you believe they are each distinct centers of consciousness, which entails a plurality of gods (of various degrees)βwhich βpolyβ signifies linguistically. You also believe that you too could one day become a Heavenly Father with your own celestial planetarium. Just because you rhetorically appeal to a monolatry doesnβt mean you donβt also affirm a functional polytheism; that isnβt even debatable. Eh. What you believe isnβt private, but public. Just as all idea systems are. I explained to you what polytheism is, and how it applies to LDS doctrine of God. If you are saying that Mormon teaching denies the notion that you can one day become a Father-God yourself, then I might recant to an extent. But you havenβt explained who the Son and Holy Spirit are in your theory of your godhead. I know what LDS doctrine teaches on that, and I havenβt misrepresented that. If I have show me how instead of just making brute assertions with no evidence or argument or even illustrations to the contrary. If you donβt recognize what I am saying about LDS doctrine then maybe you yourself donβt understand your own ostensible doctrine clearly; which wouldnβt be that strange, we have many Christians (most of them) on our historic Christian continuum who are in the same boat (donβt really know the doctrine they would say they affirm, only tacitly at best). In lieu of you offering substantial argument to counter my sketching of LDS doctrine vis a vis its ostensible polytheism, my claim still stands. PS. The very notion of your own future and potential Father-Godness inherently entails a polytheistic system of belief. If you, and your Mormon neighbor and his and his ad infinitum can be and/or will be Father Gods, this presupposes the notion, within Mormonism, the belief in poly (more than one) God in the Eschatological eventuation of the βMormon hope.β Further, if Jesus and the Holy Ghost, in the Mormon notion of the godhead are considered distinct centers of consciousness relative to Father-God, as his own distinct center of consciousness, and even if you consider the Son and Holy Spirit to be lesser (in Christian heresiology we call this βsubordinationismβ) divine beings, then even so, you affirm a polytheism even in this instance. If your beliefs are insularly sacrosanct and without the possibility of being publicly critiqued, then yes, youβre in a cult. IOW, if only the initiate can understand LDS doctrine, then this is a cult; similar to the Gnostic cults that were present during the early days of the primitive Church. Pax Christi
Addendum:
Charlie Kirk was just a guy, a highly motivated and gifted brother. He was constrained by the love of Christ. He saw himself as an emissary for Jesus Christ. And it was because of all of this that he died a Christian martyrβs death. He was too young, some would say (I would). And yet, the Lord has a story, has a ministry, a service for each one of us who are His own. Sometimes that story entails living a long life on this earth, eighty or ninety years, maybe. And other times, like my little brother, it only lasts thirty minutes outside of the womb; and in Charlieβs case, it was thirty-one, almost thirty-two years. Our Lord, in His earthly ministry, had somewhere around thirty-three years, and then ascended. The point is, is that we all have something to do for our Lord whilst here. He has uniquely, in Himself, given each of us the strength, the gifts (as needed, relative to steps of faith) required to live out His witness through us, one for the other, and the other for the one.
Charlie, in obedience to his calling, took many steps into the Jordan. And with each step the water parted into the promised land of Godβs abundance for Him in Jesus Christ. This is the power of Christβs witness in someoneβs life who has decided to charge hard after Him and His mission for the world. This βhard chargingβ is of course, not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of the living God where there is liberty.
But as is all too apparent, as these steps are taken in this βevil ageβ there will always be pushback. The world system, or the Beast kingdom, is at counter-purposes with the missio Dei (βmission of Godβ) at every step. As the Apostle Paul recognizes, in his epistle to Timothy, there are doctrines of demons afoot and funding this world system. For those without the armor of God, for those who are still inhabitants of the kingdom of darkness, they are easy prey to such doctrines. They have no protection. As such, such populates look for safety in numbers; they look for groups and tribes that offer them a sense of safety and stridence within a clearly broken and fragmented world. It is within these cathedrals of darkness where the Enemy of our souls offers up the sacrament of their own bodies as the ultimate meaning of what is real, what is right, what is hope in the midst of darkness. And without the Holy Spirit, without being participants in the Kingdom of the Son of His love, these wary and frightened souls find repose and solace within the dictates of their own fellow bodies. It is within this type of profanus communio (unholy communion) that all manner of dastardly deeds, vices, thoughts, ideas, notions, feelings, so on and so forth are cultivated; all to the end of upbuilding this holy body, βmy holy bodyβ βour holy bodyβ within the desires of our sickened and blackened hearts, beyond all feeling.
Charlie Kirk, and all faithful Christians bearing witness to the holiness of the Kingdom of God, the βkingdom of the Son of His love,β push into the aforementioned unholy communion. The darkness and delusion are exposed by the light of Christ, the power of God. It is this reality, the ascended Christ reality, that buggers the whole darkness-project. When self-actualization driven by my darkened inward turned navel feelings is challenged all it can do is recoil in shrieking anger and despise. The devil himself, identified by Jesus, as the father of lies, as the author of murder, becomes instigated by the light-bearers, as they reflect the Light of Light in the face of Jesus Christ, and he attempts to mount a counter-assault on such faces. This counter was what Charlie Kirk experienced; indeed, instigated by the devil, and implemented by his minions within the multilayered kingdom of darkness. Within this more volatile, this more active aspect of his kingdom, within the evil age, these agents of darkness, ensnared in ways that Β they cannot even imagine themselves, lash out. In this instance, Charlie Kirk experienced what, Iβm sure, the Dragon of old, in all his futility, hoped would extinguish the penetration of the Kingdom of Light of Light, into his kingdom of darkness; particularly among the young. And yet because of the Great Reversal, the one where Jesus triumphed on the cross, making a public spectacle of the Enemy and his minions, has been flipped on its ugly dragon head. The seed of the Kerygma, the Gospel, the Power of God, has now been blown a thousandfold all across the globe. The Kingdom of Light of Light spreads, not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of the LORD. Like a massive dandelion, the breath of the Holy Spirit blows forth, in what appears to be dead seeds, only to spread Godβs Word all across the lands. Indeed, so much so, that it penetrates the conclaves of darkness the Enemy has so ghoulishly and carefully been cultivating for his own murderous and destructive ends.
The bottom line, the eschatological reality, is that God has already won. Charlie Kirkβs death within the economy of Godβs Kingdom is no death at all. Instead, it is a spur that only magnifies the strength and Light of Godβs Kingdom; resulting in more seeing, rather than less. We grieve at Charlieβs death, and we really do!, but we know the Victory has been already had. Charlie stepped into the eternal arms of the everlasting Father the split-second that bullet ended his earthly life; at least “ended” for the time being. Charlie was in union with Christ. Christ has already died, been buried, rose again, and ascended for over two thousand years; thus, Charlie, and all the saints past, present, and future (as the Lord tarries) lives, not dies.
What if Christ had never come? A rather counterfactual thought experiment, given the fact that He did. And yet Pierre Maury runs with this line for a moment in a Christmas sermon he gave in 1952 in his home country of France.
Thinking of our odd habit of making a distinction between the things we may have with Jesus Christ and in him, and the things we think we can think we can have without him, it occurred to me to imagine a world without Christmas, a world into which Jesus Christ had never and would never come, where we lived but had nothing with him. Imagine all the things we should haveβand perhaps we should still have them all: all the things coveted by our greed, all the things which bring us remorseβeverything.
Let each of us imagine his life, and the lives of others, the life of the world and its history, without the coming of Jesus Christ. That means, in the end of the day, without forgiveness; for ever irremediably guilty, bearing for ever the indelible mark of the evil we have done. It would be a life without the prayer of Jesus Christ; that is to say, one in which our prayer could not lean upon his, in which we could not say βI beseech thee, O God, in the name of Jesus Christβ; a life, therefore, lived in constant terror of God, because of unanswered prayer. It would be a life without Godβs wordβall those wonderful sayings which the Gospels report, so generous that even the complete unbeliever marvels at them: the words of the Sermon on the Mount, St Paulβs hymns to charity, the words of St John on love. Just imagine a life for ever walled up in the egoism of others and of ourselves; a life without the Cross. A life with no place on earth to flee to where we could be ashamed and not despair. Lastly, imagine what such a life would be like, whatever riches it might have contained, when the great poverty of deathβoneβs own and that of othersβcame to make all riches quite useless. Such a world, without Jesus Christ, would be just hell.[1]
Grievously, this counterfactual thought experiment isnβt counterfactual at all for the masses; those who travel on the highways and byways of the broad way, day in and out. The Christian, full of the living and risen and ascended hope of the living Christ, is surrounded by people who live in a world of self-possession, and the attending strife that produces. Maury is right, such a world, without Christ is in fact what hell is; the absence of Godβs gracious intervention and disruption of such a world. This is the world that people inhabit all around who attempt to chop their life through the wane and woe of a Christless existence wherein all that is left in the end is the lonely incurved self.
Christ has sent us as His emissaries to the world, to let it, them know that the dissolving world they inhabit all their waning lives has been resurrected, re-created in the ground of all of reality, the Firstborn from the dead, Jesus Christ. They need to be told that βit is finished,β and all they need to do now is acknowledge that Christ is indeed Lord and King. That when they look at the dusty family Bibles on their grandparentsβ coffee tables, that in fact it represents a Holy ground place wherein within its pages, by the Spiritβs vivification, they might in fact encounter the face of God in Jesus Christ; and that He will be smiling at them, with open arms of eternal embrace. βFaith comes by hearing, hearing the Word of God.β
[1] Pierre Maury,Β Predestination and Other PapersΒ (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1960), 99β100.
Let me offer some strafing thoughts on Christian Universalism; always a risky endeavor. As I look out at the unbelieving world it is very hard for me to think that most people I see on TV, Movies, on the Freeways and Bi-ways, etc. so on and so forth are going to end up eternally separated from God. I can see the character of that sort of life all around me all the time. But it really does become a dilemma for me when I contemplate the character of God. God’s Love as Triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit came in Christ for the salvation of the world. He accomplished that as he incarnated and began the atoning process therein; only climaxing that in the cross, burial, resurrection, and ascension. But herein is the hope of humanity; herein is the hope of eternal life for all of humanity; God with us! I want everyone to come to Christ, and experience the power of the living of God; I want everyone to taste and see that God is very Good. But there is so much noise out in the world, trumped up by the minions of satan; that great deceiver and serpent of old. It is nothing but noise and static though; even so, it is a powerful delusion that sucks humanity into its loins and does not want them to see the light of the Gospel in the face of Jesus Christ. But this breaks my heart! We are all sick, in need of the Great Physician.
As I contemplate the beauty and majesty of the Triune God it is hard for me to imagine a world where all of His creation is not redeemed. It is hard to imagine the souls of the masses eternally burning in the hell fire imaged for us in Holy Scripture. Yes, we can imagine such things when we superimpose a particular version of God that has been promulgated as a classical theism. A version of God where His justice operates in division from who He first is as Son of the Father. A version of God who is Judge and Brute Creator rather than Father of the Son in eternal bond by the Holy Spirit. When I think of God in Christ as the Good Shepherd, or the Bridegroom, it becomes exceedingly difficult to imagine a world where God abandons any human being as an orphan.
Just being honest here. I am not necessarily presenting a view point on this, but instead just reflecting as my heart has been touched once again. It is hard to look out at people, and see how deceived they are, and then conclude that they will be eternally separated from the God who I know as Father. It is hard to imagine this particularly in view of my own sins, and daily unbelief (evinced in momentary actions and thoughts of sin and unholiness). If I have the capacity to look out at people in this world, and have a broken heart for them; I know this capacity does not come from me, but from the living God who loved this world to the point of shedding His own precious blood in the humanity of Christ for the whole-wide world.
People need Christ. The world is on fire, and people don’t even feel its heat; at least not in the right way. The world is broken, and people don’t know how to escape it on their own. The more thoughtful ones attempt to come up with ways and philosophies of overcoming the brokenness they know they live in and see all around them. But all that those attempts do is drive people further and deeper into themselves away from the liberating love of God in Christ. I’m just sad right now. People are broken, and don’t understand the real power of God. They look around at “Christianity” in America, and mostly see piss-poor examples of what the love of Christ is actually all about. This saddens and angers me. I’m just as much at fault as anyone else. But I repent.
I leave us with a quote from TF Torrance that fits well with the spirit of this post:
God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. -T. F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, 94.
Culture is an amorphous thing to get oneβs head around. We use it casually, and as if we all just understand what we mean; but do we? David Congdon offers a nice sketch and discussion of this in his book The Mission of Demythologizing, and Iβd like to share a bit of what he has written for our consideration.[1] Congdon writes:
Despite the problems associated with the word, it remains a useful nomenclature for whatever it is that differentiates one group of people from another. Notwithstanding his own misgivings about the concept, Eagleton provides a helpful definition of the word along these lines:
Culture can be loosely summarized as the complex of values, customs, beliefs and practices which constitute the way of life of a specific group. . . . Culture is just everything which is not generically transmissible. . . . Culture is the implicit knowledge of the world by which people negotiate appropriate ways of acting in specific contexts. Like Aristotleβs phronesis, it is more know-how than know-why, a set of tacit understandings or practical guidelines as opposed to a theoretical mapping of reality.
At a very general level, then, culture refers to the implicit categories and preunderstandings that differentiate some people from others. This βimplicit knowledgeβ concerns the whole matrix of social relations constituted by linguistic, socioeconomic, religious, and other characteristics.
We will have occasion in the next chapter to flesh out this understanding of culture more concretely in relation to Bultmann. For now we can simply note that culture refers not to a theoretical Weltanschauung or worldview (βknow-whyβ), but rather to the tacit Welthild or world-picture (βknow-howβ). The tensions and conflicts between cultures are related to the tensions and conflicts between divergent world-pictures. Understood in this way, the word βcultureβ indexes the prereflective factors related to why one person is strange to another person. These factors can be as broad as a nation or as narrow as a particular historical situation. At the same time, because cultures are not worldviews they are also plastic and permeable, open to the infinite possibilities of intercultural exchange and transcultural commingling. Cultures are intrinsically hybridizable. For this very reason the contested nature of the concept is appropriate to its contesting subject matter. The polysemy of the concept corresponds to the way cultures are continually bearing witnessβthat is, con (together) testare (testifying)βto the coexistence of multiple identities, the crossing and blurring and renegotiating of our various horizons and situations. Precisely in this way the idea of culture lends itself to missiological and hermeneutical reflection.[2]
I donβt have much follow up on this. But I think something as basic as this goes a long way towards helping us engage the βculture.β Even though, as Congdon and Eagleton help us understand, culture, as a word, symbolizes something that is prereflective; it is nevertheless helpful to be aware of this. As Christian theologians we are called to engage with the culture, even as we live in the culture. We are called to translate the new-culture, or the new-creation we have been brought into by the grace of God in Christ, and deliver this reality to the broader world.
One more point: the idea of culture being βrelated to why one person is strange to another personβ is very pertinent for the Christian reality. The Gospel, according to the Apostle Paul, is considered foolishness, dare we say βstrangeβ to the Greek. This illustrates the definition of culture as just presented. There is strangeness to the Gospel, and the culture it creates for those of us participant within its reality, precisely because it invades the various worldly cultures from another ground. The culture of Heaven is the true culture, or the culture that will last. The culture of Heaven is other-worldly, and yet because of Who God is, it has the capacity to accommodate itself to the cultures of this world; transforming and redeeming them from within. As Godβs culture in Christ penetrates the cultures of the world, it provides these various threads with a telos and trajectory that can give them ultimate meaning. But it doesnβt leave these cultures unchanged or unhinged; indeed the culture of Heaven often contradicts and puts to death the cultures of the world that attempt to construct self-purpose apart from Godβs self-sustaining purpose that is truly Life.
Whether we want to appropriate the concept of culture the way I have just done, either way, I think Davidβs notion of βcultureβ is helpful in a basic and broad-sense way as we think about what in fact culture entails. It is something we take for granted on a daily basis, and as we can see this taken-for-grantedness, in regard to understanding what culture is, is in fact what culture is in many important ways. It is a tacit reality that we are groomed in and learn. But that said, as Christians we also understand that there are many things we βtacitly learnβ that need to be unlearned and repented of when confronted with the reality of Heavenβs culture; even as that other-worldly culture confronts us right where we are, and often in the forms of our various cultural nexuses. It is an inescapable fact that we are embedded and enculturated creatures. God knows this, and in His Wisdom and Capaciousness, He has the capacity to meet us where we are moment by moment afresh and anew. As we are confronted by Him in this midst, we can learn His ways of translation and accommodation to the broader cultures of the world; while at the same time not becoming captive to the cultures of the world that would seek to undercut the Heavenly culture we have become ambassadors of.
[1] Let the reader understand: Just because I refer to Congdonβs work does not mean I endorse the conclusions of his work in regard to the appropriation of Bultmannβs theology in the main. But I am committed to reading through the whole of his 800pp+ book in order to better critically engage with that sector of the Church. Not to mention that David presents much that can be constructively appropriated for those of us who still see value in the modern theological project. Anyway, this particular reference to Congdon has nothing to do with Bultmann, per se. Instead, it is more of a ground clearing point of development that David is engaged in, in order to more faithfully and critically engage with the implications of Bultmannβs work. I am lifting this quote, as it were, as a pre-text, and then using it differently than David does in his work.
[2] David W. Congdon, The Mission Of Demythologizing: Rudolf Bultmannβs Dialectical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortess Press, 2015), 528-30.
I really donβt know what it is, Iβd have to say itβs Jesus, and the work of the Holy Spirit, but as of late Iβve once again had a real sense of the βlostnessβ of people all around me; people for whom Jesus died, but people who for some inscrutable reason continue to reject the greatest and deepest love ever offered humankind. βCoincidentallyβ I just came across a quote from Maximus that Ben Myers has on his Twitter feed, it reads this way:
‘Damnation’ and ‘hell’ refer to those who are on the way to nonbeing and whose way of life has reduced them almost to nothingness. βMaximus
This reminded me of some exegesis I did once on I Corinthians 1:18 (for my Masterβs thesis which was on I Corinthians 1:17-25). Hereβs the passage:
18Β For the word of the cross isΒ folly toΒ those who are perishing, but to usΒ who are being saved it isΒ the power of God.
In my exegesis I made it a point to underscore a similar thing that Maximus seems to be alerting us to about the condition of those βbeing destroyedβ or βperishing.β Hereβs what I offered up on the word αΌΟΞΏΞ»Ξ»Ο ΞΌα½³Ξ½ΞΏΞΉΟ , the word translated as βdestroyedβ or βperishingβ:
αΌΟΞΏΞ»Ξ»Ο ΞΌα½³Ξ½ΞΏΞΉΟ is a present middle participle coming from the lexical root αΌΟΟΞ»Ξ»Ο ΞΌΞΉ (I destroy). The participle is functioning as adjectival-substantive thus identifying a group of people who are destroyed, and are in the process of being destroyed. The participle, according to Kistemaker, “denotes that the process is durative and that the compound is perfective.” This means these kinds of people are characterized by a present and ongoing process.
Further clarification is brought by Daniel Wallace on the concern of how a substantive participle, such as αΌΟΞΏΞ»Ξ»Ο ΞΌα½³Ξ½ΞΏΞΉΟ, while functioning as a noun, has not lost its verbal aspect. Note his comment,
… with reference to its verbal nature: Just because a participle is adjectival or substantival, this does not mean that its verbal aspect is entirely diminished. Most substantival participles still retain something of their aspect. A general rule of thumb is that the more particular (as opposed to generic) the referent, the more verbal aspect is still seen.
This point serves to bolster the reality of the state that characterizes these people’s lives. That status is one of dynamism and movement within and towards destruction.[1]
As I reread what I offered in my exegesis (there was more) of this passage, with particular focus on those βbeing destroyedβ it is absolutely sobering; sobering in the ways that Maximusβs reflection is.
So while this is the case for βthose being destroyed,β as they simply live into who they are as those who know nothing but destruction (something we all know about as those once part of the kingdom of darkness) there of course remains hope.
Whatβs interesting about Maximusβs reflection is that he pushes into the concept of βbeing,β an important concept. This concept usually is emphasized in Eastern Christian approaches to salvation, while the West focuses more on the legal and forensic aspects of salvation. Since Maximus is an Eastern it makes sense then that he would press this idea of nonbeing and nothingness in regard to those who choose to remain outside of Christ (even though Christ has not chosen to remain outside of them). So as I was noting there is hope, even for those living in a state of destruction; they arenβt left to nonbeing and nothingness, even if thatβs what they are choosing currently. T.F. Torrance makes this clear; hereβs a favorite quote of mine of his that touches upon the very topic under consideration:
God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.[2]
This poses problems for many in the Reformed and evangelical world, theologically; but not for me! What Torrance describes is the good news of Jesus Christ; itβs, as Torrance says elsewhere, the βlogic of grace.β Yes, for those of you who donβt know, Torrance is also, even as a Reformed Christian, very influenced by the Eastern way of thinking salvation (let me not give too much away here, this focus of βbeingβ in salvation can even be found in Calvinβs union with Christ theology, and in Lutherβs marital mysticism soteriology).
No matter, Iβm not as concerned with where the influence comes from, but instead with the veracity of what is being communicated. The logic of grace, the Gospel, provides hope for all of humanity all the way down; right where they need it. We are obviously a fractured people, we need more than our sins paid for, we need a recreation of our humanity; we need to be resurrected. Thatβs what Maximus knows, thatβs what Torrance knows, thatβs what the Apostle Paul knows (see Romans 6 β 8); we need a new heart, and orientation towards God where real life and real freedom are found.
I canβt help but think the Lord is reworking into me, once again, how urgent the Gospel is. When I look at people I see people for whom God in Christ pledged his very being so that they wouldnβt have to be catapulting towards nonbeing and nothingness. My burden is to share that reality with them; this is my great reward. Think about it, we are around broken people, as broken people ourselves, who the living God gave His very life; for whom God shed His blood (Acts 20:28). How can we not want to share that with people; how could we not want people to be transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the Son of His love (Colossians 1:13)?
[1] Robert Allen Grow, Christ Crucified, The Wisdom and Power of God: An Exegetical Analysis of I Corinthians 1:17-25 (Portland, OR: Multnomah Biblical Seminary [Unpublished Masterβs Thesis], 2003), 41.
[2] T. F. Torrance,Β The Mediation of Christ, 94.
I just finished watching a really depressing documentary on PBSβs Frontline, it is called Chasing Heroin. It focused in on the Seattle, Washington area, mostly because the city of Seattle has been implementing what they call the Lead program. It essentially decriminalizes drug addiction and attempts to reclassify it as a public health issue. So when an addict makes contact with a police officer, most of them are diverted from the criminal justice system and hooked up with a Lead counselor who offers them options for treatment and so on. It allows some drug addicts to avoid 
felony charges, in some instances, and instead keeps tabs on them in their life as an addict. The addict determines their own time table in the Lead program, in other words they can be in the program and still be using. The goal, of course, is to ultimately get the addict sober and clean, but the more minimal goal is to make sure that if they are using that they are doing so in as safe of an environment as possible, and to minimize occasions for the addict to be involved in criminal activity. According to a recent University of Washington study the Lead program has been quite successful in minimizing criminal activity among addicts, and also in getting more of these addicts clean. The Lead model has now gained Federal recognition and is being adopted by other municipalities throughout the country.
But of course what I want to focus on is the plight of some of the addicts this documentary followed. One guyβs name is Johnny, one of the galβs names is Chrissie, and there were a few others. Chrissie started when she was just a teenager with hard drugs, and she is currently twenty. She has been living on the streets of downtown Seattle, selling her body, selling drugs to support her heroin habit, and other activity. Johnny was a very successful DJ in Seattle, had a young family, and college degree. There was also a housewife they spot-lighted, I forget her name. If you saw her you would never believe she has been a heroin addict for seventeen years. For her, as with so many, it started out with an OxyCotin addiction, which then led to the heroin, and the destruction of her life. All of these folks were in the Lead program, and as the show ended they were all staying clean; they were either doing that through being in a Methadone program or in Johnnyβs case he was taking the even more effective, Suboxone.
Looking at these addicts, giving them names helped to personalize them. They werenβt just junkies walking down the street; they became real life people with stories; they became the people for whom Christ came β the sick. And this is where I must go to try and cope with the jolt that this documentary injected into my system. There really isnβt much to say, drug addiction is one of the terrible blights in our country and in the world!
In 1996-97 I attended Calvary Chapel Bible College in Murrieta, California. This wasnβt your average Bible College! Most of the people there had been radically saved out of some crazy situations. For example, I had four roommates in my dorm room (it was a big dorm room), three of the four were former drug addicts (and two of them demon possessed). Jesus grabbed a hold of them in a real life way, and SAVED them from the inside/out! He freed them from the bondage of drug addiction (heroin was one of the drugs in these guyβs lives), and kicked the demons out. They were walking testimonies of Romans 1.16,
Β 16Β For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,Β for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
They were the Mary Magdalenes among us, and they werenβt alone. Like I said it was an interesting Bible College (not all that academic in focus, more devotional and retreat like), and there were many other testimonies of Godβs radical inbreaking into the lives of many other drug addicts, demon possessed, and gang-bangers (among other ailments).
What this experience in my life illustrates for me is that there is real life hope for heroin addicts, and others; that the euaggelion (Gospel) is apocalyptically radical, and can break bars in peopleβs lives that only the Gospel, the power of God can. In this documentary they interviewed the deputy drug czar in the Obama administration; he is a heavy advocate for making sure that the public sees this issue as a public health problem, and not as a crime problem. He himself has a son who died from drug addiction and another son who is struggling with addiction to drugs. He believes that medical progress is the real answer to this problem, and that things like βreligionβ do not have any real power to accomplish anything but empty hope and pie-in-the-sky platitudes. But, I know differently! Iβve lived with multiple former drug addicts, heroin addicts, and other types of addicts. I know that the Gospel is the power of God, and that God is able; there is nothing too difficult for Him! I know that He can heal someone from incurable/terminal cancer, and I know that He can heal someone from what some believe to be an incurable disease known as drug addiction.
There is real hope, and His name is Jesus! I trust Him. I donβt care what people say; Iβm not ashamed of the Gospel because I know it is the power of God!
35Β for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;Β 36Β IΒ wasΒ naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.β 37Β βThen the righteous will answer Him, saying, βLord, when did we see You hungry and feedΒ You,Β or thirsty and giveΒ YouΒ drink?Β 38Β When did we see You a stranger and takeΒ YouΒ in, or naked and clotheΒ You?Β 39Β Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?βΒ 40Β And the King will answer and say to them, βAssuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you didΒ itΒ to one of the least of these My brethren, you didΒ itΒ to Me.β
Next time you see a junkie, at the very least pray for them! They arenβt lost, theyβve been found by Jesus Christ; they just donβt know it yet! If you can, let them know it; if not, pray that the Lord will send them someone who will let them know it. Thatβs the challenge Iβm going to take from this documentary.