The Church in the Power of the Spirit

“It is the identity of God that gives integrity to all living things through their participation in his eschatological reality that we perceive as transcendent history.” In today’s world, we love to form the identity that is prevalent to us and in the form of tangible things such as material or wealth. These identities are ones that are of false origins, making promises they cannot keep. When the average American looks at the wealthy upper class society, it tends to look appealing when really wealth is not at all cracked up what it is presumed to be. The only identity that has ultimate sense to it is that which has integrity with God’s identity because his identity is the only identity that has eternal logic to it involving all of a persons hopes and fears. “The realization of us encountering the transcendent history at death should produce fear and anxiety with the firm relationship with the Triune God.” This is not necessarily to say we are to have to type of fear that is of the normal context. That is, the fear that is driven from anxiety and of things we tend to dislike. This fear should be a startle that is a realization of what power we dealing with here. It is a realization of who God is and what he is standing for. We trusting God with this fear that is death. Death is no more to us as we come to understand the real relationship with the triune God. He is something we encounter at death and when we realize this, our fear and anxiety should whisper down. When we die, it seems what the author is saying, we become apart of the transcendental history. We become what was of the past and will be of the future.

Dallas Ward and the Essentia Dei

The Essentia Dei is the overarching schema that ties all of Dallas Ward’s theology together. It is defined as “a mental pattern in Willardian theology that prioritizes the consistent pursuit of discovering the nature or essence of God. Essentia dei focuses on every aspect and application to his theology. Willard’s data that are extracted from scripture demonstrates the manifestation in Jesus and the presences of the Holy Spirit and the Church. Willard’s understanding of the essentia dei makes an understanding of who God is and “empowers Christian experience and theology toward its goal of appropriate knowledge of God, God’s creation and his purpose to humanity.” When we have an intimate encounter and awareness of God’s awesomeness will give the motivation needed for theological discussion and Christian living. To understand the details of God’s kingdom, one must understand the characteristics of the King who governs this order. The essentia dei is also to be looked upon as a parental aspect. God is a provider of every “good and perfect thing” needed for the kingdom. With the stories from the scriptures, it reveals that God’s goodness and grace is trustworthy unconditionally and it shows that God is to faithfully walk with them despite the failure and frailness they have.

The Holy Spirit is not given enough attention said by many theologians. This is resulting in hampering of application Christian theology. “In creating human beings, the Genesis narrative describes God’s imparting an aspect of his nature (image) into human beings by “blowing” spirit, or breath, into the body of Adam.” We then see the Spirit giving life to Adam and the description provides us with its intrinsic connections and relations to the characteristics of the Spirit. This is to reveal the reality and the ontological persistence to understand the nature of what is real, how things can exist in the world, and where did it come from. Willard describes the nature of life should be understood always as “inner power.” All living and non-living things have a power that interconnects them which is beyond itself to enhance its own being. Willard wants to distinguish the qualities that make life unique and understand that humans are not purely material. The Spirit is not of the brain and or the body. The human that is an embodied spirit receive life and nourishment from God and the spiritually sustaining nature of his word. There is a deep understanding in the heart that reaches out and yearns to learn with the underlying reality of God and the power of his character.

Christology

Christology is central to all Christian theology. How you look at Christ is how you will see Christianity. If we see Christ as God, then we eventually come up with the trinity and so on to the other parts of the theology train. Dallas Ward though that there must be a relationship between Jesus and human as Jesus being the master of all of life as we are his apprentices. When we are acquiring knowledge from the rabbi, we are not only gaining knowledge, but we are to emulate the rabbi’s ways. “His teaching and commandments regarding the knowledge of wisdom of God and his kingdom were never considered merely informational or doctrinal by Jesus’ disciples. He is seen conveying expertise on subjects both he and his disciples expect will be manifested as realities in their lives.” (Pg.122) It is not simply a list or rhetorical information to be held accountable for burden on our parts, but a manifestation that will come into realities in our lives. The good shines through the cracks when we understand what Jesus is conveying to ourselves. Willard sees that Jesus earns his credibility through what he has done through to “tap into then demonstrate an overarching spiritual power embedded in the kingdom of God.” Jesus did this by three ways. First, he did it by supernatural powers and healing others. Second, Jesus revealing the kingdom through “proclamation and preaching of the kingdom ethos with rhetorical skills.” Third, he used his teaching of the kingdom ethos. He uses and exposes control over all parts of nature and life, revealing to us he is a true master we ought to trust. Willard suggest that we should not produce faith from what the doctrine claim regarding Jesus’ authority as “savior or the world,” or even the “primacy of faith” in the act of the resurrection.  Willard claims we should trust him as a competent, verifiable master and that can guide us to the wild changes of all human existence. This then would also include trusting Jesus in his claims about his divinity and his resurrection. He is to be the master of Physics, having all types of nature control. Jesus would also have to be a logician to understand morals as well. This means Jesus is presented as moral equally logical as well making him the smartest person ever. Jesus was also a teacher of living and of life. Liberal theology looks at Jesus sometimes only as a liberal teachers, ignoring the divine role which is way out of line of who Jesus was. When we trust in God then and understand what is to be rightly desired, “God’s grace is that component of divine interaction that spans the gap between the potential of desire and the actuality of achievement.”

Creation.

“The goal for those who participate in God’s transformation can no longer be domination or subjection or control, but rather living in light of God’s creative love.” (Pg.119) Humankind likes to be dominate in any aspect it can. The hunan races likes to show power to be looked upon as something to be subordinate to and to be in control of life. We are not to control the Earth though, but we are to be apart of it. We are to love it showing that “Love is a constant yes to life, a stance of hope and a stance of believing in the potentiality of someone or something.” It is this love that reveals the eternal nature of salvation but is not only to a distant movement. God’s love seeing time with all its parts can show that someone who loves will believe in redemption from past, present and future. Jesus’s crucifixion is the start of the End-time process of the raising of the dead which is also the start of the new creation of the world. (Pg.120) The body of Christ is not limited to the historical Jesus, but is also the church. It is being the community of our Lord who has risen, where the Spirit is the one who raised Jesus from the dead and is not active throughout the creation. The gifts of the Spirit “are the energies of the new eternal life.” It is to show we are not to be afraid of this world anymore, but are to incorperate the holistic work of God. We find ourselves not overcoming this world but the Spirit revealing to us what the world is actually suppose to be like. “This is a redemptive presence, not a dismissive, dominating, or destructive presence.” (Pg.121). We as believers are bided to a common destiny with the universe that is eventually to be renewed and liberated.

Transformation in Historical Perspective

In transformation in Historical Perspective, it’s goal was construct a case for a regime for  making free of the oppressor for which transforms the church. It is to then realize these transformative messianic life can take molding. Moltmann how he interpreted scripture was according to the criteria of life. Moltmann’s theology starts with eschatology first, seeing God’s comprehensive work as being “outside the linear flow of our experiences, and thus capable of being embedded within our experience of God even now.” This view takes the future being far and distinct, putting in the now context. We can only view the future only in light of what has happened in the past.

Rather then thinking of eschatology in terms of future, it should be perceived as with the term advent. The advent being Christ’s coming presence in glory. This bring the aspect of the future to the present, rather then an absence of Christ until a later time. “The transcendental future does not abolish time, nor does it remain outside of time. It can enter time as we experience it, but is in no way limited to time as we experience it.” It is the coming forth of God’s glory, bringing it into our present world where we can experience the glory of God now. It is a future that already exists, but we have not yet experienced. How can God bring about new things with his eternal consistency then?

God’s expression of justice and judgments have already been declared in Biblical testimony with the message of hope:”a new reality will be borne out of the experiences of suffering, a restorative advent of God’s redemptive plan.” What is new is perceived upon what is old. New does not come from something that is old in this circumstance. It is a new creation. The future is not to be seen as a becoming of ‘the good ole days’ but a hope in the future in that God will bring about goodness which was seen in part, in the past.

We are to see hope in the new world in which is to eventually be brought forth to us completely. It is not to look at the future in fear, wondering if we will be “left behind.” It is to view it in the experience of God’s eternity that is here and now, transforming us for what is to happen. This hope we have lets us put our identity in our new resurrected body and not in the identity of anything else. The Spirit is to make this a realization to us, letting us see clearly the hope of the new creation God will become apart of completely, not consuming but being in harmony with it. This will then be a total peace and be in completion with his creation.

Dallas Willard’s view on Scripture and transformation

Dallas Willard see that the Bible was preserved to accurately give the revelation of God to us. He does not believe the Bible is strictly inerrant in the historical accurate sense, but infallible believing God has accurately given what God wants us to know to be apart of his kingdom. He describes the Scriptures as a physical, written manifestation of God’s revealed presence among humanity. The Scripture is a means to represent the Greek word, Logos. Logos definition is the Word of God, or priniciple of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ. So the word of God is not actually scripture, but the divine and creative order the world is to be. Jesus is the Word that John is describing in his Gospel. John is distinguishing the historical Jesus as a human being, which is different from the Word. This is to show the spiritual nature of the kingdom, created through the Word (Logos), made accessible through Christ, and utilized by humanity in the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (Pg.61). The Bible not only inclusively tell the story of Jesus of Nazarene, but the exclusitivy of the Trinitarian comsic Christ, revealed through the Word. It is to acknowledge not only Christ in the Bible, but the Spirit and the Father as well. The logos incarnated in Jesus and yet still remained the same Spirit that was WITH God in the beginning of creation. So then with this understanding, Logos has the ability to reveal himself through creation. The Bible represents the Word of God, but not exclusively has a complete representation or encapsulate the existential reality of the Word. Romans 1-11 show the Word speaks through nature and through the lives of the Old Testament patriarchs, the New Testament saints, and Jesus himself. When Jesus says not to live on bread but by every word from God, he is not talking about the words written in the Bible, but the revelation of the reality of the sustaining metaphysical substance of the Logos. The Kingdom is found in various forms manifested of the Word of God. Willard then declines mindless reading the Bible. One who has preconceived notions will rarely be transformed by the text. Willard things we should allow the Bible to set its own intents and purposes instead. We then put the guidance of the Bible into practices. “The knowledge and wisdom of the Bible imparts, creates the opportunity for the freedom because one is given the resource for manifesting, incarnating, and inhabiting the God-permeated reality of the Bible describes” (Pg. 65). It is to become transformed by the reality which God has put before us through Jesus. This is not our doing on our own, but by the doing of the Holy Spirit as well, not over time. In the Bible, we see people mediating, praying, and striving to become more Christlike, not in an instance will this happen.

Christian Realism Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr

Both these brothers went to college for theological training. H. Richard at Harvard Divinity school and Reinhold at Union Theological Seminary. Reinold then became the prominent figure of the first half of the twentieth-century in American Theology. He thought of himself as a moralist and a social critic. They had a realist theology having no illusions about the human situation as defined by sin. It was real about sin’s inevitability and universality. It was also pragmatic because it endeavored was what driven by an interest in practical solutions and responses to the sinful human situation. Christian realism wanted to be relevant to social actions, not merely inside the church and in the Christian community. Walter Rauschenbusch was also caring for the poor in especially in New York where he pastored in “Hell’s Kitchen.” He ask, “What does the Gospel say about this?” and became the leading exponent in the Social Gospel movement. In his book, he argued Christianity is to go more deeply then Moral principals, but must address the social and economic evils that spawn poverty and oppression. All this, he claimed, “is an essntial part of the inaugration of the reign of God on Earth, a reality to be brought about through self-conscious and concerted human effort stirred by love.” It is to have a deep conviction with oneself, not being morally better then thy neighbor, but to actually have a heart deep felt relationship with the socially oppressed and even the neighbor. The social Gospel though underestimates the  reality and depth of human sin and was to optimistic in its vision of a humanly-produced reign of God. “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” -Reinfold

I personally agree with both of them. Although Walter does have an excellent point in being with the oppressed and actively engaging with them for the betterment of society and mainly God’s kingdom, we cannot undercut the problem with humanity. Reinfold last quote I put really does make a great point. God does have wrath and him dying on the cross settled his wrath. This is the most crucial fact in all of life and we are not to forget about what God has done for us.

Sin and humanity cannot be determined through reason and rejects the natural and romantic conceptions. Niebuhr thinks the human being is a synthesis of and stands at the juncture of nature and spirit, finite and infinite. Since the human being has two foots in both worlds, in cannot accept any systematic and coherent account. It is though that the human is indecisive. This is the human view of Christian human nature. “The Christian view of human nature is involved in the paradox of claiming a higher stature for man and of taking a more serious view of his evil than other anthropology.” The evil then comes when the awareness of our rootedness both in transcendence and nature spawns anxiety  or insecurity. This then finds expression in sin which Niebuhr conceived as rebellion against God grounded in the will. Then sin finds expression in self-indulgence and also self-assertive and self-elevating pride of power, of knowledge, or of virtue. This is a tragic, universal problem we are all responsible for. We are driven then to God’s grace and forgiveness through reconciliation on the cross. Without it, we would all be condemned forever.

George Lindbeck

In 1962, Lindbeck was a professor as a Lutheran Medievalist from Yale University. He was invited to represent the Lutheran World Federation at the Second Vatican Council. He attended all four sessions and developed a passion for questions of ecumenism. He participated in over a dozen interchurch dialogues which led to the ecumenical leader to realize how specific doctrines continued to put barriers to church cooperation. He thinks that we are often unable to employ when we say that some changes are faithful to a doctrinal tradition and others unfaithful. Also, some doctrinal differences are church dividing and others are not. Doctrines are acting the way they should. Lindbeck then started developing a new way to discover doctrine causing a rally point for the fledging of the post liberal movement (Pg. 201). Post liberalism is the not abandonment of modern developments and returning to some for of preliberal orthodoxy, there is just no going back to how exactly we use to do theology. They focus a lot more on experience and the set context which the individual is in. Lindbeck contrasts two ways to think what doctrine is all about. One is cognitive-propositionalist approach; it characterizes the older orthodoxy, assumes that theological statements make “first order” truth claims, that is, something objectively true or false. Since some doctrines would be either true or false, then Lindbeck fears that “within the framework of ecumenical progress can come only at the expense of one church capitulating to the doctrinal position of another” (Pg.205). By overcome this, he offers a second approach: Experiential-expressive. Liberalism supposes religion arises from personal experience. Doctrine is the expressions of “inner feelings, attitudes or existential orientations (Pg.206). Lindbeck is not convinced of this though because Liberal theologians assume there is some identifiable core religious experience common to all Christian traditions or even to all world religions. Lindbeck, and others in the past, have came up with narrative theology: the concern to find a way to overcome the current crisis in Christian identity. It seeks to meet this challenge by portraying from the contemporary observation that human beings are storytellers. Tribes and nations describes their understanding by story telling. Narratives fulfill human needs by linking the past and the future to understand the present. Narrative theologians aim for the deeper purpose of stories. By seeing the plot and developing characters, they offer insight into human condition. Humans interpret reality with events from the past and in accordance with an interpretive scheme that includes personal values, ideals, and goals. Personal identity has a communal element that takes a crucial role because the individual is then shaped by the community. Thus the main narrative for Christian narrators is the narration of the Bible. Above all the story of Jesus.

I personally am questioning the idea of Post liberalism. I am very found of him trying to understand the identity of the church, but I am into question about how Lindbeck does it. It seems to me that his idea just focuses on, not the original meaning of the text, but on the context in which we live in now. It also seems to leave out Tradition, which is unsettling for me mainly because I am so used to working with tradition. But times could turn over like fundamentalism was the focus in the 20th century to more of a post liberalism idea of the 21st century.

Rosemary Radford… and her unsatisfying theology

Radford grew up in a home filled with a privileged, patriotic, and pious family. Her father died when she was twelve, which projected her mother to be the influence of Radford’s life from here on then, who was also a commented feminist in the tradition of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century movement. She eventually graduated with a doctorate at the Claremont graduate school and got familiar with the Black community in Mississippi and she quote on quote, “Looked at America from the Black side; to see safety in the Black community and danger in nightriding whites or white officers of the law. She eventually became attracted to sexism within the long history of Christianity and then developed a feminist theology. She viewed theology as patriarchal and believes all women have somehow in someway been oppressed by a sexist or patriarchal social system. Thus, she, like Guiterrez, views feminist theology begins with a specific situation, which is the oppressed and the struggle for liberation from the oppression. Radford see theology as not being universal or objective, rather being gender neutral. She also wants to separate the dualism that has been placed with male-oriented thought such as nature versus spirit, soul versus body, good versus evil, and of course male versus female. Male sees women now as the lower nature or the weaker sex. Dualism should then be rooted out of Christian theology. She even goes so far to say the traditional imagery of God as male is oppressive in of itself and must be replaced. It should be known as God/ess, “the transcendent matrix of Being that underlies and supports both our existence and our continual potential for new being.” But then what I believe conflict comes into play because everything becomes on a scale diminishing all dualism. “All aspects of reality are radically equal” (Pg. 171). I believe she is crossing of fine line between Monotheistic into pagan feminism, viewing God to be all in creation and not simply its independent being. Radford also perceives Jesus as a humanist and will strip everyone of oppression and liberate all. She also views Jesus on the cross as a political assassination on the cross of collective apostasy by the political and religious institutions that claim authority over our lives. I personally disagree with Radford. I believe Jesus went on the cross because he took our spot to die and descend into Hell, so God’s wrath would not come upon us. God himself sent himself so his condemnation would not be on us. She also claims Mary would be the one who would continue to redeem the world after Jesus’ resurrection. This is just ridiculous to me. Mary is simply a sinful, distorted, corrupted human being who would keep redeeming the world? It is obvious this is heresy, putting the job of God to the Job of Mary. Radford, I personally believe, is delusional of her beliefs and should be sat down with to explain what is wrong with her believes. She does bring up an excellent point though, that woman need to stop being oppressed by men in theology and the world. It is a stereotype that needs to be condemned in the churches and in society.

Liberation Theology

A new theological thinking triggered at the CELAM II when Columbia military ambushed and killed the leader of a group of guerillas and killed their leader Camilo Torress. He stopped saying the word “Mass” in order so he could bring about love for neighbor in the temporary sphere, economic and social. “When my neighbor has nothing against me, when I have brought the Revolution, I will offer Mass again if God permits” (Pg.143). This was a factor added to Gustavo Gutierrez theology. He went to graduate school and then eventually came back to his homeland to teach at Lima university, but his plans changed after this. Like many other theologians, he realized the theology of his training “paled in the face of the needs of people around him.” He was always distressed of how the Roman Catholic Church was always in favor of the powerful and wealthy in Latin America. What is most distinctive about Liberation theology is not the doctrinal of beliefs of its proponents, but doing it from the perspective in which they engage in theological reflection (Pg.145). It starts with the marginalized and the experience of the poor for where they depart for theological reflection. It is to see in recognition that God is present in the attempts of disenfranchising to throw off oppression. Gutierrez is considered the father of liberation theology, but he did not establish it. It is been alive since the movement dates back to the Spanish conquest and those original peoples were also created in God’s image as well (Pg.145). Liberation theology though, emerges when a revolutionary situation occurs.

As I was reading this, I very much enjoyed the idea of doing theology from the oppressed perspective. Not starting from theological reflection, but from starting from what needs to happen to the poor. My question is though, do we still do liberation theology in our class room today? And if we don’t, why don’t we? If we do not do liberation theology, is it because it is not in the context to do so? But it should be in the context do to so because there are many people in the margins in the USA today. Or is it we should be doing liberation theology while also doing other theologies. I personally think we should be doing all types of theology no matter what context we are in because it seems that where ever I have been, we need such theologies like Liberation, people in the middle class to tell them how to do practice theology, and any other theology.