A WAY OF THINKING THEOLOGY FROM BIBLICAL PREMISES
The Rev. Charles Alexander
(A paper prepared for the Calgary Chapter of the Anglican Essentials gathering).
INTRODUCTION:
In the St. Michael’s Report, the issue of homosexual relations was considered to be a matter of doctrinal concern, but was not ranked in the arena of “core doctrine.” Of course, for some, not only is this a matter of concern, but would also suggest that this approach to grading issues theologically is not very helpful. Nor is it a biblical way of looking for foundational pinions upon which to evaluate theology. Therefore, I want suggest a principle of thinking biblically, and then will apply this principle to show that issues dividing the Anglican Communion fall into a biblical schema superseding this manner of determining supposed ‘core doctrine.’
1. WHAT THE CREEDS DO NOT SAY:
Both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed,as basic statements of faith, say nothing of:-
(a) the ethical behaviour which keeps us on the road of holiness required by the prophetic community of Christ. However, we are called to be a holy people (1Pet. 2:9) and, in that sense, we are a different people, called to challenge the world to a pathway of holiness leading to eternal relationships. In this sense, the Church is primarily a prophetic commun ity (often counter-culture) and therefore can never be seen to be primarily the chaplain to the culture. Our values come from God, not the culture.
(b) the mission of the priesthood of all believers, or the vehicle of the ecclesial forms and structures of the, 'holy Catholic Church.' Quite clearly, the first century Church was very diverse in its structures and had not irrevocably tied theological thought forms of the faith to a particular ecclesiology. No wonder the General Synod motion, arising from the St. Michael Report, could declare that "the blessing of same sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being credal) of the Anglican Church of Canada." Clearly, the very premise of thinking which spawned this report is seriously deficient; therefore the conclusions will inevitably be found wanting. We must move on to to the theological processes employed by Jesus-that is, if we really want to discover core doctrines. Only then will we realize that the the great creeds are not entirely sufficient for our purposes. Both ethics and the mission of the Church must be considered in the discovery of what God intended for His creation.
2. THE BIBLE IS ONE BIG STORY
We have often seen the Old and New Testaments displayed in ways suggesting that there are two major stories in the Bible, one Jewish and one Christian. The term ‘covenant’ (from the Greek word, diathaekae) means, “to settle the terms of a covenant.”
Christians have always believed that, if the revelation of God were complete in the Old Testament, then there would be no need for a New Testament. Put very simply, we may say that the process of God’s self revelation may be compared with the act of peeling an orange. If God is the orange and the act of peeling registers a process, then, each time some of the peel is discarded, a little more of God’s nature is revealed. Of course, the orange has not changed in the act of peeling, therefore the nature of God never changed at any time. However, the perceptions of the nature of the orange become larger as more of the peel is discarded.
Eventually, we come to Jesus (the Word who was from beyond the beginning, John 1:1) and we hear Him say to His disciples, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:8 NRSV) And, “Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.”(John 17:5) (We won’t bother dealing with arguments concerning the source and dating of John’s Gospel).
In our terms, what Jesus is saying is that all the orange peel has been discarded and, looking for the nature of God, we see all that is possible to see in the Person of Jesus Christ. Or, as Paul writes, “For in him the whole fullness (plaeroma) of deity dwells bodily.” (Col.2:9. parenthesis mine) And that is why Jesus was often heard to say such things as, “You have heard that it was said…But I say to you….” (Matt.5:38) In other words, because the nature of God has been revealed in Jesus, some of the perceptions of God’s nature, as seen in the Old Testament, do not always conform to those revealed by Jesus. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matt.5:43-44) The God of war (e.g. seen in Joshua) is not advocated by Jesus.
It is with such an understanding, and with some little knowledge of textual criticism, that most biblically orthodox people do not hold to a position, often described as, ‘Fundamentalist’ (often thought to mean a literalist), yet they whole heartedly acknowledge the Authority of the Bible for matters of belief- and particularly of salvation. (See Article number six, Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer-p.700).
We note that Jesus held in Himself the notion that He synthesized the Big Story of the Bible within the Person of Himself. In point of fact, Jesus is the Big Story of the Bible! To cite just a couple of examples: Jeremiah had looked to a time when God would make “a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” (Jer.31:31) However, Jesus saw that this uniting of the two factions in Jacob would be accomplished in His own blood, and not in the blood of animals offered in sacrifice. “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20)
Jacob had never desired such a disunity in his family, but prophetically hinted at it when he, surprisingly, promised regal authority to Judah over all his brethren- and, indeed, over all the peoples of the world! “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and the obedience of the peoples is his.” (Gen.49:10)
The second example is not only equally surprising but also holds to the prophetic word in providing a powerful unity between the Old and New Testaments. Let me pose it in the form of a question: If the two testaments portray two different stories then should we not at least identify how the stories are radically different? Interestingly, in a prophetic passage of Isaiah (chap.61:1-2), the writer summarises the mandate that is given to Israel. This is precisely the agenda to which Jesus submitted, following His baptism. (Luke 4:18-19) No doubt, Isaiah also speaks of the Suffering Servant who is depicted in chapters 42-53. He represents a remnant community of Israel. In this passage, the Spirit of the Lord anoints the Servant of God for works of proclamation, deliverance, salvation and compassion. Jesus accepted this role and was the perfect signature of it. (Matt.12:18-21)
Clearly, spoken of in the singular, the Servant is to represent a mandate given to the entire race of Israel; however it was never brought to fruition as a primary purpose of the ancient community. In this light, Jesus announced: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to…” (Luke 4:18-19) However, Jesus added a further thought to His listeners, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (v.21) What new mandate was given to Jesus? None! The story of the entire Bible has no meaning apart from Jesus. (1Pet.1:20) Now, this brings us to a refreshingly unique way of looking at biblical theology.
3. THE BIBLE IN THREE WORDS
Attempting to describe the Bible in three words seems to be impossible. We could say, “God loves you,” but we miss out all the good stuff concerning how He loves us.
At the risk of contradiction, let me suggest the three words to be:
Creation, Redemption, and Restoration!
Creation: This pricipal act of God occupies very little space in the Bible; the first two chapters speak mostly of the content concerning this subject. God is there before matter, space, and therefore before time itself was created. And so God creates ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing. After puttering about for about five spatial aspects of time called, 'days' (whatever that means) God was very happy with the job he had done. The writer of Genesis one keeps on saying, “And God saw that it was good.” However, after God had tinkered about with muck and water for a while, (representing humanity's connection to the earth) man and woman arrive on the scene to act as stewards and caretakers of God’s creation. But, after this, “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” (Gen.1:31)
Obviously, God didn’t go to all this trouble if He was just looking for an excuse to do nothing on a Sunday! He had a purpose! In other words, the word ‘creation’ here means: What God intended in the first place. But the community of Adam is at the very heart of this picture, and it possesses the inbreathed ability to accomplish and enjoy the work of stewardship with an apostolic mission to the world. (Gen.1:28)
Redemption: In poundage, this story takes up most of the weight of the Bible. We won’t go into the story of the Fall, but we emphasize here that God, out of His own nature of love, had built into all of His creation the element of free choice. Or, as Austin Farrer, the brilliant English theologian of the last century said, “God makes the world make itself.” (The One Genius, SPCK London, p2, 1987) To cut a long story short, after some time, God had stopped saying it was very good, and was now saying that it was becoming a bit of a crock! Not a complete crock, but it didn’t hold water very well. The question is: Does this mean that God is not sovereign after all? The answer to that question begins with the story of Redemption. And so the word, Redemption really means: How God went about the business of rescuing what He intended in the first place. We are to see that the very focal point of this entire story is captured in one historical event; it is the sacrificial death of Jesus.
Restoration: Much of the imagery employed in the first few chapters of the Bible are recaptured in the concluding two chapters. There is the miraculous coming down of the New Jerusalem. Like the ‘born again’ message of Jesus, this is an ‘anothen’ event. (Anothen, is translated to mean ‘born again’ but it also means, ‘from above’). Like the regenerate person in Christ, the New Jerusalem does not, and indeed, cannot proceed from nature below, but appears as a supernatural act of God and which is made possible ‘from above.’ In other words, in the supernatural will and purpose of God. (John 1:12-13)
The question of God’s sovereignty is answered once again in an historical reality. The climactic event is the resurrection of Jesus Christ- which was also made possible, not by the man, Christ Jesus, but ‘from above.’ Time is no longer an enemy; it is restored forever to those who enter into the resurrected life of Jesus. “By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that is imperishable…” (1Pet.1:3-4) The gates of Paradise are once more open to the redeemed in Christ who are marching with joy to Zion. (Isa.35:10) So the story of Restoration (which is simply part of the one story including Creation and Redemption) tells of, How God went about the business of restoring what He intended in the first place. The Lord reigns!
4. ESSENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS
The story of creation is not so much about the ‘how’ but the ‘why.’ The purposes of God for His creation are paramount in this story. They set the tone for the entire Bible! So we see that the entire story of the Bible is really all about relationships. It all begins in the creation story. Out of His own relational nature (which is the very reason why God didn’t have to create) God set His entire schema of creation around the joyful process of maintaining four sets of relationships:
(1) Relationship with God (2) Relationships in community (3) Relationship with His creation (4) Relationship with oneself. Unlike approaches commonly seen in the world, harmony with oneself does not begin by looking inwards to the self, but by looking primarily to God, the very Source of life. And Jesus, in His divinity, is right here too! “I am the first and the last.” (Rev.1:17)
Surely, it is not difficult to imagine why the world seems to be so much out of harmony when it has lost the meaning of walking with God in His garden of life. (And under the terms He revealed in Eden). It is a joyous dance in signature of the harmonious syntheses of relationships. Jesus is the perfect sign and example of the Real Adam. Content with Himself, because He lived in perfect harmony with God, with others and with creation, He did not need to walk on a tightrope of tightly bound rules. It is in this context that we see how He walked in a devolving world which yet, by grace, continues to present glorious icons of synchronous joy.
5. FORENSIC CHRISTIANITY
Jesus had the aggravating disposition of speaking to religious people on the basis of essential, creation relationships. He had this nasty habit of always getting back to first principles. Somehow, the realities of looking to a creation lifestyle holds more attractiveness than the threat of legal penalties for not living them. Yet, He did not avoid them. Nevertheless,
Jesus was above the forensic approach to presenting the Good News.
A forensic approach, not only spelled out a pathway which easily defined exclusion or inclusion, but enslaved people in propositional approaches to God. We must remember that the one thing which differentiated humans from other creatures (all creatures were fashioned out of already created matter-Gen.1:20-25) was that human beings were in-breathed with the Holy Breath. It was the motivation and joy of God’s Spirit which enabled the Adam community to live in the intimate relationships of creation. This fact, alone, distinguished him from all other creatures. And so Adam and Eve experienced, not a release from the bondage of being human but, in the Spirit, a joyous liberty of living as sons and daughters of God. “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.” (Rom.8:14)
Jesus was the Real Adam. Or, as Irenaeus once said, “The glory of God is man, fully human, fully alive.” Notice how Jesus dealt with theological questions. This is particularly evident when He is confronted by people far more conversant with the rigidity of a canonical tightrope of institutionalism than with the kingdom principles of creation. (I will suggest that this ‘tightrope institutionalism’ may just as easily be associated with orthodox conservatism as with present-day revisionism).
Jesus always started his theology in creation, not in redemption or restoration.
For our purposes here, we lean towards the situation where Jesus is being drawn into questions concerning divorce. We notice that His answer was not delivered on the basis of culture; past or present. It was a theological reply based in Creation. The Pharisees asked, “Is it lawful to divorce for any reason?” Jesus answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Matt.19:4-6)
The major point which I am stressing here is that creation theology is far closer to the theology of the Big Story than statements, however persuasive, which simply attempt to sentimentalize the gap between inclusivity and exclusivity. This approach also delivers us from the particularism of pet verses of scripture which are not held in the light of creation theology. Nevertheless, we must hasten to add that the sentimental approach ultimately fails to avoid the very distinction it seeks to avoid.
As an example, we often hear of the unconditional love of God as if it doesn’t really matter what we do; “God loves you anyway!” In truth, God does love us anyway, but having built into His creation the factor of freedom of choice, He did so with the warning that there are always good or bad consequences associated with the decisions we make. “…for in the day that you eat of it you will die.” (Gen.2:17) In that vein, we remember that Jesus told of a father’s love for his son. This is really the story of the Israel community. The second son squandered his inheritance, lived a wasteful life, and was left alone to root in the garbage for food and for the protection of cast-off clothing. The father loved him all through that time, but never protected his son from the consequences of his actions. The only reason why the son survived was through the free grace of his father when the son returned in repentance. Note the destiny of those whom Jesus spoke of who chose not to live a life of compassion for others: This is a principle of community which had its birth in Eden. (See Matt.25:46)
When we begin our thinking in one or the other of those two positions-and remain there-we are left with something less than the Big Story of the Bible. Orthodox conservatism is always in great danger of advocating ‘something less’ when it insists on beginning its theology in Redemption. I.e., Question: “What is the gospel?” Answer: “It is about Jesus dying on the cross for our salvation.” Certainly, we are saved ‘from’ but what are we saved ‘to?’ Is not the ‘to’ all about creation’s purposes? The Ten Commandments all begin with a negative, Thou shalt not. Yet, we notice that Jesus focuses on positive relationships in the Sermon on the Mount; He uses the prefacing comment, “Blessed are those…” (Matt.5:1-12. Notice how often concerning the Sermon on the Mount-Matt. chaps 5-7 where Jesus says "it is written, but I say to you"). Blessedness is a condition of Eden! The orthodox conservative position may easily be perceived to be Pharisaic and joyless; indeed, it may also move towards an idolatry of intellectualism when the correctives of Creation and Restoration are not in place. We see something of the Big Story, beginning with Creation, in Jesus’ teaching on divorce. In doing so, He really did say something about homosexuality!
By taking us right back to the principles of creation, He was not arguing from silence, but saying very positively that what ‘God intended in the beginning’ was that a man and a woman should leave parents, and that the sexual connectedness they experienced sealed their relationship of being one flesh. It was never in the mind or imagination of Jesus that, according to God’s purposes, two men or two women could sexually become one flesh. It was impossible in God’s eyes! He made man for woman, and woman for man, in order for both to find their identity and fulfillment in ‘otherness.’ Think of it: That’s a Trinitarian statement! "Image of God!"
This is not an opinion in both the Old and New Testaments but a creation principle! As such, the difference we see in both testaments is simply a matter of how homosexuality is dealt with in the community. Although the treatment is very harsh in the Old Testament, we see in Paul (1Cor.6:9-10) that to choose to continue living in a homosexual relationship (present tense verbs) receives the same exclusions to kingdom life as those choosing to live as adulterers, or robbers, or drunkards. (When we no longer possess the dignity to exercise free choice, then we have lost something fundamental to our essential humanity).
Similarly, the modern revisionist poses serious deficiencies in the Big Story when beginning theological thinking in the area of Restoration. Actually, it was easier to say this of the liberal position twenty five years ago. Liberals of that day tended to possess a genuinely liberal heart of tolerance and were far more informed concerning other positions. It is much more difficult to find a point of beginning for many of today’s revisionists. Mostly, they tread, only very lightly into the world of other positions and with much less tolerance than did their predecessors. Nevertheless, both old and new liberals tend to share the view that they are called to build the kingdom of God right here on earth, and right now! Of course, Jesus never did agree with this view! In one of His discourses on the latter days (Matt.24; Luke 21, and Mark 13) we see that all creation is moving further and further into chaos-not into unity and creation's initial harmony. The basis for this supposedly achievable state of bliss is a universal condition of justice. However, the numerous and diverse pathways to this approach do not allow for a universal answer to the question, “Whose justice?” “No one brings suit justly.” (Isa.59:4)
One is supposed to assume that one opinion of justice must also be the same or equal to that presented by God; as is one more opinion! It’s a short step from believing in everything to believing in nothing! (I think the late David Watson once said that). The fact is that the Bible very rarely speaks of justice apart from the accompanying word, ‘righteousness.’ “The Lord works righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.” (Psa.103:6) “Righteous are you, O Lord, and your laws are right.” (Psa.119:137) Clearly, this righteousness is the rightness of God’s own nature. It is God’s revealed nature which informs us about the nature of justice. It is not our notions of justice which reveal the nature of God’s righteousness! Not only is God’s nature revealed in the nature of His creation, but His righteousness is also revealed when we associate it with the purposes for His creation.
And it is on the basis of God’s revealed nature that we look,
first of all to creation’s purposes, in order to discover our primary doctrines.
CONCLUSION
Positional views attempting to laud Redemption theology over Restoration theology (and vice-versa) will only produce ultimate disharmony apart from their roots in Creation theology. I believe that such an approach inevitably produced the St. Michael Report. Should the committee have begun its theological thinking with Creation principles of relationships(as did Jesus) and have pursued the Big Story of the Bible through the accompanying purposes of Redemption and Restoration, an unhelpful dichotomy of ‘core doctrines versus ‘non-core’ doctrines would not have emerged. For our purposes, the principle of identity through difference and otherness, and the absence of homosexual relations (in creation and restoration) is clearly an essential factor in God’s purposes for Creation. Creation principles show us the physical manner in which man and woman were created reveal to us that the discovery of identity, through intimacy of relationships, is realized in the conjunction of otherness in both a physical and spiritual sense. Does not this principle take us right back to the very nature of the Trinitarian God in whose image we were made?
A theological process which elevates institutional demands over kingdom essentials is destined to end in fuzziness and confusion. “Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (Jude 3) As Anglicans, we stand upon the authority of Scripture. A community which doesn’t is another type of church; it is a church which has lost the joy of living the life of the Big Story, which had its advent and meaning in Eden.