Not all Christian jargon is good, but today I heard about 'speaking Jesus', which I think is great!
But perhaps you think it is just bad grammar. After all, how can you 'speak Jesus'? You can understand how to speak 'about Jesus', or 'to Jesus', but not simply 'speak Jesus'.
Jack Kilcrease has recently commented on postmodernism. He says it could be described as 'provisionalism' because it teaches that all representation of reality is provisional because it is not the thing it represents. So, the sign (e.g. the word 'tree') can never wholly convey the thing signified (e.g. the tree itself). However, Lutherans teach that by the promise of God the thing signified could be 'in, with and under' the sign. That is not the case with everything, but if God promises then he will perform the miracle.
The language of 'in, with and under' comes from the teaching that Christ is really present in the Lord's Supper. But you could also say the same about Baptism, and the words of absolution.
The same thing could then be applied to the Bible. It is not just about Jesus, but Jesus is really present when it is read. Similarly, when I speak faithfully about Jesus he is there with us. That's how I understand Matthew 18; Jesus is present when two are three are gathered because, and only because, of the words spoken. In this sense the Bible doesn't simply contain the Word of God in parts, but is the Word of God.
This can also be applied to the Church. Christ is 'in, with and under' the Church, so that it really is the Body of Christ and when you persecute the Church you persecute Christ (Acts 26:14).
This is all achieved by the Father sending the Spirit to create a mystical union.
I don't claim to understand Barth (perhaps Dan B could help me out), but I've always been struck by hearing that he taught that "God is his revelation", so there is no God other than the God who is Jesus Christ. Mike Reeves at NWA showed from Ezekiel and elsewhere that "God is his glory", or more specifically God the Father's glory has the name Jesus Christ. It is a bit mind-bending, and I think the language of 'in, with and under' (which, probably not coincidentally, are the words Paul uses for our union with Christ) are more helpful because the identification is not strict (otherwise Barth would be a Christomonist and I would believe that the Christ is the worldwide Church).
Does that make sense to people?
It could probably do with a lot more meditation and definitely a better written post than I have time for today, but I think I may adopt that lovely bit of Christian jargon: 'Speak Jesus to people'.
I like "speak Jesus" very much. (Perhaps the complement to "learn Jesus" Ephesians 4:20)
ReplyDeleteThe threefold Word (which Barth adapted from Luther) is a trinitarian way of trying to articulate this truth. The one Word comes in three modes - i.e. Christ is biblically proclaimed - therefore, though they are distinct we mustn't separate them. They are united perichoretically so as to be one divine Word.
Barth also identified the three big battles of church history as:
1) 4th century - identifying God's gift of the Son as the gift of God Himself.
2) 16th century - identifying God's gift of righteousness as the gift of God Himself
3) 20th century - identifying God's revelation as God Himself.
In each case it's important to avoid modalism - but once you have the trinitarian vocabulary of the 4th century you should be able to do it.
love this dave, and thanks for that clarity glen. Really interesting we've arrived in similar places through different routes here - for me it was thinking about the relationship between speech and text or parole & mot/langue, and between love and truth, scepticism & suspicion. In love and light, He is who he says he is. His is the fellowship in which there is no conspiracy, no darkness, at all. Love that. He is who he says he is. Marvellous.
ReplyDeleteSomething else I'd been thinking about in terms of apologetics & evangelism for the last few years was what the word of God is. For me the context was that I came into a CU exec meeting discussing how Michael Green & Ots should preach. Some said "if we start with a text of scripture being read then i wouldnt invite my friends as they would laugh it away". Others said "if you dont start with a text of scripture then I wouldnt invite mine because it wouldnt be the word of God". Ridiculous, immature, but there we go. I remember realising that although I doubt ever explicitly was it being taught, nonetheless implicitly it was being caught that the word of God is scripture, and it made people reticent to appeal to creation, or even to introduce people to Jesus.
At the very least it seems to me you've got 5 ways: creation speaks the glory of God without words, (there is no speech, its voice is not heard & without the light of christ we only hear vanity vanity), torah the word of yhwh which tests the heart, the word made flesh in Jesus wihch fulfils torah, word preached in the gospel which changes the heart and perhaps perhaps perhaps derivatively the scriptures. But In my context, *some* conservatives were instinctively hearing "word of God = scripture" - which is why they were sceptical of apologetics (just say the magic words), and which was especially odd because it seems to be the one way the NT never speak of the scriptures. Without exception, whenever you see the "word of the truth" or "word of God" or "word of his grace" the NT means Christ given for us in love. it's more like his covenant vow: "all that I am I give to you, I love you in my son". I found that quite unsettling for a while but am quite settled in it now, and it's really liberated me, especially in realising why evangelism in my charismatic tradition seemed so much more effective (ramsden, green, alpha etc).
But I wondered if no longer calling the scriptures the word of God made me a heretic (I still think they're infallible and and able to correct). It changes the way you think about preaching "the text": rather you preach "the word" (he/you/i). You dont ask "whats the main point you want them to take home", you say "he's the take home. I want them to take him home with them in love". Chatting with Mike Reeves about it was helpful, as I wondered if it was a bit like Luther's law gospel distinction. He commented that it was an understandable that in reaction to liberal criticism conservatives wanted to say "we're BIBLE PEOPLE", but should have said "we're CHRIST people", namely the Christ given for us according to the scriptures. He suggested I read Barth 1/2, but as someone who finds Barth intimidatingly vast, Im trying to rev myself up for it. Dont spose youve got a copy? In the meantime I find your observation really helpful.
"It is not just about Jesus, but Jesus is really present when it is read. Similarly, when I speak faithfully about Jesus he is there with us. That's how I understand Matthew 18; Jesus is present when two are three are gathered because, and only because, of the words spoken. In this sense the Bible doesn't simply contain the Word of God in parts, but is the Word of God.
Dave, I think you're right that the identification of the sign and the thing signified isn't strict, especially since Scripture uses multiple signs. God is present and meets with his people where and by the means of grace which he promises. But they are always signs of his presence and not God himself. There's a longstanding tendency in the church to identify the sign with God. It's as though we feel that if we don't, we just haven't said enough about his presence with us; and of course we haven't, and of course we can't.
ReplyDeleteBut, I don't think the error of a strict identification with the sign results in Christomonism. Even if it's identification with Christ is overstated, the sign remains a means of union with Christ, because he's promised to be present and to meet with us there.
Glen cited Barth's identification of the three big battles in church history. With the benefit of historical perspective the first two battles seem quite clear. Would you flesh out a little of what Barth meant by the 20th century battle? Are there any clear historical markers for it as is the case with the two earlier battles?