What we need is a Christian quasi-pluralism, a new kind of inclusion, one that transcends the borders of soft inclusion, something more robust and authoritative than a weak anything-goes pluralism or relativism, and also far stronger, more powerful, more robust and authoritative than any kind of exclusive Christianity. It must be narrow enough to exclude from within and broad enough include from without, a true embodiment of Jesus’ own paradox that “he who is not for me is against me” and “he who is not against me is for me.”
It must be rooted in the person of Jesus, not the mere name which is a mask rooted in context, a linguistic code. The name of Jesus, the fleshly body of Jesus, the Jewish rabbi, the historical events of his life, his history—these are all texts and contexts, contextualizations and embodiments of the true person, nature, and fundamental truths of the Divine. They are the lenses through which we encounter the Divine as Christians.
There is a River of Truth that runs through and underneath these texts and contexts, embodied and revealed in Jesus.
It is with the awareness of the Gift, the rejection of merit, and the consciousness of the River of Truth that is (dis)embodied in the texts and contexts of dogma and doctrine that we can begin to move toward a new kind of inclusion.
There is a River of Truth that runs through and underneath these texts and contexts, embodied and revealed in Jesus.
This River of Truth is born out of Gift—the reality and source within which the creation finds its flow, harmony, and balance. When Gift becomes substituted by economy, economy throws everything off balance. Economy involves merit. Gift requires that nothing can be earned or should be earned. Gift requires endless grace and love, a sort of blind reciprocity based on endless gratitude rather than entitlement. Economy breaks the flow and harmony with delay. Delay occurs when there is expectation rather than expectancy, a waiting for the Other to reciprocate. Economy throws off the balance because there is more weight on one side than the other at any given moment, always a debt which must be reciprocated.
Earning, debt, economy, merit, calculated reciprocity—Paul condemns these and excludes them from grace, from the “Law of the Spirit.” He says that there is no condemnation for those who walk by this law. When we subscribe to a system of economy and debt, or any “system” for that matter, we break the flow, harmony, and balance of creation and lose our integration, psychologically accruing a debt and falling into disintegration. This is condemnation. This is the “Law of the flesh,” because it belongs to the realm that has fallen into disintegration and that has been wrecked by the Curse of economy, the realm which is not fully integrated with the realm of the Spirit, and with the ultimate reality of all things – the Gift.
It is with the awareness of the Gift, the rejection of merit, and the consciousness of the River of Truth that is (dis)embodied in the texts and contexts of dogma and doctrine that we can begin to move toward a new kind of inclusion.
"Forgiveness precedes repentance, not the other way around." - Brennan Manning
ReplyDeleteHeady stuff you've written here, Mr. Dise. I've read it twice and feel like a third time wouldn't hurt. I will say that if I've understood you correctly, these are words that I need to hear. The idea of Gift is lost on a lot of people, and I am always struggling to accept Christ's grace. The idea turns economy on its head. Economy says that if you pay for it, you can have it. Gift, on the other hand, says that if you pay for it, you dismantle the essence of the offering. This is good news.
The ways that Gift and inclusivity are related, I'd like to discuss. Does inclusion refer to God's acceptance of people of other faiths? Or is that too narrow a definition? I think once that is defined I'll have a clearer picture of what you're saying.
As always, great work and keep writing.
Thanks Ellis! I wanted to allow the reader to articulate the part about inclusion for his/herself. That was why I did not clarify it. However, the implication for me is that people of others faiths and creeds would be included. A great explanation for how this kind of inclusion could work is included in a dialogue at the end of C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle. Here is a link where you can find that dialogue:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theologyinpencil.com/inclusivism-but-not-pluralism
Also, I love how you added your own articulations about Gift and essence. It was helpful for me. This is what I want people to do.
Good stuff! Both Michael and Ellis. Take a fresh look with me at these well known passages -
ReplyDeleteJohn 3:16, Romans 5:8, Ephesians 2:8-9 - God still Loves the world (us) even in our present sinful condition. God's Love being so great, so unconditional, that He need demonstrate it in the personification of Himself being made manifest in the person of Jesus, who suffered and died for us, but was then resurrected from the dead to give us "life" - this being the "Gift" freely given by His grace.
Now below is my God-given understanding of the scriptures . . .
James 4:6, I Peter 5:5 - "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble". When a persons faith in God is grounded in humility - by simply "owning up to the reality" of our complete and total inadequacy in ourselves; this not only causes us to see our need for God's complete and total forgiveness, but also to acknowledge our need for His transforming power in our lives.
I believe only then will we discover and experience God's grace in the "Way" of Jesus.
The truth is found in the "Way" of Jesus, even among those who have not been exposed to the name of Jesus, or if a person has been mislead concerning the true character and essence of Jesus.
Since God is Love, and Jesus is the "gift", the personification of that love. Then pride is the only thing that would keep us from receiving God's free gift of love through Jesus Christ, whether it be in this age or in the age to come.
The Greek word for "Repentance" is the word - Metanoia; which simply means "change of mind" or you could say; "owning up to reality".
I like this idea that Jesus is the "Gift," the personification of God's love. I think you could even say that Jesus is the "incarnation" of Gift and Love. Another way of clarifying what I am saying here, and what you write adds to this, is that the doctrines and dogmas of the Christian faith are a language (which is what I mean by texts and contexts) through which the Divine is contextualized in a way that helps us relate to it and be changed by it. As Rob says in Love Wins, the purpose of a religious community is to become oriented around the Divine mystery "to name it," "to be named by it," and "to worship it." The Divine is incarnated in Jesus and then also in doctrine to provide us with a language for this task of naming the Divine, being named by the Divine, and worshiping the Divine.
ReplyDeleteTo the Greeks, Logos was the wisdom that guided and ordered the cosmos. John 3:16 says that God loved the "cosmos." John begins his gospel with stating that this Logos was with God and was God and created all things and became flesh. This means that Jesus is the incarnation of the wisdom of God that brought all things into existence and order. In other words, Jesus incarnates ultimate reality. I think there is a lot of gold in that.