Just an unformed idea that I've been thinking about researching:
(1) As the Church universal became increasingly corrupt, the nation state arose and was offered as the true society and that which held salvation.
(2) As the nation state became increasingly corrupt, the nuclear family became increasingly the focus of social interaction and well-being.
(3) As the nuclear family became increasingly corrupt, the individual became the focus of life (that is now lived in a state of “homelessness” and solitude).
(4) Individualism leads to nihilism and the collapse of meaning.
(5) The movement from the corruption of the Church to the State to the family to the nihilism of individualism was the inevitable outworking of a single trajectory. That is to say, as soon as the church collapses all other social bodies are bound to fail and we will only be left alone,homeless, and in the pursuit of ever-elusive meaning.
(6) Therefore, the solution to today's nihilistic individualism is not to be found in a return to focusing on the family or focusing on being good citizens. The solution is found in returning to and restoring the Church and allowing the body of Christ to function as the Christian social body.
(7) I am not arguing for some sort of Christian State or Constantinian utopia, I am simply arguing that the Church is the polis for Christians. The nation state, and even the nuclear family, are simply parodies and perversions of the Church.

“It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic.—The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like.”
~ Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3.031
And this is precisely why Christianity is utterly dependent upon revelation as opposed to reason or natural science. The core of Christianity can only be understood as 'logical' after it has been revealed as that which is real. Thus, for example, it is only after encountering Jesus as both God and man that we are able speak of a person who is both divine and human without drifting into 'illogical' or impossible expressions.
This, then, is why the suggestion that “God can create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic” is not a complete or genuine Christian statement. It must be dramatically modified to read as follows: “God can create anything according to God's logic.” Logic, in particular our understanding of logic, does not rule over God's actions; rather, God rules over our logic and only through revelation can we discern what is truly logical and what is not.
(As an aside: I am currently reading my way through both Barth and Wittgenstein and I have been struck by the ways in which their works challenge, compliment, and further each other. Does anybody know any good studies that compare and contrast the two?)

It seems commonplace to argue that Christians who are “Conservative” tend to focus their political influence on sexual issues while Christians who are “Liberal” tend to focus their political power on socio-economic issues. Thus, Christian Conservatives spend a lot of time talking about things like abortion, sex among teens, divorce, and homosexuality while Christian Liberals spend a lot of time talking about things like poverty, war, racism, and corporate businesses. Essentially Conservatives and Liberals have two different compartmentalized hierarchies of values — one places sex at the top, and the other places economics at the top.
I would like to suggest that not only are both the Liberal and Conservative compartmentalized hierarchies flawed because of what they leave out, they are also flawed precisely because they are compartmentalized hierarchies. The problem with the Liberals' hierarchy is that they think they can talk about economics without talking about sex. The problem with the Conservatives' hierarchy is that they think they can talk about sex without talking about economics. What I want to propose is that every discussion of economics carries sexual implications and every discussion of sex is intimately shaped by the economic context within which that discussion takes place.
Sex and economics go hand-in-hand and cannot be separated from each other. This is so because both economic practices and sexual practices are expressions of worship. Thus, worship of the one God should result in particular economic practices and in particular sexual practices — just as worship of idols, in the Old Testament, results in a particular kind of economics (oppression of the poor) and in a particular kind of sexual practice (temple prostitution).
If we are to overcome the Liberal/Conservative divide that mars much of North American Christianity we must begin to explore both economic issues and sexual issues through the lens of what it means to be a community shaped by the worship of the one God — Father, Son, and Spirit — as that one God is revealed in the biblical narrative.
Therefore, in order to participate constructively in any current debate about sexuality, one must first begin with the topics of worship and idolatry, move from there to a discussion of the economics which result from worship and from idolatry, and only then move into a discussion of any contemporary sexual issue in light of contemporary economics and contemporary forms and objects of worship.

I have often been struck by the way in which the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, in a very Pauline sort of way, expresses a longing to give his audience adult “solid food” instead of the “milk” that is reserved for infants (He 5.11-14 — cf. 1 Cor 3.1-3). Previously these verse have always stood out to me because I think that contemporary Christian teaching often persists in giving people (especially youth) milk even though they are longing for — and in desperate need of — solid food.
However, as I was reading through Hebrews this time, I was struck by the reason the author provides as to why his audience is not ready for solid food. Solid food, the author argues, “is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.” The author of Hebrews suggests that serious theology is only comprehensible to those who have been shaped by a constant and disciplined praxis (Paul basically makes the same point in 1 Cor 3 when he notes the faulty praxis of the Corinthians and realizes they are still not ready for solid food).
Quite naturally this line of thought leads me to the emphasis within liberation theology which suggests that theology is reflection upon ecclesial praxis. As Gustavo Gutierrez argues in We Drink from Our Own Wells: “Discourse on faith is a second stage in relation to the life of faith itself… Talk about God (theo-logy) comes after the silence of prayer and after commitment.” However, Gutierrez notes that this is not to say that theology is altogether a separate and later stage; rather, he is simply emphasising that theology must be rooted in praxis.
Of course, in order to engage in any sort of Christian praxis we do need some basic teaching — infants do need milk — and that is why catechesis is so important. But, although it is a good first word, the catechism is not the last word on Christian living or on Christian theology. Catechesis empowers new Christians to begin to engage in the ongoing disciplined praxis of the Christian community, and it is only from this place that serious theology can be born and can become comprehensible. Any theology not rooted in praxis is inherently problematical. And this is why theology is never simply repeating verbatim the traditions, doctrines, and creeds of the Church, as though such things exist as the timeless Word of God. All theology, doctrines, and creeds are contextual and any attempt to remove these things from their concomitant context and praxis is misguided and dangerous.
It is this recognition of the crucial importance of praxis to both doing and understanding theology that should cause us to question theology as it is done and taught within the Christian Academy. To suggest, for example, that a person has a firm grasp on the notion of cruciform suffering love simply because one can put together a well-written paper on that topic would strike the liberation theologians (and quite possibly Paul and the author of Hebrews) as absurd. Apart from the praxis of cruciform suffering love, one may very well have little idea of what cruciformity actually means, and one should be more than a little hesitant to risk speaking authoritatively on the subject (this actually ties in well with advice that Tom Wright gives to preachers: do not preach what has not become a part of you!).
Therefore, if Christian education is to be both truly Christian and truly educational this element of praxis must be restored to the curriculum. Those who study theology must be intimately involved in the radical lifestyle to which their theology calls them. Thus, to continue to example from the previous paragraph, if we are learn what cruciformity is we must not only read about the subject, we must come to experience cruciformity — and what better way to go about doing that than by journeying with the crucified people of today? If I am not concretely involved in loving my brothers and sisters, my neighbours, and my “enemies” then it doesn't matter how articulate or well researched my paper on the topic of love is — chances are I don't really know what I'm talking about.

“It is also crucial to bear in mind the interconnection between the Decalogue… and its modern obverse, the celebrated 'human Rights'. As the experience of our post-political liberal-permissive society amply demonstrates, human Rights are ultimately, at their core, simply Rights to violate the Ten Commandments. 'The right to privacy' — the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. 'The right to pursue happiness and to possess private property' — the right to steal (to exploit others). 'Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion' — the right to lie. 'The right of free citizens to possess weapons' — the right to kill. And, ultimately, 'freedom of religious belief' — the right to worship false gods.”
~ The Fragile Absolute — or, why is the christian legacy worth fighting for?

When journeying with those who have not been well loved by others and who do not love themselves all that much (or at all) it is not enough to simply proclaim, “God loves you and everybody else!” This proclamation is truncated and incomplete. The problem with this message is that proclaiming that “God loves everybody” does little to address the underlying issues faced by the unloved person. “Okay,” that person thinks, “God loves even people who are worthless. That doesn't change the fact that I'm worthless.” Our proclamation that “God loves you” is only a complete proclamation when we proclaim that “God loves you because you are lovely.” God does not simply love us because that's what God does regardless of who we are; God loves us because there is something about us that God finds worth loving.
Adopting this proclamation means engaging in a bit of a paradigm shift in how we understand the people with whom we engage in the (embodied!) act of proclamation. Instead of viewing people as hell-bound sinners we must come to see people as God's craftsmanship, surely broken, but inherently good and beautiful. Of course, all this is not to say that God owes us love, or that we earn God's love; rather, it is to say that, from the get-go, God has made us lovely — and, therefore, God loves everyone.
Indeed, this loveliness is precisely what I have discovered in those whom society tends to see as completely unloveable. As I have journeyed into relationships with prostitutes, pimps, addicts, dealers, sex offenders and other criminals, I have been overwhelmed by the loveliness that is in all of these people. The tragedy is not that these people are devoid of anything lovely — that tragedy is how broken they have become and how we have trapped them within that brokenness by treating them as though they are worthless. This is why we are not simply sinners saved by grace. We are those created lovely by God, broken by sin, and transformed through the Spirit of the new creation into greater loveliness — thereby also becoming greater lovers of others.

Well, as requested, I'm posting the complete bibliography to this series, which has now drawn to a close (As an aside I should note that Richard Bauckham's God Crucified should really be on this list as well but I only just finished reading it now. Bauckham's reflections on how the one God is revealed in the humiliation of Jesus ties in well with much of what I have said about becoming the Father through a Spirit-empowered cruciformity. Furthermore, I feel that this series actually helps to show how a “Christology of divine identity” and an Adam Christology belong together [I mention this last point because Bauckham argues that Tom Wright “tries to have his cake and eat it too” when he brings those two motifs together in his chapter on Phil 2 in The Climax of the Covenant]).
Bibliography
Ateek, Naim Stiffen. Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1989.
von Balthasar, Hans Urs. The von Balthasar Reader. Eds. Medard Kehl, S.J. and Werner Loser, S.J. Trans. Robert J. Daly, S.J. and Fred Lawrence. New York: Crossroad, 1997 [1980].
________. Explorations in Theology IV: Spirit and Institution. Trans. Edward T. Oakes, S.J. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1995 [1974].
________. Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter. Trans. Aiden Nichols, O.P. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005 [1970].
________. Prayer. Trans. Graham Harrison. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986 [1955].
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics I.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Eds. G. W. Bromily and T. F. Torrance. Trans. G. W. Bromily. London: T & T Clark International, 2004 [1932].
________. Dogmatics in Outline. Trans. G. T. Thompson. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959.
Bartos, Emil. Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology: An Evaluation and Critique of the Theology of Dimitru Stanisloae. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999.
Bell Jr., Daniel M. Liberation Theology After the End of History: The refusal to cease suffering. London: Routledge, 2001.
Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.
Cavanaugh, William T. Theopolitical Imagination: Discovering the Liturgy as a Political Act in an Age of Global Consumerism. London: T & T Clark, 2002.
Dempster, Stephen G. Dominion and Dynasty: a theology of the Hebrew Bible. New Studies in Biblical Theology 15. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.
Doe, Jane. The Story of Jane Doe: A Book About Rape. Toronto: Vintage, 2003.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
________. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Ellul, Jacques. Hope in Time of Abandonment. Trans. C. Edward Hopkins. New York: Seabury, 1977 [1972].
Goldingay, John. Israel’s Gospel: Old Testament Theology Vol. 1. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.
Gorman, Michael J. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Gutierrez, Gustavo. We Drink from Our Own Wells: The Spiritual Journey of a People. Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2003 [1984].
Haurwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.
Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation. A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.
Moltmann, Jurgen. In the End – The Beginning: the life of hope. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.
________. The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortres, 1993 [1987].
________. God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993 [1985].
________. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993 [1980].
________. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993 [1975].
________. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ a the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993 [1973].
________. Theology and Joy. Trans. Reinhard Ulrich. London: SCM, 1973 [1971].
________. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology. Trans. James W. Leitch. New York: Harper & Row, 1975 [1965].
Moyter, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993.
Nellas, Panayiotis. Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987.
Nouwen, Henri J. M. The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homcoming. London: Doubleday, 1992.
Stavropoulous, Chistoforos. “Partakers of Divine Nature” in Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader. Ed. Daniel B. Clendiner (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003 [1993]), 183-92.
Thompson, Michael. Isaiah 40-66. Peterborough: Epworth, 2001.
Valantasis, Richard. Centuries of Holiness: Ancient Spirituality Refracted for a Postmodern Age. New York: Continuum, 2005.
Walsh, Brian J. and Keesmat, Sylvia C. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodoxy Way. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary Series Vol. 1. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.
Westerman, Claus. Isaiah 40-66. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.
Wright, N. T. Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.
________. Paul: in Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
________. The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.
________. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
________. “Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans” in A Royal Priesthood? The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically. A Dialogue with Oliver O’Donovan. (The Scripture and Hermeneutics Series Vol. 3. Eds. Craig Bartholomew, Jonathan Chaplin, Robert Son, Al Wolters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 173-93.
________. “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Series Vol. X (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 393-770.
________. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Saul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
________. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
________. Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
________. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
________. The Crown and the Fire: Meditations on the Cross and the Life of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
________. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993 [1991].
Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah: Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

4. Conclusion: Reflection, Motivation, Consummation (conc.)
The “End” of the Story: Resurrection, Consummation and Theosis
Up until this point, our focus has been upon telling and participating within the first four movements of God’s Story (movements which span from “the beginning” to the present day) and we have only briefly alluded to the fifth movement –- the concluding movement of consummation and of the new creation of all things. However, a story-shaped people lives with both remembrance and expectation, because the story contains both past events and promises for the future. Telling God’s story is remembering our future just as much as it is remembering our past. Therefore, we will conclude by reflecting upon the movement of consummation and, in this way, complete this prolegomena. Within this conclusion we will draw from Eastern Orthodox sources in order to recover the notion of theosis and thereby fill out the work done by the Protestant and Roman Catholic sources that have been our main dialogue partners so far.
The mission of God within the movement of consummation is thoroughly trinitarian. The Father will return to be personally and physically present with his creation. He will heal all wounds, wipe away all tears, and make all things new. The Son will return in glory to consummate his kingdom, to subject all the powers, and to complete his victory over sin and death, over exile and hell. The Spirit will be poured out on all flesh and in this way God will be all in all. In this way, the story of God-with-us will reach its wondrous conclusion and just as at the beginning of this study, so now at the end we discover that all of this occurs through resurrection. The event of the general resurrection of the dead is at the core of this movement. Therefore, just as the mission of the Church is founded upon Jesus’ resurrection, so also it reaches its completion in the resurrection of all people to new life.
In the movement of consummation God’s mission to create humanity in his image will be completed. Indeed, as Moltmann argues, humanity was created to be God’s image, not according to God’s image; therefore, humanity is created “in the direction of” God’s image, and the true likeness of God is not to be found at the beginning of the story but at its end. In the movement of consummation, humanity, indwelt by the Spirit and shaped by Jesus, will be the true reflection of the Father -– although now we only see this reflection “as through a mirror darkly,” in the movement of consummation God’s image will be fully revealed. This approach to the telos of humanity fits well with the tradition of theosis and deification that has been sustained within the Eastern Orthodox churches. Appealing to the Church Fathers -– especially to St. Athanasius, who argued that “God became man, so that we might be made gods” -– Orthodox theologians argue that the purpose of life is to be participants within the divine nature as we enter into union with God (and with one another). However, because of Western Protestant and Roman Catholic discomfort with the language of deification, it must be noted that this doctrine does not lead to pantheism or polytheism. The focus is upon union, not confusion or fusion, with God. To enter into theosis is simply to be a creature of God in the way that God intended one to be -– deification is the fulfillment of our creatureliness. Indeed, deification is a convenient shorthand way of referring to the missio Christianus that has been developed within this paper. Although all humanity has been gifted with the image of God, it is only those who participate within the missio Dei as a Spirit-empowered, cruciform, abandoned, and Fatherly people, who truly bring that likeness to bear within the present. In the movement of overlap the people of God begin to model what it is to be caught up within the perichoretic relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit. In the movement of consummation all of creation will be caught up into that relationship.
Of course, this concluding movement is not the end of God’s Story, nor is it the end of the story of God-with-us. This ending is but a new beginning. These first five movements are only the start of the grand narrative of God-with-us. These movements are but a part of the labor pains that accompany new life. From the fifth movement onward we move into something completely different. We are caught up into the perichoretic relationship of the Father, Son and the Spirit. We are transformed into the fully unveiled glory of the children of God, the world is made new, and justice and peace embrace within the unbroken reign of God’s reconciliation and shalom. Little wonder then that biblical visions of this movement of consummation are so inundated with scenes of worship that overflow with spontaneity and joy. Yes, all things will be made new. The transforming love of the One God –- Father, Son, and Spirit –- will triumph over all things, even godforsakenness and hell.
We have only begun to taste and see the ever deeper, ever more wondrous, life and goodness of our Lord. Therefore, let us persevere as those who are empowered by the Spirit to become the cruciform revelation of the Father in the remaining places of abandonment that persist for just a little while longer, and in our persistence let us remember that the night is passing and the day is at hand. Therefore, we join with the communion of the Saints and in our worship anticipate the day when all creation will rejoice in the presence of God.
Glory be to the Father; glory be to the Son; glory be to the Holy Spirit. Amen.
__________
Sources:
Emil Bartos, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology: An Evaluation and Critique of the Theology of Dimitru Stanisloae.
Jurgen Moltmann, In the End — The Beginning: The life of hope and God in Creation.
Panayiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person.
Christoforos Stavropoulous, “Partakers of Divine Nature” in Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader.
Richard Valantasis, Centuries of Holiness: Ancient Spirituality Refracted for a Postmodern Age.
Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way.

4. Conclusion: Reflection, Motivation, and Consummation (cont.)
Motivation: Hope, Faith, Love, and Courage
There are four characteristic virtues that motivate the Church as she participates in the missio Dei –- hope, faith, love, and courage. Hope, already addressed in some detail in our discussion of the journey into godforsakenness, is fundamentally a characteristic a people who are shaped by God’s Story. Hope recalls God’s past actions, it remembers the Father’s creative activity, the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus that ended exile, and it remembers the out-pouring of the Spirit that causes the new age to burst into the present. Therefore, the Church hopes that such actions will also define the present experiences of Christians. Furthermore, this hope is strengthened because a hope that is rooted in God’s story also remembers God’s promises. Therefore, hope motivates the Church to move into the missio Dei; indeed, hope makes a movement into the missio Dei seem like the only natural thing to do as Christians.
Faith has also been discussed in some detail in this paper, although those who are accustomed to understanding faith as “believing” certain propositions may not notice this at first. Throughout this paper faith is understood as faithfulness to God’s covenant with us. Therefore, the Church is motivated to participate in God’s missional activity because this is what is required of God’s faith-full covenant partner. Faith here is understood as cruciform obedience, modeled on the cruciform obedience of Jesus. The Church is motivated to engage in God’s mission because God commands us to engage in this mission. The gospel is the revelation of God’s righteousness – of God’s covenant faithfulness. Therefore, the Church that proclaims and embodies the gospel is to be the revelation of God’s faithful covenant partner.
However, the largest motive in all of this is that of love. Underlying Christian hope and Christian covenant faithfulness is a movement into love. Indeed, it is love that underlies the entire missio Dei for it is love that leads the Father to create new life, it is love that leads the Son to embrace godforsakenness, it is love the leads the Father and the Son to send the Spirit into the world, and it is this Spirit of love that empowers the people of God to be a loving and a beloved people. God-With-Us is revealed as the Lover of all creation, and all creation is revealed as God’s Beloved. The story of God, and the story in which we live is, essentially, a love story. As Gorman says: “love is not primarily God’s being but God’s way of being; it is not primarily God’s essence but God’s story. It is as story of self-giving love.” This is the kind of love story that we would be inclined to call a fairy tale. We would be forced to say that such a love story is simply too good to be true… were it not for the cross of Jesus. The cross reveals that this love story is so good that it must be true! Therefore, the Christian mission is simply to participate in the movement of God’s love, and to show that this love is not too good to be true by moving into godforsakenness. As von Balthasar so eloquently says:
There are experiences of absence within this ever-present world of God’s grace, but they are forms and modes of love. Such were the experiences of the prophets of the Old Covenant, of the Son of God on the cross and in the darkness of his descent into hell; such are the experiences of all those who, in their several vocations, follow the Son. These are the redemptive paths of love as it traces the footsteps of sinners in order to catch up with them and bring them home.
Apart from love, the Christian mission is both impossible and nonsensical. Without love, one cannot remain in places of godforsakenness. Without love, moving into places of godforsakenness appears to be utterly foolish. Alas, I can only conclude that the marked absence of Christians in places of godforsakenness and the marked loss of the declaration of the end of exile are simply the symptoms of a Christianity that has been co-opted by the elevation of self-gratification over and above the call to love God and to love one’s neighbor.
Furthermore, it should be the passion of love, and not “apocalyptic” speculation, which gives the missio Christianus its urgency. Contemporary “apocalyptic” speculations urge the Church to engage in missions because the cataclysmic end of the space-end universe is imagined to be imminent. This is problematical for two reasons. First of all, these speculations entirely misunderstand the function of apocalyptic literature within Second Temple Judaism. Apocalyptic literature was not written to describe the end of the world; it was written to reveal the heavenly perspective on contemporary events, and it was a subversive mode of writing favored by oppressed groups. It is unfortunate that a form of literature that should only further the subversive nature of the embodied Christian mission has been misunderstood and co-opted by those who want to use it to enforce a strictly dualistic and apolitical approach to missions. Secondly, such speculations of exactly when Jesus will return are rather detrimental to the Christian mission. They are repeatedly proved wrong and, instead of motivating missional activity, they end up driving Christians away from missions altogether. Indeed, because of such speculations the word “missions” has almost become a dirty and embarrassing word to many Christians under thirty-five. Instead of speculating about when Jesus will return, the love that motivates the missio Christianus should be defined by a longing for Jesus’ imminent return. Because Christian love is suffering love, Christians long for the day when all suffering will cease. Our movement into the groaning places of the world does not lead to speculation about when Jesus will return. Instead, it inevitably leads to the prayer of the Beloved who is separated from the Lover: “Come quickly, Lord Jesus, come quickly.”
Finally, it must also be noted that it is love that provides Christians with the courage to journey into cruciformity and godforsakenness. As 1 Jn notes, “there is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear.” The author of 1 Jn is emphasizing the fact that Christians have come to realize that we do not have to fear God’s judgment, but the same point applies to the Christian approach to mission. Because we no longer fear God -– because God is for us –- we no longer fear any places of exile, or any other powers. Therefore, it is all the more significant that the most repeated command in the biblical narrative is this: “Do not be afraid.” Only those who are filled with the courage that love provides will be able to fully participate within the missio Dei. It is those who are not afraid of loneliness or brokenness that can journey into cruciformity and godforsakenness. Indeed, those who are filled with love’s courage are able to see through the virtues of “necessity,” “practicality,” and “responsibility” and realize that too often these virtues are simply justifications used by those who are too afraid and too apathetic to move fully into the missio Dei. Fear, and the “virtues” it inspires, are simply the result of loving one’s self and that which belongs to one’s self (be that possessions or one’s personal family) too much and loving God and one’s neighbor too little. Those who are filled with God’s love will be those who have the courage to be irrelevant, impractical, and irresponsible and, in that way, participate faithfully within God’s mission.
__________
Sources:
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Explorations in Theology IV, and Prayer.
Jacques Ellul, Hope in Time of Abandonment.
Michael Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul's Narrative Spirituality of the Cross.
N. T. Wright, Following Jesus, The New Testament and the People of God, and The Letter to the Romans.