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.

4. Conclusion: Reflection, Motivation, and Consummation
Reflection
At this point we have completed our (brief?) overview of God’s missional story and the way in which Christians are to participate within that story. Like any telling of a story, this telling contains particular nuances, shortcomings, and biases. Indeed, a particular shortcoming of this rendition is the almost total neglect of the significance of the sacraments for living within this story and for engaging in mission. Furthermore, a greater engagement with a broader range of scholars, and with more of the specific biblical texts would greatly aid this model. However, as with all models, this model chooses to selectively highlight particular parts of the biblical narrative, which means that it also neglects others. Thus, if this prolegomena is to become a more complete missiology these issues must be addressed.
However, as suggested in the introduction, these shortcomings are not completely negative in nature but rather are an inevitable consequence of any spirituality of mission. As suggested by M. D. Chenu, all theological systems, are simply expressions of spiritualities, and this model is no exception. We are in agreement with the sentiments of Gustavo Gutierrez when adds to Chenu’s thinking and says: “our methodology is our spirituality.” Therefore, we must recognize that, despite our desire to sketch the big picture of the Story of God-with-us, this paper reflects a certain context and certain experiences. The prolegomena to a narrative spirituality of mission that is developed here is but a contextual expression of a spirituality that has developed from my personal rootedness within the inner-city. This missiology has been definitively marked by my relationships with homeless youth, prostitutes, criminals, drug addicts, and many others who are abandoned simultaneously by their families, society, and the Church. All spiritualities are contextual; indeed, even our affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection –- the event that is the true foundation of all Christian missiologies -– is always a contextual affirmation. As von Balthasar says, “The Church has never spoken of the Resurrection of Jesus in distant or uncommitted terms but gripped and confessing.” Having been forced to recognize the reality of godforsakenness in the experiences of those on the margins -– and in my own experiences alongside of them –- I find any missiology that does not deal explicitly with that theme to be insufficient as a missiology that addresses those on the margins. Thus, just as this spirituality is contextual, it is also experiential. However, it is equally a contemplative spirituality –- one that has spent some time praying about and contemplating these things. Active experiences within a local context do not take away from the contemplative elements of this spirituality, for contemplation can only take place within the context of ongoing discipleship.
However, I do not expect my proposal to be treated as anything more than an “interesting idea” by those who have only known Christian attempts to replicate heaven, and who know little about the hells in which so many people live today. To borrow the words of Jacques Ellul, “if you are not flayed alive by God’s abandonment, if you are not torn apart in the very depth of your being by the delay of his return,” if that is not the reader’s experience, then I suspect that this prolegomena will have little impact upon the reader’s actual approach to living as a part of God’s mission. However, the Spirit can move through many mediums and it is my hope that the reader will be encouraged to move from the place of reading to the place of intimacy with those who are still in exile today. Unless the reader goes on to become the Father through a Spirit-empowered cruciformity, this paper will have failed in its intent. Thus, I reveal my motivation for writing this paper –- and this leads naturally to the question of that which motivates the Christians mission within the Church and the world. Before we can conclude this paper way must address that question more explicitly.
__________
Sources:
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, and Prayer.
Jacques Ellul, Hope in Time of Abandonment.
Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink from Our Own Wells.

3. Living Within God's Story: The Missio Christianus (conc.)
Becoming Gospel-Bearers and Summation of the Missio Christianus.
Becoming Gospel-Bearers
The final point to be emphasized within this section on living within God’s story is that of the subversive nature of the missio Christianus. Because we live within the movement of overlap, we live in the midst of the tension between the old age and the new age. Indeed, Richard Hays suggests that the overlap of the ages is defined as a time of “cosmic conflict.” Jesus has triumphed over the powers but, for a little while longer, they continue exercise authority in resistance to God’s kingdom. Therefore, as a kingdom people, our missiology presents a revolutionary alternative to the powers. Indeed, by founding our missiology upon the resurrection, we have founded it upon a revolutionary doctrine. The notion of resurrection was always about the new age breaking into the here-and-now, which is why the Sadducees -– the compromised Jewish leaders who benefited from the status quo –- were so eager to deny its existence. The Sadducees, content as they were with the things were, denied the possibility of the resurrection. Consequently, any affirmation of the resurrection of Jesus is “political dynamite!” Tom Wright goes on to fill this thought out in greater detail:
No tyrant is threatened by Jesus going to heaven, leaving his body in a tomb. No governments face the authentic Christian challenge when the church’s social preaching tries to base itself on Jesus’ teaching [apart] from the central and energizing fact of his resurrection.
Resurrection overthrows death, the ultimate power of tyrants, and shows that all things matter and are claimed by God.
The subversive nature of Jesus’ death and resurrection are developed in the political theology of Paul’s gospel, which leads Paul to directly challenge the Roman Empire. This is increasingly becoming clear in contemporary Pauline studies as the previously overlooked nature of Paul’s terminology is become evident. Words like Kyrios, Soter, euaggelion, parousia, and dikaiosyne were all employed by the cult of the Emperor – Caesar was Savior and Lord, the gospel was good news about Caesar, the parousia was the triumphant return of Caesar to the people that he liberated, and the establishment of justice, peace, and righteousness was the accomplishment of Caesar – even the title “Son of God” was claimed by Caesar. By applying such language to Jesus – who died under imperial condemnation – Paul is radically subverting Caesar’s empire, and maintaining the radical politics established by Jesus’ use of the thoroughly political motif of the kingdom of God. Indeed, as Tom Wright says, to suggest to a Roman audience that salvation came through a cross would be akin to slapping the listeners in the face! And to claim that “Jesus is Lord” is, as Wright goes on to say, “the sort of thing that people had to be put into prison for saying… [therefore,] we should not be surprised to discover that that was where Paul was when he wrote half of his letters.”
Of course, as should now be clear, an anti-imperial stance should not be seen as unique to Paul within the context of the Roman empire – subversion and opposition will occur at all times because it is the inevitable confrontation of the gospel with all other powers. After the crucifixion of Jesus, after the subversive affirmation of the one God of the biblical story as the creator of all things, and after being filled with the subversive Spirit of the resurrection, the people of God must inevitably become a counter-cultural community. The good news of the Lordship of Jesus, the empowerment of the Spirit, and the reign of the Father, proclaims to all other rulers and powers that their time is up – their power will no longer be recognized or accepted. All rulers that claim to offer freedom, justice, peace, rights, and salvation have now been revealed as powers that corrupt the very things they claim to offer.
Thus, the Christian participation in the Father’s mission of life-giving and goodness-making requires Christians to live as a people absolutely committed to pursuing peace in a world where the powers rule through violence. In the embrace of cruciformity and godforsakenness that is a part of the Son’s mission, Christians carry this commitment so far that they choose to be killed rather than kill, they choose to be harmed rather than harm. In the embrace of humility, Christians reveal that the power of the Spirit found in weakness is greater than the forceful power wielded by the rulers. In a world where oppression is maintained through fragmentation and cycles of deepening division, Christians participate in the Son’s mission of ending exile and proclaim forgiveness and reconciliation. The Christian community proclaims that “the agonistic logic of rights is replaced by the peaceable logic of reconciliation.” Forgiveness opens the world to God’s future because it denies injustice the last word, and refuses to allow past wrongs to dictate what comes next. In a world where lies are the justification of so much evil, and where so many have bought into self-deprecating and self-destructive notions of who they are, Christians participate in the Spirit’s mission of transformation by speaking truth and comfort. In a world where people have increasingly become isolated, homeless individuals, Christians offer a community, a Church, a return home. In a world of death, dying and meaninglessness, Christians proclaim God’s Story – God’s subversive good news – and offer the resurrection life of the new age here and now.
Living Within God’s Story: Summation of the Missio Christianus
The mission of the Church is to be a community of Gospel-bearers. They are to become Spirit-people, thereby becoming the Son and the Godforsaken, and thereby becoming the Father. The missio Christianus is to live within God’s Story as God’s faithful covenant partner and, concomitantly, as the imago Dei, God’s true humanity. In this way, the Christian mission is to be God-With-Us. Christians are the presence of the Spirit within the physical world, the presence of the Son with the godforsaken, the presence of the Father with his creatures, and the presence of the overflowing perichoresis of the Trinity in a world that is still broken and longing for reconciliation.
Participating in the mission of the Spirit means that God’s Spirit-people bring transformation; they bring resurrection life to a dying world. They bring light, guidance, and truth into places darkness, confusion and deception; and they bring comfort into sorrowful places. Participating in the mission of the Son means that God’s cruciform people journey into the deepest places of exile and godforsakenness in order to bring about the end of exile. As God’s child-heirs, Christians go forth faithfully embodying the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins. Finally, participating in the mission of the Father means that God’s vice-regents are agents of new creation, of new life, of new goodness, and of blessing. As God’s faithful covenant partner, Christians continually proclaim the subversive good news of God the Father, Son, and Spirit, to both the Church and the world. In all these things it is the mission of Christians to hope, to wait, to cry out, and to suffer, but to also rejoice, play, rest, and celebrate. In this way, Christians continually maintain the tension between the cross and the resurrection. They are liberated from their sins, so that they can suffer the consequences of the sins of others. They are called out of exile so that they can descend into hell. They are healed of their own brokenness, so that they can share in the sorrows of those who still weep. The mission of God’s kingly, priestly and prophetic people is to rule just as humbly as their kingly, priestly, and prophetic God rules.
__________
Sources:
Daniel M. Bell Jr., Liberation Theology After the End of History: the refusal to cease suffering.
William T. Cavanaugh, Theopolitical Imagination: Discovering the Liturgy as a Political Act in an Age of Global Consumerism.
Michael Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul's Narrative Spirituality of the Cross.
Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament.
N. T. Wright, “Paul and Caesar,” What Saint Paul Really Said, Paul in Fresh Perspective, and The Resurrection of the Son of God.

3. Living Within God's Story: The Missio Christianus (cont.)
Becoming the Trinity? (Mystery and Dependence)
It must be emphasized that the missio Christianus is the mission of the Church as a corporate body. It is only as a part of a people that any particular person can participate in the missio Dei. To properly discern the Spirit, one must be a part of a corporate body; to be able to persist in cruciformity and in places of godforsakenness, one must be a part of the Church; and to exists as the revelation of the Father, one must be a part of the people of the new covenant that rules in the way that God rules. Of course, the fact that it is the community of faith that acts as the fullest revelation of God leads one to wonder if we can also speak of a movement into becoming the Trinity. Indeed, many theologians are making exactly this argument today, restoring the notion of a “social trinitarianism” to current Christian dialogue.
However, not all have embraced this notion, and Karen Kilby is an articulate and consistent opponent of it. Kilby argues that social trinitarianism engages in a particularly problematic form of projection that makes it distinctly problematic. As Kilby says: “what is projected onto God is immediately reflected back onto the world and this reverse projection is said to be what is in fact important about the doctrine.” Thus, the perichoresis said to bind together the persons of God, is simply an imaginative description of the best of what a given author thinks should bind humans together. Therefore, Kilby warns against attempts to make the Trinity “relevant” and argues that the Trinity is only important in the sense that it allows us to read Scripture in a way that recognizes the divinity of both Jesus and the Spirit, while maintaining that God is one.
Kilby’s desire to exercise caution in the application of trinitarian doctrines should be respected. Certainly this doctrine has been abused in the past. In particular, the notion of the “eternal subordination” of the Son to the Father, has been used to impose an eternal subordination of women to men. In fact, Hans Boersma holds to precisely this notion – even though he critiques social trinitarianism using precisely the same arguments as Kilby! Given such past abuses, it is understandable that Kilby is concerned about too rapidly applying the doctrine of the trinity to whatever gender-perspective is dominant at any given time. However, one must realize that the application of the doctrine of the Trinity to the subordination of women is essentially an abuse of the doctrine – the ecumenical creeds of the Church, and the witness of Scripture all emphatically affirm that the members of the Trinity are co-equal. To try and apply this doctrine to subordinate women is simply “obfuscating terminology to uphold male hegemony.”
However, not only is Kilby’s critique insufficient (she begins by dialoguing with Karl Rahner, Jurgen Moltmann, Colin Gunton, and Patricia Wilson-Kastner but only engages in a concrete critique of Wilson-Kastner -– perhaps the most insignificant of the four), she also overstates her case. The fact is that the triune nature of God is just as significant for Christian living as any of God’s other attributes. Shall we suggest that God’s holiness is only significant as a description of God’s character is it is revealed in Scipture? Certainly not, for we are called to be holy as God is holy. Shall we suggest that God’s love is only significant as a description of God’s character within the biblical story? Certainly, not for we are called to love as God loves, and thereby be perfect in the way that our heavenly Father is perfect. Therefore, as a part of our call to love as God loves, we are also called to model our communal living upon the triune nature for God, for we are called to be one with each other in the way that the Son and the Father (and the Spirit) are one. Therefore, although using the doctrine of the Trinity to affirm gender inequalities is a case of “the tail wagging the dog” the application of the doctrine of the Trinity to affirm a community of radical equality is a natural consequence of this doctrine.
Consequently, we can conclude that the Church, the corporate people of God, reveals the communal nature of the imago Dei. Furthermore, the notion of perichoresis, is an appropriate notion to describe the nature of this communal interaction – and, contra those who want to argue that appeals to social trinitarianism and perichoresis is a new (and, therefore, suspect or heretical) doctrinal fad, it must be noted that this notion dates back to the early Church Fathers. The Church is to be the Spirit-Empowered, cruciform, Father-like revelation of the Trinity as it participates in the missio Dei. All of these elements – empowerment, suffering, being God’s vice-regents and the true humanity -– are fundamentally communal in nature. Living within the story of God is not primarily something that individuals do, it is primarily something a group of people does, and individuals only participate as a part of this people-group. As Michael Gorman says in his concluding reflections on living within God’s Story: “The ‘Church’ lives the story, embodies the story, tells the story. It is the living exegesis of God’s master story of faith, love, power, and hope.” Therefore, the community of people so united with one another and with the broken world that they chose to travel into godforsakenness, actually become, in that process, the imago trinitas.
However, having arrived at these conclusions, the doctrine of the Trinity also forces us to retain a particular element of mystery when we speak of God and of the missio Dei. After all, as we have tried to note, every member of the Trinity is involved in every aspect of that mission. Father, Son, and Spirit all take part in the movements of creation, exile, out-of-exile, overlap, and consummation. Furthermore, the inner perichoretic relationships of the persons of the Trinity also go beyond what we can comprehend or experience, even in our most intimate relationships. Any missiological formulations or reflections upon God are only reflections upon a vision that we have begun to comprehend but will never fully comprehend. As with any human words, whether those be the words of theology, the words of biblical scholars (or even of the bible itself!), the words of missiologists can only bear witness to the Word – they are not the Word in and of themselves.
This reflection upon the mystery of God, should also lead missiologists to a radical dependence upon God – not only in places of godforsakenness, but also in all parts of the missio Christianus and in every form of proclamation. It is only God who can prove himself, and every encounter with God is dependent upon God’s initiative. Encounters with Jesus cannot be fabricated, they depend entirely upon Jesus’ “will to be recognized.” Just as resurrection is an act that entirely depends on God’s power to bring life out of death, so also the radical in-breaking of the new creation is something that can only be accomplished by God. These conclusions do not lead to any sort of fatalism, resignation, or abandonment of mission. Rather, they further the movement into humility that is required of the people who partner with the humble God.
__________
Sources:
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, and Prayer.
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God, and Dogmatics in Outline.
Kevin Giles, “The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate.”
Michael Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul's Narrative Spirituality of the Cross.
Colin Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many.
Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink from Our Own Wells.
Karen Kilby, “Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with the Social Doctrine of the Trinity.”
Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, and God in Creation.
Karl Rahner, The Trinity.
Patricia Wilson-Kastner, Faith, Feminism and the Christ.