LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

theologies from the Majority World—involves the gospel’s sociopolitical and cosmic dimensions.^[28] To mention a very concrete example, conservative Western soteriologies speak of “justification” and “righteousness” rather than “justice.” What a difference such connotations make!^[29] Accordingly, traditional accounts narrowly construe salvation’s future, overemphasizing personal destiny in disembodied, individualistic, and unearthly ways. Additionally, they ignore their own contextual character, applying adjectives only to other soteriologies—as if other indigenous accounts are syncretistic or at least situated whereas the West’s are just fundamentally scriptural.

      Traditional reactions to such critiques can be grudging or dismissive. Although evangelical Protestant theologians have begun to address the gospel’s corollary matters of systemic evil and structural sin, those efforts have been sufficiently late and modest that the issues remain barely acknowledged at the popular level.^[30] Corresponding soteriologies remain personally focused. Similarly, though professional or episcopal Orthodox theologies may have a slightly more cosmic focus, national and popular features of church life complicate any claim regarding soteriological holism. Catholic soteriology, meanwhile, made liberation theology possible but also necessary.

      The Catholic response to liberation theology has been complex. On occasion the Vatican has disciplined figures within that movement officially, while more often resisting aspects of its perspective. Yet the Vatican clearly adopted much liberationist critique of late modern global capitalism along with increased emphasis upon God’s embrace of the poor, while most liberationist figures remain in good churchly standing. Much liberation theology appealed to the Bible for its broader account of sin and salvation, with the exodus as a starting point plus the prophets and Gospels as additional support.

      Conservative critique addressed liberation theology’s biblical priorities and proportions, often regarding what is not said more than what is. Official Vatican critique addressed Marxist theory and revolutionary practice as much as anything else. Still other critique came from seemingly more sympathetic quarters. Native Americans, among other indigenous or First Nations groups, faulted the exodus paradigm for failing to address its corollary, the conquest. This worry is not just conceptual but historical: the conquest of Canaan became a paradigm for European colonizers in America.^[31] More broadly, postcolonial theorists critique liberation theologies for redeeming aspects of Scripture as if they were authoritative; the very notion of biblical authority is allegedly oppressive, if not most or all biblical content. By their own acknowledgment, though, such postcolonial thinkers frequently are not pursuing Christian theology but another enterprise that, despite its importance, must be seen in external rather than internal terms.^[32]

      Liberationist critique of traditional Western soteriologies originated among Majority World oppressed peoples, at priestly and popular levels. Soon liberationist models arose among marginalized groups within the West, as black theologies illustrate. Feminist theologies, with their womanist (emerging from black women) and mujerista (emerging from Latin American women) descendants, further illustrate the complexity of marginalization and oppression: they appropriate earlier liberationist elements while pursuing further liberation from aspects of those very movements. Various liberationist concerns now vie for influence in mainline Protestant and progressive Catholic circles. The complexity is illustrated in the interface with interreligious dialogue: should contextual theology in South Asia appropriate mainstream Hindu notions for the sake of dialogue, or side with Dalit persons for the sake of liberation?

      Naming such complexities must not distract us from the central critique at issue. Traditionalist Western soteriologies apparently focus so much on the gospel’s personal benefits, in particular concerning an individual’s eternal destiny, that they neglect its communal and cosmic, perhaps even bodily, dimensions. Traditionalists find this personal focus emerging naturally from biblical texts. Hence we face this question: Are there lines of biblical teaching that widen soteriology’s focus, while fitting alongside the personal aspects in the rest of the picture? Or do those other lines of biblical teaching generate a competing soteriological picture that minimizes or even lacks personal salvation?

      Biblical Reform?

      Such questions about traditional soteriologies and alternative possibilities probably inform the apocalyptic readings of Paul mentioned previously, and almost certainly elicit the aforementioned interest in biblical corpora beyond Pauline theology: Jesus in the Gospels bearing the healing kingdom of God in person; catholic epistles calling for moral transformation and addressing its cosmic context (which, incidentally, Paul addresses too!); the exodus and other Old Testament paradigms like the Jubilee fostering hope for liberation and justice; and the prophets denouncing the injustice, individualism, and idolatry of the covenant people’s soteriological status quo. These biblical resources—and theological resources stemming from existing Majority World interest in such scriptural teaching—are deep and wide.

      The remainder of this soteriological overview can only hint at one modest suggestion concerning the new covenant and its context of the new creation. The basis of this suggestion lies in the significance of the new covenant for the traditional focus on personal salvation. Jeremiah 31:31–34, not least in its use by Hebrews (8:7–13), presents a twofold focus: forgiveness of sins and transforming knowledge of God—loosely but dogmatically put, justification and sanctification. Even contemporary readings of Paul, with their communal focus, recognize the importance of these concepts for creating God’s covenant people as a new humanity in Christ.

      Simultaneously, given extensive recent concern over supersessionism,^[33] the new covenant is important for keeping Christian soteriology anchored in the hopes of Israel’s Scriptures—resisting appeals to Jesus Christ that would replace Old Testament faith with a merely human revolutionary program or a misguided churchly one. Far too often, Jews have needed liberation from oppressive Christianity’s theological roots. So, however we construe the creation of a new humanity in Christ, Christians dare not lose the biblical and loving particularity of God’s covenant history with Israel.

      The new covenant is biblically important, moreover, for theologically integrating divine initiative and human transformation. Atonement—initially and vitally involving forgiveness of sin—depends on what God alone does in self-giving love. The resulting sanctification of God’s people has both initial and ultimate dimensions that are divinely accomplished, plus an ongoing dimension that is divinely enabled. Yet that ongoing dimension, despite only being realized in the ultimate fullness of divine presence, is our very human calling: becoming holy as God is. These are not the only dimensions of new covenant saving hope, but they anchor such hope in loving divine initiative rather than human self-help—whether individual or communal or revolutionary or systemic. At the same time, the Old Testament prophets refuse to allow forgiven persons to wallow in idolatrous brokenness, as if continually calling on God with bloodstained hands. Judgment begins with the household of God, whose new covenant members must call on the Lord out of genuinely contrite hearts—not complacent appeals to a supposedly privileged position.

      Admittedly, a comprehensive account of new covenant saving hope is impossible in this space. Yet, if the soteriological importance of that hope has been established, then we may turn briefly to its content. For that content the Isaianic new creation and new exodus passages, which shaped Jesus’s self-understanding and prominent New Testament themes, would surely deserve substantial attention. They indicate that Jesus’s presentation of the divine reign inaugurates the fulfillment of Jewish hopes regarding bodily healing, communal restoration, and creational shalom. The New Testament is replete with newness: Jesus called for new wineskins to hold the new covenant’s new teaching, new commandment, new name, new song, and so forth.^[34]

      In suggesting the Old Testament prophetic context of new creation for scriptural reform of the new covenant’s overly personal application, the remaining task is to highlight broader soteriological elements in Jeremiah 31. Verse 1 immediately sets the end of this saving hope in a communal context: God living with a restored, unified covenant people. As ensuing verses like verse 5 indicate, restoration will delight this people in the fruit of the land. In verse 6 they go to worship as a people, not just individuals. Verse 8 includes marginal persons in this joy: the blind, the lame,

Скачать книгу