The Household We Are

              .~~- -.., ....... ~ --:-·.-...--:y·- - ------.-.-:-..;~-~~-- -.. ···-
co~ :!:~~:I~LL.CEmRB
maHGl\TE, N6. Gl\Q l.ONDOH
'1 ~RH• •, ¥f~ ~
Xil'~oa..Jv..u;
~ ~- • • , _ _ .._.-.-.... . . . . . . . . . . ~ ...... -~ . ....... #>·o..• . ... ~··
"That Household We Are"
Restrict_
Bluffton Conference, October 1980 Use In Library
Is There a Believers' Church Christology?
Introductory Orientation: J. H. Yoder
Keynote address from Conference "Is There a Believers' Church Christology".
For further prefatory· material, see the end of the text .
We should commend the planners of this conference for daring to go at the
notion that there might be .such a thing as an identifiable "concept of the
believers' church" not from the narrative historical roots of specific Christian
communities, nor from the obvious formal differentiae of adult membership and
separation from the state, but from the middle of ·ordinary dogmatic debate, where
the debators are hardly aware of any direct correlation of their differences with
ecclesiology. If there is "a believers' church christology," it is not because
1ny deep thinkers or shrewd prophets chose on purpose to make it so, but because
rn the Wisdom of God alone it "worked out that way."
They could have cut back on the program's originality by cataloguing the
doctrinal originalities which have arisen within free churches. The critical
perspective .on tradition and the space given to personal conviction have sometimes
given free~ reign to amateu·r· speculative originality with diminished concern for
logic and semantics as well as for history. Melchoir·Hofrnann and Caspar von
Schwenckfeld on the flesh of Christ, Darby and Scofield on the end-time calendar,
Finney on managing religious experience are witnesses to where such freedom. can
lead, to say ·nothing of the free~lance fringe of American restorationism from ·
Joseph Smith and William Miller through Judge Rutherford to Herbert Armstrong. But
if we chose that theme we ·would be watching at work one of the secondary weaknesses
of free church polity, one of the risks of decentralization being pushed over the
brink into separatism. Those strange imaginations arise where one abandons the
radical reformer's ecumenical claim. ·
Our Bluffton agenda is far more fitting. Are there points, we ask, within
the bread and butter basics of ordinary belief where the church's freedom, her
,1oluntariness, her not being established;. would correlate logically with some
trends an4 tenets more than with others, even though founders of such movements
and their ~ritics had not made that the issue?
My assignment--! take it--is not to anticipate the work of the conference
proper but rather to · m'edi tate in an introductory way on the structured· linkage
between the more classical doginatic themes of ' the'coming days and the more .
evident challenge · facing. our entire 'conference series since 1967, namely~ that
of restating for tomorrow the pertinence of radical ecclesiology. · 1 propose to
sketch only .a few strands of such pertinence, · making use of a standal"d free ·
church instrument, namely', ~synthetic ipnateur .r~adi ng of the New Te stamen~-
I shall not be working with ''Chrfstology as such" i.e., with hypostaseis .
and physeis, j»ersonae, and ousiae, but with . their sodo.:.historical Sitz im Leiben.
I do not make light of that other t~ik, · but it should not be tickled first here.
Whether it be dorie in blunt ways as for instance by Bist:op.Robinson ·in 1963 or
i n more sophisticated ways by someone like Leslie Dewart, or by the recent
v
- 2 -
Cambridge demythologizers, the discussion of christology is a matter of ontology
and of logic: it turns around the conceivable meanings of words like "nature"
and how we can possibly move with those meanings from one language world to
another . To make that discussion interesting, of course, it has to be assumed
that our own language world is a reliable base-line, so that we can responsibly
look back (and usually a little <lown) at the less sophisticated way these matters
were dealt with by the ancients.
As unavoidable as that kind of exercise is, it is early modern rather than
contemporary, -and scholastic rather than , confessional. It belongs tp the
necessary homework or spadework of historical theology, but would contribute
little to my introduction.
The label, "believers' . church," al though it continues to be preferable
to anything else we .have found to designate what it seeks to designate, since
it was given· currency by Weber, none-the ".'less serves u.s ill if our concern is
to come to grips with this question of the shape of the truth-claim made for the
positions which such communities hold. ls the truth onlr really t~_J~th~
extent .to which and -because I bav~ chosen to let it be ~..t.r.u.e~Qi:.,_me': b~.s:h.Q.Q~i!:lg
1\e believe it? This is not enough. It:is circular and therefore meaningless
to say that the credibility of a given stance is determined .by someone's .
believing it. Nor would most of the radical reformers ever have recognized
such a notion.
lbere w~re two older answers to the question. Nei~her one fits a . believers'
church. ·The ancient one, to which it would be not completely_ illogica~ . (al though
it is anachronistic) to apply our .term "estabiishment'i, was valid~ted by : ·.
placing the power of political authority and social ~()nsens~ ·be~ind. a particular
belief sys.tem. In--the primitive, tribe, in an ancien.t _near-eastern _metropolis,
or in caesaropapism fr<?m ·Constantine to . recent times, · the vision of. a,_ loc~l mono-cultural.
l,U1ity could remoy~; ~11 subjec~ivity .. from the .belief question. But the
kno~ledge- ,of ·geography. and the interP.crietratJon of c~l t4res make that , ~pt~9.n .
logically inaccessible for us. even : if. .w e had_,_found it·_psychological_~y. _attra,ctive •
.. '
lbe other option is the one we have riot y~t fini~h~d dallying wi~h • . it is
the idea that there is some wider, non-pa~~~neutral" .D.L..!.~illi.Ye"
truth "out:J;here", whicli JJOD1d b~s~rnjec.t~JLthe.-reproach ... (of others)
~ to doubt (on 9u_t OWn side) becay,.se not particular ~d_!h_~_efore nQ!
subjective. :S9me in very modern times would seek . to get this wider -truth by
some 1ndμCtive -statistical. process~ · Classicaliy, ·western intellectuals have
sought it by a linguistic · or mental operation. : lbomas called it . "natureii,
binding together under the label a nuniber of older thought "patterns. More
recently, ._ the. impressive ; effor~s have, oe~n , to w:ifold _it from the very nature of
the reality- of critical self-understanqing; .from .Descartes·· to Voltaire . and Kant.
More ambitious or confident spirits a la Hegei simply. trust~d _t~at. th_ei r . o:wn
wisdom h~ . become so encyclopaedic as to inc~ude. evc;~ything else • . , . , · . .
I am not .. sure ':"hich of thes~ ~-app-~oa~hes ·~e'. a~e no~ :-seei~g -r~newed :"in .the ·_-
recent R<:>man."catholic . universa~ism of . ~~<o~·schl~tte ~r Segundo • ... In ,any ·
case, there isr rassment with the particular.· To correct for that
e~barras~men~ one. t_rie~ t_o 1sc:<?uz:se _ me~1ng~l! JY about ,the non-particular,
without Jett1sson1ng . theAeta~ls of :()ne's own iden,t ity. In thes.ediverse ways,
one ,·confirms t~e a~thor~_ty .of . the. -~i~~J; cosmq.~ '-'hi le denying. that· one has . . .
"sold out" to its impeJ:'.l<?~S j_ ~al~us ~.;:ut~ ,cl~ims. . , .; , . ·~·.· .• . . .
- , ~ . ' . . ~· . · : .
·•
- 3 -
_New Testament Christianity is by definition~.t~~u!!.r. If_ from a New
Testament perspecti~e we are to get at the issue for which "general validity"
is a code label, .it must be indirectly. We must find New Testament thinkers
in the· act of addressing this problem without saying so. Is the choice between
subjectivism and generalizibility? Between granting that truth is "only for
me" because belief is unverifiable, and seeking an all-encompassing truth so
coristructed as to be safe from anyone's doubting.it?
. . Four Pacific Islands
Like the tips of _volcanoes rising from the ocean floor to reach the
atmosphere, there are in the New Testament .at least four "islands" of "high
Chr~stology" which I suggest we might see as representing dimensions of the
free church's challenge to 'established t~eological system. In very different
language forms, responding presumably to the challenges of four different
audiences, whose doubts about the Messianity of Jesus or .about the Lordship
of the Messiah had ·taken quite different shapes; different writers in ~~~ferent
places, nourished by different 1o~al traditions •. responded with confess~?IlS
showing much the same structure. Whether we find that this similarity of
structure boils down to four forms of the same problem or represents four
structurally analogous responses to four dj,fferent questions may well depend
upon Our OWn semantic style· more than upon the texts. They ·have in common
the evident fact that the particularity of the JeJ?μs_siory, as borne by
·/
predominantly Jewish communities, comes, in the £!Ocess of organic expansion ~
i~to the Hellenistic wo!-1~. · t<L~.Qi:iiiteX:ihe:~'aiJ..-of"~f,~1.TeV.e':C-5 ii.il93P"ulifez:s
for a fi1glier level of gen~r~-~. In what sense can the Jesus story be counte~
as "true" for non-Palestin~ans? for non-Jews? As answering questions not put
to Jesus?
Here there seemed at first to be three clear choices. They are analogous
to the choices faced by any young person ~ho discovers the jargon world of
the kids on the street or.the.intellectual world of the school teacher to be
wider than the world his parents showed ' hiip at home; or to the choices faced
by an immigrant, by a rural person comin·g to the city or an evangelical going to
Harvard.
One obvious response to this challenge is to stay by one's particular truth.
But in the new context this fidelity will have a new me~~ing. Instead of being
organic and natural as it had been at home, the particularity will need to be
defended against the wider spectrum of other particulari~ies, and especially
against the particular call to conformity of the generality, by new defenses:
by social encapsulatio·n~ intellectual .. compa,ftmenta~ization, and psychic wariness.
This corresponds . to the admission of subjec~iv~ bi.as mentioned before, but does
it in a group which may be large e~ough to stay alive.
The second option, self-evidently the easiest, is to join the wider world,
granting its claims to be . not only .larger and stronger ' but truer: ·. maybe even
truer because larger and stronger. One relegates the particular past, with
loving regret or with angry glee, to the status to folkloric hei_rlootns and
joins with a will the 'wider world,.not attending for the moment to the fa,ct
that this self-~vidently wider world is itself also provincial, also narrower
than a still broader, still more ainbi tiously encompassing set of connections and
truth claims before which it too would stand embarrassed. This would be a
simple recantation.
t.
- 4 -
A third option, synthesis of the other two, will be the pa.th of the apology.
The apologia is' a self-commendation qr self-defense before a tribunal whose
authority one· grants. Yet instead of renouncing one's past identity, saying
it was wrong (which is the colloquial American meaning of apology). the
apologete fin5fs ways. to commend 2!~~.r.!:i£u!a_r_~~E..~Y.E:P.~.ra._~.~1!-g i~ . as . ~i:i:~~ti_~_r
form of the majT\._Jj~?J!L.~~lue ~~m. just as good as its other sub-forms. The
Jew and the Christian in the second century of our era will demonstrate their
hellenization by commending Moses as another Solomon, Jesus as a peripatetic
teacher, Solomon as a philosopher/king. One avoids the trauma of denying ,
one's roots, as well as the trauma of confli~t with the wider world, by bringing
the two together in a. w~y that reflects the power claim of the latter. Thus
the Polish Jew, the Swedish Lutheran, the Iri~h Catholic will claim in 1910
to be equally acceptable variants" of aptitude for Americanization, not ashamed .
of their distinctiveness, · but not" letting it stand in the . way of . assimilation.
The apologist grants the· highe·r o.r broader truth claim of the wider world,
but arrange.s to fit within it. The general is truer than the partic:ular. The
great tradition of \\'estern thought has followed this path, with the horizon
of the truer truth. ever receding as the world. grew.
Which of these choices does the ·New Testament support? Or is there another?
Having shatPened the q~estion,· we return to. the texts. ·rn what :sense did New
Testament wr~ters already_ see P,ils . que~tiori? .
The Prologue. to John seem~ to bJ addressed to a pro.to.~gnost~c cosmology
in which a iong ladder of mediating . eJ1~ities stretch frpm God. to earth. The
ladder's function is as much to"hold its erids apart a.~: to connect them. Th~
pure ineffable Divinity at ·the ·top wards off particularity 'and contingency
so to speak by interposing the Logos, a kind of cosmic provost, as the principle
of order and rationality. The ,Logos- although divine when seen from our side,
is already a rung or two down the"l~dder, particip~ting i,n the materiality, of
the still lower beings it creates ·and orders. Such .a. ·c~s~_logy would .hav.e a
natural, honorablc(place for Jesl,15 and thereby f~r .Christ.la,n proclamation~
Jesus the man could be the uniq~ely initiated mouthpiece .of divine wisdom; or,
still · better' he could be a tlieophany' know: "to true insight to be only . .
apparently material and mortal. So the Logos cosmology had a place for Jesus,
as the pluralism of Mediterranean culture had room for Christians as.one more
religion. The cosmology however was bigger than, prior to Jesus, as grecoroman
cul fure was prior to t .he· church. · · · ·
But the. seer : of ~he Prologtie won't· let them pu(J.es.~ in that ·slot.
Encouraged by the · an~logy of Proverbs ~. he does not hesitate, .to accept th.e
langtiage which this cosmology offers~ J-ie ... afffrms the Log9s as light enlightening
every ·man; and before that as creator of the .. visible· world. Yet in.stead of . .. :
tailoring Jesus to fit the slots prepared for .him, John brok~ the cosmology's
rules. At the bottom of the ladQe.r, . the Logos ~s said. to have become fl~sh, .
lived·ainong us·as· in· a tent, ·s)rmbol · o·f.mortal~ty,,and suffered. rejection by , , ...
his creatures. At. the "top o{ the ladder, the'. Logos is. claimed to be coa:eval .. -.
with God, ·not mer~ly the first of inany ~)Danations. But·'.then there is no more,, , ·.
ladder:. the · cosmoiO~ has been smashed,~ · _!ts language has been seized and u,..s~d : .: .
{pr a different · message. No longer does the concept of Logos solve a proqlem: . ~ ·
orreligion,· reconciling the eternal 'with the te.mpor~l: it carries ,a proc~amat~on
of Incarnation drawing'_ all who belie.ve i .nto the J:?Ower · ·of Sonship~ . · · ·
The addressee of the letter to the Hebrews also had a settl~d cosmoiogy :'
Angels at the top have access to the divl.Ile presence from which they bear the
word of his will to earth. Priests at the bottom are raised from among their
fellows to mediate by bringing to the altar, on their own behalf and for all
men, the gifts and sacrifices which can cover sin.
n
•rt
- s -
Again the author uses the language of the cosmology in order to refuse
to fit Jesus into the slot offered for him. Instead of claiming for the Son
of Adam his place just beneath the angels, Messiah is declared to be above
them at the Lord's right hand, appointed Son, reflecting the stamp of divine
nature, upholding the universe. Yet this cosmic honor was no exemption from
human limits. He learned obedience through what he suffered. His "perfection"
is not: a timeless divine status but was attained through weakness with prayers
and supplications, loud cries and tears. Fully assuming the priestly system,
as both priest and victim, once for all he ends the claim of the sacrificial
system to order the community of faith, putting in its place a new covenant,
a new priestly order, an unshakable kingdom.
The Christians at Colossae also had their cosmology ready, with a slot
for the Jewish·Jesus. The world is held together by a network of
principalities and powers, visible and invisible • . Religious behavior (fasting,
festivals) helps one . to find one.' s way . through the tangle. Visions and
angelolatry .help to maDipulate the powers.
. . Once again Jesus is .· proclaimed, . by._t he "Paul'·' of Colossians, as not part
of the cosmos but its Lord. The· powers are not . illuminated; · appeased," manipulated,
but subdued . and .. broken. . The believer risen wit}l Christ, has died to · them, · and
is no longer in their cosmos. . That ·can . be ·the case because · the Son .is ·the image
of the _i nvisible creator, holding ~11 . things together, reconciling all things,
head of: the body.. . . .. ~ ·
.·.
The first vision of the Apocalypse presents in classic language the puzzle
of history • . No one is in sight able to. ,break -the 1 seals ·on . the scroll containing
the meaning of it alL' John .weeps • .T here ..i s no one ·worthy among the :elders,
the angels, and the seraphim. The scroll holds . us ·captive to ·the sealed
scenario written. within .and without.·· But then the Lamb appears, next to
the throne, perfect -in:the sevenfoldness of His horns and eyes; .able because
he was slain to take-history: in .his hands, unstick the seals, -and tmroll the
world's· judgment. and salvation. . . , · · .
Four times, in utterly independent ways, an apostolic writer .has responded
to the challenge of a previously formed cosmic vision. Each time~" in completly :
different vocabulary, and with· no conunonality of; structure to indicate that
one might have learned from one of the others, the writer makes the same moves.
We could call it a syndrome or a deep structure.
Va)
What are these same moves? We have seen, each · time: ·
that instead of fitting the Jesus message into the slots . the cosmic
vision has ready; for it:, the writer places Jesus above the cosmos, in:·
ch_arge. of it;
v' b) that . there is . in. each case a p~we~ful· concentration upon· rejection and
suffering . in human. form as that which· accredits Christ for this Lordship;
../ c) . that:· behind: _the. ~9smic . 'l(lctory·, e~abl·i~g:_ it,. ~h~;~. is . an affirmatio~·; · ..
unp~raped - in , tl,le · Synoptic.Gospels; of , pre-existence~ co-essentiality with
the Fatl,le~, an~ . ~he. particip~tion of· the Son in creation and providence.
v d)
-- ~- . ' ! ; .. : . ~ . ~ : . : ' : . : . : ·. : • ·. • : • .· ' . . . . .
~ha~ the "!~ter. and the .readers of each of these ·messages,:share . by faith
i.n all . that. that: v~ctory. μieans •. .·. . . : ' . , . ,,. . . · · .
. ' :. . . . .. . ; ~ . ' ·
... . ! .... ,,-: .' .
,. . ~ . ~ .
· !. =:. . . . ·; ...
-6-
Brother and sister ·saints, who share in the · heavenly call, .
contemplate Jesus, :Apostle and High Priest of our ·confession~ .
·He was faithful to ,him who appointed him, just as Hoses also
·was faithful in God's· house~~~. now Moses was faithful in all ·
God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were
to be spoken· later, but Chr~st ~as faithful over C.od's house
as a Son. ·We are his household, as we hold fast our confidence
and pride irt·our hope.
The exegetes can show us the differences' which -still separate these four
witnesses, as they can find other New Testament parallels, relatively complete
like Philippians 2, or fragmentary elsewhere. The historians of dogma can show
us how in these first affirmations of pre-existence and kenosis we have the
first intiinations of Nicea and Chalcedon ..· · 'OUT other speakers ·will take it from
there. But my concern is not to move ·on from ·having noted this commonality, but
to step behind it. ~-a.!-__ <!~es i ~.tel,.L us.....a.b.Q.ut the lUissioJ.!.~rx.:.:self.,,confidence
of t~~stolic church? A ·nandful of messianic Jews, moving beyond the defenses
of their sanewhat-separate society to attack 'the intellectual bastions of majority
culture, refused to g-rant that , they sh<2~1-~~~· .. !h~-'!Q.rl_4.-21!.J,ts~-Q.~!L,~~J!DS;
:r;:efused to__con~al fu the~~~ m.e.uus...J?>.: ·c ~othinLf.. t J.E~th~.S!.~-~~~'.l'.-!e~~:.Jhe
~orld held ready. Instead, they seized the categories, ·hammered them into other
snapes, and turn-Cd the cosmology on its .head, with Jesus both at the bottom,
, crucified as a common criminal, and at the top: pre-existent Son and creator, and
' tho Church his instrument in today's battle.
It would be a worthwhile challenge: to our i.nteil-ectual playfulness, that we
try to correlate the·. differentness of · the four expressions with ·different streams
of the modern cosmovision. Perhaps we should se& John·as;·centering ·on _the demand
that "the necessary truths of reason"· be· accredi'ted only by ·their internal :systemic
coherence; the challenge of Lessing's ·ugly ditch • . : Hebrews would be responding to
the universality of a .religious apparatus of cult and priesthood, a la Eliade •. _ ·
The Apocalrpse would be asking why God's promised victory ·is··delayed· so as to leave
the saints in their suffering, the challenge which Auschwitz escalated to a higher
power. Colossians would be' grouping all. of those in their· commonality, like
H. Ricilard Niebuhr's reified "culture'"·· But the pertinence of the point· we are
pursuing at· present is in no· way dependent on the possibility of such anachronistic
extr.apolatipns.
::• r • •
The slogans I have cited: "taking the world on its own terms", "contextualizing",
point to old and new fonns of what systematically we call the .. problem of natural
theology. H. Richard Niebuhr called: it- the problem of culture. Yet' I have here
no intention of debating, or even adequately posing, that ·pToblem. we· are trying
to talk here about the Believers' church and Christology. What the syndrome or
deep structure of our four witnesses and their precursor, the hymn of Philippians 2,
seems to say, is that the development -of the·· Christo logy of pre-exis:ten·ce and · ·
kenosis;; far from being the prodtict ·of'-whinisical~ i.mag1nat1on, .. or of ·ahistorical and
unjewish speculation, ..r.epresents the product of an aggression by the bearers ~f -
the story of the crucified man: Jesus, , in alt'llis Jewis~Ffi'Cularity·, against the ·
r~gious cos~ovisions of the wider world·, whose sag~s · tho~ght. their sy~ems could
swallow . anything that could ·come along. · They proclal.lll Christ above CUlture, but
this is the opposite of what Niebuhr designated by that phrase. It is not the
world, culture, · civilization, which is· the definitional · category, whiC:h _the church
comes along to embellish with some correctives and complements. The--Kingdom of God
is the basic category. The rebellious but already in principle defeated cosmos is
being inva~ed and brought to its knees by the Lamb. TO.e deyelopment of a high
~tology is the natural cultural · a missionar ecclesiolo y, when .J ~es as i mus with whatever cosmolog~xplains and governs 1h.e_wotld_i..t.-.
.... 1nv
.,,:.. ._ ;..;,;"
-~ .. \ •·
"
..;.
-7-
l~e could also turn the correlation around, as the historical focus of earlier
conferences in our Believers' Church series did. A high Christology is a
prerequisite for the renewal of a believers' church, whether this should come to
pass through the tragic breakage of a radical reformation or through more organic
patterns of revitalization. Only if Christ is, both formal!Y. and m~terially, more
and o~_h~han th~ ~_is_t_i_!_l_~_!-~ ·of tj_l~-~~~!__gf Q.Y1"--~~::_'i}._gl_gJ].i__on_!y___1J~l1IScalT ·is
impei:ative, his message irredu_ciR_l_ _~ t9. ..~ -~~~r_ _ ~_qy_ivalents we alre~j.y_~new al:Q!:!.~.
only such a_Qa:i.s.t_c9yJ_9_ _.. fJlJl individuals: a Waldo. to itinerancy, a Schweitzer
to the Gabon, a Bonhoeffer t-O·•icorne.and-die". Only such a Christ can gather around
him a conununity with any intelligible reason to differ from its neighbors, and
resist rulers, and call others to join them in his train. Only such a_~bri~! _has
anything ~t all to say_ above the melee of a pluralism in which . ever.y sect has
equal time and the truth que·s-do11"'cannotbeput:- Only if the cal1 of Jesus is
~log.;~Y..::f9-iinde.d;:~.9J}Jl~~!e·d-·to-tlre-arc-from creation to apocalypse, can
it_ _g Jy~_!l~!l)_E!_l~v e:qi.g~-- t;9 __c;:_ J:l.~ liengC!: _9h\L_c;grif.QrmJiY.. toaur--:-o-wiiage-::-- 111 is-fulcrum
from beyond the system is what the author to the Hebrews called the "confidence
and pride of our hope." Only if the Lamb· that was slain is worthy--already--to
receive power because he was slain to redeen a people, is there any reason for
the martyrs under the al tar not to regret their sacrifice. It is not only , .
historical co-incidence; it is in conformity with a :.deep log__ic, that the radical
reformers talk about Jesus, while their ciftics- speak more about_!l_~!~!.~.•- wi_s!io~,
or~~r •...t raoitionF:.... reasort-;_=-spir.i£~_e{fe-_C:--d,Y~Qe_$s~-~ -.--:·some·- radl.eal refo rrners· have
been anti-trinitarians-, because it seemed to be in their time the only way to
recover the-centrality and·-the humanity of Jesus, . rescuing the intent of Nicea
from the burden others had made of its words. -But there have been no· radical
reformers who have not seen in Jesus as Christ the judge of the givenness of.-the
premessianic system.
Critics of. the Nicene and Chalcedonian formulations object that such concepts
as "trinity" end "two natures~·. or even the problem those terms identify, are not
biblical. They rightly argue that ·the great-doct~inal controversies.and defini-tions
were the result of the hellenistic mind's imposing the alien categories of
Greek ontology upon a message from anotherworld. Nor, they argue, could or would
the demand or the possibility of· an empire'."'wide agreed formulation have taken
that form without Constantine. But the critics are mistaken if beyond ·that strictly
historical kind of observation the argument-is pushed farther:
- to suggest ,that that missionary invasion of .the hellenistic semantic
world, which led to such a "translation", could have been or should have
been avoided by remaining "biblical" in semantics or ontology; · or•
- to suggest that developments . toward a !'high" Christology had not already
begun within the apostolic canon itself, or
- to interpret such developments as intrinsically contradictory to the
Jewish messianic message of the first . generations.
Since the Enlightenment; beginning intrinsically even with the Renaissance,
and '."' erst recht ~with the new .paradigms of. doubt of· the nineteenth century, th~
rational ontology: which orthodoxy had bought into became no longer a self-evident
framework, within which alone one could make sense, . but rathera liability. As
we move on in the encounters with the.universes of discourse within which our
generation's cultured despisers of the Gospel live, we will again have the
formal options we-saw before; encapsulation· which leaves that compartment to the
Powe_rs, .apology: which. purchases relevance at the cost· of .subservience, or a
renewal of. the. missionary arrogance (arrogance· need not be a pejorative term) ,/
at res o _c aim, a esus, proc aime anscends
rather tha eing--transcen that hap.pens there
is agai· ~. a beli· evers' church Christology . •
.'
.. -..... .
Postscript after the comments of D. Brown:
If we once· can make clear the fittingness of the "high christology" as the: · · '
instnunent of a missionary and non-conformist challenge to the claims of the
self-contained cosmology to be whole and wholesome, we could then move on, but
only with great care to two less confrontational affirmations as well.
A. By confessing that Messiah has been placed by God above and not
within the cosmology and culture of the world they invade, the
messianic Jewish witnesses· also affirm that under his lordship that
cosmos will find its tIUe ·coherence and meaning. To use the sample
of ·colossians, the powers are not merely defeated in their clai~
to sovereignty and humbled; they are also enlisted in the original
creative · purpose of the service of mankind an<i'· the-. praise of God. The
logos/sophir. vision of the . rationality of the universe' arid of history
is not on:ly dethroned but is also put to work illuninating everyone who
comes in·:o -·the world, and empowering sons and daughters. To know
t]1at_thL~_'i_l}Q~~la~1L~~~<2!_thr to receive po~not only
enables.~is disciples to face martyrdom when they must; it also
encourages 'them to g9~!2_q_ut 'their dailLQ..1.g;ines~~fts_menand
t!a<!esmen ·~, ~!:~!!.~-~-~J}Q...!l.~.i&h!>.9.X:.~ L \\Ii thout being dri~J!- to despair
.by ·C.Osmic doubt. Even before . the broken· worl0:-canbe made 'whole by
. ~the<iecond -coming, the witnesses to the -first coming, through the
very fact .-that · they proclaim Christ above the ·powe-r's, the Son above
the angels, are enabled to ·go onproleptically·in. theredemption of
creation. · · · ; ·, ..
It is one of the standard reproaches addressed to minority Christianity
that it does not take seriously the ·possible goodness · of creation .. and ·
the duties of building a culture. That argument · would on~y h'o1d if .-it
were· fair to separate ;creation from redemption and ·confuse ·it instead ·
with ' fal-lenness . . When.the early ·witnesses make Messiah ·Lord of the
cosmQs, ·they recl-aim-what-erul~b.e reclaimed of the original· creation ·
. ./)vision, pr~cisel>:.J>y~~:J}X..~n~.t~at th~-r~ _ eX_J_~ts an· autonomou~ creatVrely
wor_l<i .11~~-~ ii:ig to be_ served _u ~ _1 ts own terms. They confess instead ·
that the claim .. o:f .ihe._c_o.smos. to autonomy is its ·rebelliousness, and ·.·
that its subordination to the Lord Yahweh has begun with the kenosis of
the incarnation, wlth- the cross, and moved forward with the resurrection
the ascension.· ' (According to the New Testament witn·esses· it would be
wrong "to see the· kenosis as ht..Dniliation 'and the cross · as . defeat, only
rehabilitated by the resurrection and ascension: the vfctoiy began at
the beginning.) Both historically,- in ·the :e·xperienced cultural : .
creativity of minority cornmu·nities, and in ·the · theological integrity
of the linkage of redemption and creation, the gospel formulation of
the cultural mandate is that which flows from this high christology:
not from the ·reformed· or Lutheran notion of a· creation distinct from
_reconciliation· which may be· known and ·. served apart therefrom· and not in
the Catholic. and Lutheran confidence that there exists some unspoiled . · ·
.11 natural" knowability and doability upon which ·we can count~; which the
gospel needs to be separated from in: order to: retain its authenticity. .. . . . . ,-· :.: . . . : . . .' . ;
and
B. ; That parenthesis in defense of the free church visfon against its .
magisterial: alternative· has already .pointed toward ·the second affirmation.
:11e : v~ctory of the Lamb .is the.- victory of his · s·ervanthood ,· not a reversal
in which the servant·. becomes . a tyrant or the oppressed · become · .·
oppressors. The Zealot idea ·of· vindication,'·and the Constantinian ·
idea of the vindication is that of the ·reversal of roles: ·vindication means,
., •'
- 9::.
if not vindictiveness or vengeance, at least retribution and a
reversal of roles. The positive cultural meaning of the high christolop,y
on the other hand is liberation not from bondage into lordship Lut
from unfree servitude into voluntary servanthood. That is seen not as
a temporary setback for God, before he wins out in the end, but as the
beginning of his victory. It is not (as in dispensational theology)
that there was first for a ritu~l reason a need for the Servant to
suffer, but that the proof of the rightness of the suffering would
be that it then is his turn to rule with a rod of iron. Far more is
it the case that the reality of the cross has given a new meaning to
the "rod of iron."
Postface about the place of this text in the Conference, and of the Conference
in history.
The above material is reproduced from a text prepared for use as the "keynote
address" at the Sixth Conference on the Concept of the Believers' Church, convened
by and at Bluffton College 23-25 October 1980. It should not be quoted or re-produced
without the permission of J. Denny Weaver at Bluffton College and of
the author.
The abiding agenda of the series of series of "Conferences on the Concept of
Believers' Church", is the study of whether that "concept" is itself solid and
coherent, so that to develop and use the notion makes a contribution to the efforts
of people in a certain kind of church to be faithful, as far as their o~~ vision
is concerned, and to clarify their witness to Christians of other traditions.
Hitherto the conferences in the series have given attention especially to the
differentiating characteristics of the believers' church tradition. As this
address begins by saying, this is the first time that the direction of the
questioning has been turned around, and it has been asked whether churches of this
kind would properly have distinguishing orientation within the realm of confession
and dogma as well •
The theme was made important by the awareness of unresqlved issues in
christological thought within the last few years in .Mennonite denominational
institutions and journals:
a. John W. Miller has been calling for a criticism of the classical
Catholic christologies from the perspectives of the Jesus of the gospels;
b. Clarence Bauman has raised other questions from the perspective of the
appropriation of Jesus in modern Western thought, and from the perspective
of His Jewishness.
c. The description of Jesus' career as political in my Politics of Jesus
has been perceived as a change of focus from traditional christology.
d. In my Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries course once called
"Preface to Theology" and more recently named "Christology and
Theological Method", a narrative and relativizing approach has been
taken to the development of early Christian dogma, with special
reference to the development of the christological creedal statements.
All of the above developments have been inconclusive, within the narrow con-text
of mid-Western American Mennonite ins ti tut ions. All of them have given
special attention to the Jewishness of Jesus. Some of them have had special
relevance in the encounter with contemporary "theologies of Liberation".
The Bluffton event did not enable that set of questions to be dealt with and
brought forward very far. It brought together a far wider public~ .than the one that
had been bothered by the earlier debates. It was dominated by the star performances
by Rosemary Radford Reuther and Vernard Eller. Clarence Bawnan was obliged to re-nounce
participating. Thus little happened in the meeting itself to move beyond
where earlier inconclusive Mennonite discussions have left that matter.