In the early posts in this series we spent a lot of time focusing on Christus Victor theology and how it focuses salvation upon rescuing us from death and a life enslaved to the fear of death.
In more recent posts we began to unpack all this from a psychological perspective, mainly drawing on the work of Ernest Becker, but with significant help from the work of theologians such as William Stringfellow, James Alison, and Arthur McGill.
The climax of the psychological analysis was this. Our slavery to the fear of death causes us to seek self-esteem through cultural hero systems. However, given that these hero systems are largely created to repress and channel our existential fears, we find our self-esteem projects to be shallow, hollow and fragile. To use James Alison's turn of phrase, we get self-esteem by pursuing ersatz meaning. Another way of saying this is that self-esteem is largely a neurotic enterprise.
But there is more here than merely noting the neurotic nature of self-esteem. The fact that humans are neurotic might be sad and pathetic but not particularly devilish or demonic. But the satanic outworking is observed when we note that the hero systems that give life meaning and security have to be believed in absolutely and protected from the threat of ideological outsiders. Thus the dark outcome: To preserve my self-esteem and life significance (often encoded in "our way of life") I have to demonize, in large ways or small, outgroup members.
This is why people kill for their gods and way of life. That which provides the foundation of our identities--our values, nation, worldview, religion and traditions--must be protected. Why? Because the alternative, to live naked and defenseless before death, is too heavy a psychological burden.
In all this we see a psychological understanding of what it might mean to be "held in slavery all our lives to the fear of death" and why such an enslavement leads to "the devil's works."
With all this in place, it's now time to devote some posts to what we should do about this situation. In light of Christus Victor theology how are we to be "set free" from the slavery to the fear of death and the violence it produces?
We've already gotten some hints about what this might look like. We've discussed McGill's idea of moving from identity-as-possession to identity-as-gift, an "eccentric identity" in the words of David Kelsey. We've also considered James Alison's discussion of "living as if death were not."
Those are important ideas that we'll be building on. But our review of Ernest Becker's work forces us to go a bit deeper.
Specifically, if my cultural worldview is, at root, a form of death repression, then what does it mean for me to "die" to this existence? It means leaving behind everything that, prior to my baptism, gave me worth, meaning, and significance. It means being "dead" to those things from which I constructed my identity. This is what Paul is describing in Romans 6:
Romans 6.2-9Death has no mastery over Jesus. And those who die with Jesus in baptism share in this liberation, the mark of which is being set free from sin to live a new life according to the Spirit.
We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
But such a dying to the old self, the self that was mastered by the fear of death, is a terrifying prospect. Who am I once the cultural props have been kicked away? How will I find self-esteem if I let go of all my blue ribbons? How will I carry on if I listen to the Teacher of Ecclesiastes who informs me that my life projects are, at root, "meaningless" and "vanity"?
In The Denial of Death Ernest Becker attempts to answer this question, though he admits that he is articulating something of an ideal that might be unreachable. He suggests that the best we can do is to learn to master our anxiety less neurotically and more directly. Only then can we take charge of our anxiety and not allow it to affect or damage others. I don't have to demonize or kill others because I fear death. I don't have to fall into the Devil's trap as described above. Still, this is hard work as Becker summarizes,
The most one can achieve is a certain relaxedness, an openness to experience that makes [a person] less of a driven burden on others.William Stringfellow calls this relaxed, non-anxious existence "living humanely in the midst of the Fall." We live among Death's works but we are not pushed and pulled by the fear of death. As Paul describes Jesus in Romans 6, death has no mastery over us.
How might all this look, religiously speaking?
An interesting resource in this regard is the new book Insurrection by Peter Rollins.
Rollins's book follows a trajectory parallel to Becker's in The Denial of Death. I don't know if Rollins has read Becker, but he should as Becker has worked out, in much greater psychological detail, the picture Rollins sketches in Insurrection. (And I also think this series works out some theological foundations that can inform and deepen Rollins's work.)
At the start of Insurrection Rollins talks about, following Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a god who is a deus ex machina. This is a god who is artificially dropped into our world to solve our problems, justify our way of life, and provide some existential comfort. This is the god behind our hero system, the god that props up our self-esteem projects. Unfortunately, as Becker has shown us, this is also the god we kill for.
Rollins argues that the Christian notion of crucifixion involves the death of this god, the existential crutch that helps us cope with existence. Similar to Becker's analysis, Rollins suggests that this "death" involves a loss of everything that made life structured and meaningful:
To experience the Crucifixion is to lose all the supports that would protect us from a direct confrontation with the world and with ourselves. We are robbed of all the stories that we construct about God and our own nature. Stripped of the guarantees and fantasies that previously marked out existence, we come face-to-face with anxiety in its various manifestations (death, meaninglessness, guilt).This is a radical notion. As we have discussed repeatedly in the comments in this series, "God" can have one of two meanings. We've mainly been discussing the "god" that sits behind the hero system, the religious idol that confers legitimacy to my worldview and my life. This god is, at root, a neurotic coping mechanism. Which is why we need to kill to "protect" it. Thus, crucifixion for Rollins involves the death of god. Crucifixion involves the death of religion as religion is simply one aspect of the cultural hero system holding us captive (neurotically speaking). "Christianity" in this understanding is simply one hero system among many other hero systems, one among many neurotic paths to achieve self-esteem that will, in the end, bring us into conflict with others. "Christianity" here is simply another manifestation of our "slavery to the fear of death," the deus ex machina we create to solve our death problem (e.g., a fix for anxiety, meaning, self-esteem). Rollins describing this:
To lose that which grounds us and provides us with meaning involves nothing less than losing the God of religion in whatever form it manifests itself in our life. This does not require ceasing to believe intellectually in some overarching principle that guides us, but rather it means losing the psychological power that such a principle possesses of us. Like Jesus, we too must make the journey from Gethsemane to Golgotha, a journey in which we pass from the sacrifice of religion (where we give up everything for God) to the sacrifice of religion itself (where we give up everything including God).According to Rollins this is how we are united in Christ's death. We cry out with Jesus as we experience the death of god in our lives: "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me!"
In the sacrifice of religion, we lose all the security that any deus ex machina might provide for us. In this dark hour, when the very earth beneath us gives way, we experience utter desolation.
We undergo this death because the god of the cultural hero system is an idol, an existential death fetish, an illusion we use to keep death repressed and out of awareness. More, this god was the devil's work in our lives, the motive behind why we protected our ingroup and demonized the outgroups. So this god has to die for us to be able to love others fully. But again, the existential burden here is enormous:
We must give [Jesus's] cry its full theologically and existential weight. We must read it with all its horror and potency. It is a cry that comes from one cut off from all grounding in a deeper reality, one who has lost all sense of meaning, all mythological frames. It is a cry that exposes us to a man utterly destitute.To die with Christ, therefore, we have to move through this experience, intentionally and repeatedly. If we are to truly love others we have to let go of the cultural hero system, which includes god and religion, and undergo a "dark night of the soul" where we are left with nothing to ground our identity. But on the other side of this experience is a life freed to live for others. As Rollins describes it:
In this very act of forsaking the religious God, along with all the psychological comfort that comes with it, we can find a way of fully affirming God--not in some belief we affirm but in the material practice of love. So then, as we turn away from the obsessive desire to find fulfillment, meaning, and acceptance, we come into direct contact with them. This is life before death; this is life in all its fullness.In this view, god is no longer a idol that props up my self-esteem or our "way of life." Rather, God is the act of love itself, an act that is only truly possible when the death of god has taken place. For us to truly find God and love others we have to let the religious idol die. Because if the idol remains it becomes the source of outgroup demonization and violence. We'll let Rollins take us home:
Resurrection faith is then manifested in a freedom and liberation in which we are able to courageously and fully embrace this world without repression, resentment, and fear. It is a way of living in love, a love that embraces existence, not because it is perfect, but because it is beautiful in the midst of its very imperfection.
This does not mean that we stop experiencing anxiety and sadness--not at all--but that in the very midst of these we still find life worth living. We no longer need to hide from our sadness and repress it. Rather, we can confront it and work through it. Indeed, it is the very acceptance of our sadness that can lead to its dissipation. Just as grace (the experience of accepting that we are accepted as we are) enables us to change, so too, by accepting that we must mourn (rather than run from it) we can ourselves move through our pain (rather than having it return again and again in various masked forms).
Here, death is robbed of its sting (1 Corinthians 15.55) and despair is overcome...
All this means that the event of Resurrection opens up a type of religionless faith in which we are able to embrace the world and ourselves without some security blanket. It is here, amidst the ashes of the death of the deus ex machina, that a different understanding of God becomes visible. This God is affirmed where people are gathered together in love and is testified to where the sick are healed, the starving fed, and where those who dwell in death are raised into life. "Where two or three come together in my name," we read in the Gospel according to Matthew, "there am I with them." In other words, where people are gathered together in love, God is present.




Glad you used Insurrection here. My sermon at Highland was basically an attempt (emphasis on "attempt") at reflecting on how his ideas (along with a touch of Exclusion and Embrace) intersect with a theology of mission. And personally, Rollins has helped me make sense of the past couple of years characterized by the absence and unknowing of God. I would love to hear more from you about Insurrection.
Amidst all the theorizing, one irrefutable truth emerges: Life as we experience it cannot move forward one step without human organization and hierarchies. We cannot even imagine what it would look like otherwise. Try volunteering for the chair of your homeowner's association or Cub Scout troop.
A marriage is "two people gathered together in love", and yet half of them eventually end in divorce. And since all human models and systems -- including all forms of religion -- are doomed from the start to failure and death (as principalities and powers), it really is pointless to join them.
The problem, as I see it, is not that we fear death -- but that none of us understand Love. And the proof of that is the world we have created all around us.
A fiction work that seems to illustrate these concepts well is the Circle Trilogy by Ted Dekker.
Also, I appreciated this: "God is the act of love itself."
Pondering these words today. Thanks!
Yes, I likely will have more to say. I've saved my comments about the book until we got to this part in the series knowing I wanted to use Rollins at this point.
BTW, readers can listen to Derran's excellent sermon (I loved it) here (it's the fourth sermon down on the list):
http://www.highlandchurch.org/sermons
Amidst the theorizing, one irrefutable fact emerges: Life as we experience it cannot move forward one step without human hierarchies and organizations. This includes all religions and theologies.
A marriage is "two people gathered together in love", and yet half of them eventually end in divorce. The problem, it seems to me, is not that we fear death, but that we do not understand Love. The proof is in the world we have built all around ourselves.
"We must give [Jesus's] cry its full theologically and existential weight. We must read it with all its horror and potency. It is a cry that comes from one cut off from all grounding in a deeper reality, one who has lost all sense of meaning, all mythological frames. It is a cry that exposes us to a man utterly destitute."
This touches on what may be the deeper and more substantive critique of the contemporary "actualizing your masculinity" movements (Eldredge's _Wild at Heart_ being perhaps the flagship). Although some men do take it to absurd and destructive extremes - and I know men who do - the movement itself is not essentially misogynistic. No, the real seduction of these movements is another sort of bait-and-switch, which centers on the idea that "you have a lead role in a grand, unfolding drama; step into it." The psychology here is likely to be, or so it seems to me as a non-psychologist, that of a would-be hero whose expectations are raised and raised and raised...and then dashed on the rocks of the bitter reality, which is that we are all pretty insignificant creatures, and most of the few who rise to historical prominence are either (a) very, very special - dare I say, "called?" - people, or (b) extremely ambitious (or both).
There is a grand drama, and it is unfolding under the active hand of God. But the way of Christ in that drama is the way of a Galilean carpenter dying the ordinary, ironic death of a common insurrectionist. We wish instead to be significant, and the more significant, the better. Yielding to that temptation individually is disillusioning enough, and therefore tragic enough. But centering a whole body of discipleship-teaching on the idea that each of us has a heroic part to play in that drama may just be cruel.
This is a great series, Dr. Beck. So thought provoking.
qb
When our love for God merges with our love for people, we come to learn what it means to privilege mercy over sacrifice. Then, we experience the meaning of "blessed." (Somebody wise once wrote something to that effect...) In the "Great Commandment" of love God, love neighbor as yourself, I think too often it is misunderstood in hierarchical terms. First and foremost, love God. Then, love neighbor. If loving God requires one to be unloving to neighbor, something is amiss in the orthodoxy and orthopraxy. FWIW, I think you are absolutely correct, Dr. Beck, that it is not one command above the other; but both, at once, which Jesus meant.
Can I just say that this confrontation with cultural hero systems (false idols) and "dying to self" isn't a one-time deal? As I get older and further along in this journey of faith, I realize that it is a continual process of prayerful, meditative self-examination -- a wide-awake confrontation of the good, the bad, and the ugly in me -- and a willingness to submit to Christ and reorient my ways that is required.
I ordered Becker's 'Denial of Death' and 'The Authenticity of Faith.' Awaiting delivery of the shipment. :-)
The fact my favorite blogger was reviewing one of my favorite
books of late provided a good bit of excitement for me this Tuesday morning :)
As Derran also mentioned, Rollins and Insurrection helped me make sense
of some difficult struggles these past few years. I actually began to
cry while reading a few passages of Insurrection as Rollins talked about the
necessary act of embracing of this existential loss of god. As silly as
it sounds, it helped me realize I wasn't entirely crazy, cynical, depressed or defeatist
:) It’s quite amazing how
different pieces (Rollins, your blog, time with my spiritual director, etc.)
have combined to help me begin to find and embrace the life after death
discussed so much here. So for your
part, Dr. Beck, thank you. I continue to
value your thoughts.
"If loving God requires one to be unloving to neighbor, something is amiss..."
How true, and exactly why so much is amiss in the world... a world full of people willing to kill for their "god," but so few willing to truly love their neighbor.
So doesn't Scripture attempt to portray this Galilean carpenter's ordinary death as heroic? Doesn't Christian tradition? Are those seeking a meaningful grand narrative called by the gospel to stop looking for it, or called to find it in self-giving service in the name of Jesus? I'm really curious about your answers here. Eldredge's answers may be cheesy, but they at least make sense to me.
Hi qb
If I've correctly understood Becker's argument, the 'successful' hero has an ever-increasing stake in maintaining his illusion of immortality - through virility, power, the family dynasty, the life's work, moral purity etc. Hence the devastation when these things inevitably fail. Even if the illusion is kept intact, death inexorably confronts the hero with his animality.
I love the way Becker resolves this paradox in the final paragraphs (apologies if you're still getting to this, Richard). How, he asks, can we balance cosmic heroism with the fact that all our efforts will turn to dust - how can we break free from the existential terror of teh animal into whom God has breathed his immortal Spirit?
"The most that any one of us can seem to do is to fashion something - an object or ourselves - and drop it into the confusion, make an offering of it, so to speak, to the life force."
Not a bad credo.
Perhaps it is that the Eldridge view is still centered on "self." One is looking for that grand narrative, for himself. It is still ego. We are all guilty of it, it seems almost impossible not to be in our modern evangelical missional culture. The grand narrative we often seek seems to often be one that constructs ideas around the gospel, but that they are just that....around it. If we would just aim to love people, one at a time, then the gospel is manifested. If we start out aiming for the prize, to be the hero, we will most likely miss it.
"The most that any one of us can seem to do is to fashion something - an
object or ourselves - and drop it into the confusion, make an offering
of it, so to speak, to the life force."
Love it, Andrew. Seems to me you do this here. Thanks for this.
" If we would just aim to love people, one at a time, then the gospel is manifested."
Well said!
Thank you for this series. Right now it has my mind spinning around in circles, but perhaps that’s not such a bad thing :) I came across a song by Matisyahu called “Silence” a few days ago. I feel like the lyrics go along well with the rejecting false meaning and theodicy themes brought up in the last several posts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lQ2H5tix0E
I have to wonder however, if our lack of understanding of love does not come precisely from our fear of death. At the very least, fear of death (in all its manifestations) could prevent us from expressing what we do understand of love fully, if at all. I speak from personal experience here...
"How, he asks, can we balance cosmic heroism with the fact that all our efforts will turn to dust - how can we break free from the existential terror of the animal into whom God has breathed his immortal Spirit?"
We do it together. We are not alone. One dies. We all die. "Every man's death diminishes me. . . ."
Blessings!
Maybe it's both. I've been struggling here recently with the faith but I'm learning alot as it has driven me into the mystics. As I see it, the inner awareness of union awakens us to the pain of separation. When the heart is united to God and it knows this in it's innermost essence, we are confronted with our own isolation, with the knowledge that we are separate from God. It is only because we have been given a glimpse of union and had a small sip of the Divine wine, that we are made conscious of separation. The pain of longing is born from having a glance of God. We long for whom we love. And the greater the love, the greater the pain of longing. Love and sadness become the substance of our inner existence.Paradoxically, we need the experience of separation to draw us into union. The state of union is the natural state of the soul. The experience of the union is the "the wine that made us drunk before the creation of the vine". But this secret, hidden within the heart, requires the pain of separation to bring it into consciousness.People of great faith often suffer bouts of great doubt at many levels because they continue to grow at new levels. As I have been reading I see that Mother Teresa experienced decades of this kind of doubt. And I have too.
Sam, I can see your point as far as organization goes, but I wonder how necessary hierarchy is. I think most biologists would offer that any organism needs a center, and without such a center an organism ceases to be. So I'm wondering how this translates to organization. Any ideas?
Mike
Thank you for the compliment. Looking forward to seeing how you are going to wrap up this series.
Well, first this: Eldredge saved qb's marriage with _Wild at Heart_. If I remember correctly, I read the book at least 9 times through to soak in that which eventually turned things around. qb's _WaH_ credentials are impeccable, with both a Boot Camp and a Platoon Leaders' Training under his belt. The one time I actually met Eldredge face to face, I fell on his shoulder in tears of gratitude.
-----
As to the heroism of Jesus' crucifixion, I'm not sure I would agree that "Scripture attempts" anything of the sort. If anything, the center of mass seems to be ignominy, not heroism. But we may just wish to disagree on that. Using my earlier language, there can be no doubt that Jesus was "special" and certainly the protagonist of THE grand drama.
Your last question, jlh, is the most nuanced and interesting. And the longer I look at the evangelical church from (as it were) the outside, the more I am impressed by how "escapistly" she really behaves and speaks in the public forum. It is as if the evangelical church, by which I mean the stream of Christianity that centers its self-understanding in "relevance" and "awesome worship experiences" and all of that dreck, has looked at the ordinariness of life, yawned, and called it just plain boring. Somehow, by writing book after book about "finding one's place in the Grand Narrative," we have betrayed a sense that ordinary Christianity isn't exciting enough to keep us in discipleship for the long haul, so we've got to juice it up. And so the mission appears to be more a matter of seduction than actual soul-winning.
So to answer your last question directly, I guess I'd say, yes, we should stop looking for a meaningful "grand narrative" and redirect our eyes toward that which lies within our reach. That there is a grand narrative underway is not in dispute. But part of contentment and serenity lies in accepting that not all of us are shifty tailbacks; in fact, most of us are toiling away anonymously, keeping the satan occupied in a war of attrition, hoping and praying to gain a few inches here, a yard or two there.
That's just how it looks from here, jlh. Dr. Beck's idea of mainstream Christianity's "bait and switch" extends in more dimensions than perhaps he originally appreciated. Or maybe he saw it all more clearly than any of us and chose to look at just one of the dimensions of it. Either way, evangelical Christianity seems to be taking on an oddly defensive posture for an institution whose central virtues are faith and hope.
qb
What Rollins describes is the true "purpose-driven life." In putting to death the theological idols, the things by which we cling to the illusion of certainty, we are left with the one thing in which we can have certainty-the act of love. However, I understand how the death of these idols frees us from slavery to death, but with no sort of metaphysical implications-with God as verb rather than a proper noun--doesn't death still emerge as the ultimate victor?
Thanks, George
Becker says some interesting things about relatedness and community. He recognises that "the most terrifying burden of the creature is to be isolated." This is because "relationship to the self is at once relationship to our fellow man" because "human beings are the only things that mediate meaning."
But Becker also cogently analyses the dangers inherent in relationships - how our existential needs can lead us to unhealthy dependency - and the limitations of relationships - how they should not be expected to take the "burden of godhood".
This is where Becker comes off the purely humanist path. Only in relationship with God, others and ourselves do we find a peace that the world alone cannot give.
Interesting, your experiences with Eldredge. Makes me wonder about the disconnect--that your marriage was not saved, nor your heart inspired, by someone praying to gain a few inches here, a yard or two there.
The reason I keep defending evangelicalism is not simply because (on this blog) it is an underdog--though that is a reason. The other reason is that I think it is through the Beth Moores and John Eldredges of the world, the Sandy Pattys and Michael W. Smiths, the sometimes-cheesy but good-hearted crowd of witnesses, that I am able to get the help I need to do real Jesus-work. Things like staying married. Things like doing prison ministry. Things like overcoming my own deep, deep desire to bury myself in my favorite addiction. If ordinary Christianity is "exciting enough to keep us in discipleship for the long haul," it is largely because ordinary Christianity includes people who "juice-it-up" as well as people who think critically, people who channel their ambition into heroism for Christ as well as those who never had any ambition in the first place, people who read what John and Revelation and Colossians say about the crucifixion as well as what Mark says about the crucifixion. (In my view, some of these texts are far grander and more heroic in their language than others, and that's maybe the point.) And I guess I don't see why we can't be on the same side--why the passions of Beck and qb have to come by renouncing the passions of Eldredge or even James Dobson.
Peace, brother.
I must not be being clear enough yet. Let me try again, cheerfully.
The whole piont of my "confession" was that I am not renouncing Eldredge, and I am not renouncing his passion, and I am not renouncing the totality of his work, and I am not foreclosing the possibility (nay, the utter certainty) that the Holy Ghost uses Eldredge's work as a vehicle for good. I am, rather, contesting the slightly narrower but indisputably pervasive idea in the Eldredge corpus that the key to "deep discipleship" is discovering "one's true name on the white stone of Revelation" and "one's primary part in the grand, unfolding drama/narrative" -- which just happens to be (in Eldredge's teaching), conveniently enough, some sort of masculine adventure. There is a reason the dominant film clips in the _WaH_ Boot Camps and seminars are taken from war and adventure movies, and it has a profoundly tangible effect on the way men view themselves and on the extent of their patience with wives who do not share their neo-adventuresome spirit. One need only attend a Boot Camp and then hang out on the post-Boot Camp internet discussion forums for a month or two to see how participants cling to the swords, the cigars, and the self-actualizing freedom that the piont of view promises. I do not blame Eldredge for our fundamental weakness, but I do believe that his emphasis on adventure, grand narrative, and self-actualization creates expectations about (especially masculine) discipleship that, in turn, engender disillusionment among men who are unfortunate (!) enough to have married someone who does not share those desires. It also puts men in the derivative position of having to choose (unnecessarily) between (a) being a full-bore disciple of Jesus and (b) knuckling under to, and then resenting, their home-body, risk-averse wives. Finally, it does all of these things very publicly before an already skeptical, cynical world of unbelievers who see all of this happening and understand it for what it is.
Wow, am I ever relating. I too experienced a dramatic "salvation" through Eldredge's books and a WaH Boot Camp. And it looks like my experiences subsequent to that are very similar to yours. The conclusions I am arriving at very much match what you have stated here. Good to know I am not alone.
Well said, qb! I'd add that when Eldredge attempted with his wife to write a book addressing women, it came off really lame and insulting.
When Eldredge is considering the relationship between father and son, and when he dwells on the effect of woundedness on those relationships, he is very, very good. But he's got no business writing a book to women, either with Stasi as a co-author or without.
Whether _Captivating_ was generally accurate or not - I'm in no position to judge, for obvious reasons - it was terribly written. I can't use the term "stunning" any more without shuddering and being reminded of how many times the two of them used that word in _Captivating_.
Thanks for your response. But isn't fragile and foolish and unhealthy dependency sometimes all our fragile and foolish and unhealthy minds and bodies have to grasp in the face of death? Is not God in all this nonetheless sometimes gently, sometimes painfully smashing our idols? Is this not why we cry in suffering "mercy?" And why when lonely and abandoned and tortured we echo Jesus in anger and anguish, "why hast Thou forsaken me?"
As always, I agree with every word you write, George. Apologies if I expressed myself badly. Becker never offers simple black and white answers: he's an easy man to misrepresent. What he does do, rather elegantly, is to inculcate a sense of forbearance for human fraility whilst at the same time establishing a line of descent between our everyday fragility and the worst expressions of human control and aggression. What I was clumsily trying to convey was that human relationships alone cannot take the burden of godhood. "People need a "beyond," but they reach first for the nearest one; this gives them the fulfilment they need but at the same time limits and enslaves them. You can look at the whole problem of a human life in this way. You can ask the question: What kind of beyond does a person try to expand in; and how much individuation does he achieve in it?" Only in threefold relation between God AND our fellow man can we resolve our existential dilemma. Just as MacDonald teaches us the dangers of withdrawing from our fellow man in order to seekGod, so Becker teaches us the dangers of withdrawing from God in order to connect with our fellow man.
What an excellent article. It seems that Bonhoeffer is a strong influence on so much writing, therefore, we must center what we as humans do in the Sanctorium Communio, or else we will only promote gnosticism in the name a better understanding of Christ. This will in the end damage for those whom Christ died. Because it seems that asking people to act like they can simply face their demons is putting psychology at the center of the crucifixion, and simply put, human beings can not "Replicate" the crucifixion of Jesus. We do not affirm Jesus was simply a moral example. The crucifixion is not about understanding truths about our worldview, but the joining together of God with God's creation and is only be understood as a Free Gift which has brought fulfillment to humanity through the forgiveness of sin and is received as exactly that, A Free Gift. Our discipleship in destroying these cold, other worldly deities which are manifested in the hero gods of success and revolution must be dealt with, but they are not dealt with existentially, but through our common confession as Jesus as King. So, this brings me to the last sentence which says, "In other words, where people are gathered together in love, God is present." I know tons of people who exhibit love toward one another, because those people are very similar to themselves, and these people that I know would even give their lives for each other, because they serve the idea of the "hero" god who will then vindicate their deaths as heroes themselves. This means that God has given Christians structure to order how manifest our life together is lived out. Or else life will simply morph into sentimental ideas about love, which is really not love at all. We need to know the truth about ourselves and our world, but that truth is manifested in the cross as God's kingdom. And we can only say, "where two or three are gathered IN MY NAME, there I am with them." (Matt. 18.20)
O.K., this is clearer. I'm not happy with the rejection of "grand narrative" language or even "adventure" language, as I find these to be Scriptural and healthy manifestations of the Gospel, but I'm certainly happy with your critical appropriation of something you find helpful but not (in the end) quite credible. To that extent, I'm with you.
Perhaps I come at this from the other end--from people who are already sure that Eldredge and voices like his are too macho, too emotional, too grandiose, etc. They don't get the (vital) help which, you admit, you really needed at a crucial point in your life. Instead they get snide snarkiness. They can't weep at Jesus healing their inner warrior--but wow, they can make a cynical comment about evangelicalism and its irredeemable hype!
I'm thinking of my mature, spiritual, wise seminary professors who simply didn't understand why we students would go to Promise Keepers and weep and confess and praise, rather than listen to yet another lecturer talk about social justice--never mind that said lecturer happened to have an all-white audience, and that Promise Keepers was one of the few racially integrated worship experiences I've ever experienced!
Again, I have no quibble with you at all. I just want to stand up for all of those manifestations of the Kingdom that you, too, seem to have benefitted from.
Fair enough, jlh. I get that. Carry on...qb