Читать книгу A Pastoral Proposal for an Evangelical Theology of Freedom - Albert J.D. Walsh - Страница 4

In the audio version of the lectures given by Dr. Karl Barth when he paid his first and only visit to the United States, lectures that were eventually published under the title Evangelical Theology, and in his closing remarks, Karl Barth expressed his hope to see a theology native to North America that would suffer from neither an inferiority complex in relation to good old Europe, nor a superiority complex in relation to Asia and Africa (somewhat prophetic). Karl Barth then expressed his hope for the development in the United States of a theology of freedom, and more particularly, a theology of freedom for humanity! Whether in fact such a theology has been written in the interim, we do not know; in our own theological reading, study, and research we have yet to encounter such a theological expression. This essay is a proposal, recommending those elements and/or characteristics that could be considered central to the formation of such a theology, and primarily from the perspective of a pastoral theologian, and based on the evangelical witness of the apostles, evangelists, and prophets.

We do not intend the italicized word (i.e., pastoral) to be in any way pejorative, as if pastoral theology were somehow something less important, less professional, or as possessing less intellectual integrity and rigor than do the more academic forms of theological reflection and explication. The italicization of the word pastoral is, instead, meant to affirm the centrality of the context out of which this particular proposal speaks, and to affirm as well how this particular context presents us with some of the more challenging issues to be faced in contemporary Christianity. If theology is fundamentally at the service of the Church catholic and the Church’s immense responsibility for the proclamation of the gospel, then this context (i.e., pastoral service), and the wider context of the ekklēsia in the world, should be understood as vital to the development of a proposal for and further expansion of a theology of freedom. There can be no genuine comprehension of the “graced freedom” proposed if one considers it to be little more than some abstract principle; this freedom is for humanity, and those who embrace such freedom will soon discover that it is an extremely relevant and practical reality, with supremely relevant and practical implications for the life we must live. To deny that this graced freedom has practical implications will also and at the same time diminish the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the reality of redemption and reconciliation in Christ, to little more than an abstract principle; the incarnation assures us that the graced freedom proposed in this essay is a matter of what has been made real in the flesh and for us and for our salvation.

Clarification of Terms

From the start it is essential to note that we are not talking about liberty, a term that has taken on connotations that are, in my estimation, almost the polar opposite of what can be described as evangelical freedom from the point of view of a theology shaped, as it should be, by the witness of Holy Scripture and the explication of Scripture as handed down to us in the theological traditions of our evangelical faith. Liberty is applicable to the external realities of one’s life and impacts accessibility to a certain kind of freedom that will either impair or enlarge one’s choices. The Statue of Liberty is representative of this form of freedom, as is so clearly expressed in the poetic words she bears: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Perhaps Dr. Barth was being somewhat tongue in cheek when he suggested that the Statue of Liberty should be made subject to demythologization; nevertheless, a theology of freedom would assert that the poetic phrase, engraved on the Statue of Liberty, bears witness to the external nature of the liberty being extended, by way of her lamp, and represents a reality that is different from the freedom being advocated in this essay. Excepting the Constitutional language of inalienable rights, aspects of such liberty would include responsibilities of one’s citizenship, commitment and obedience to the order of law, regular engagement in the political order, perhaps even the pursuit of happiness, which demonstrate the externality of liberty and its effects. This liberty is, in fact, conferred upon the citizen, and mimetically confessed (that is, to be seen as a secular confessional affirmation) in the Pledge of Allegiance; in confessing allegiance to the flag, the citizen confesses allegiance to all the flag represents symbolically.

Nevertheless, might we who live by the light of that lamp of Liberty not also see the use of such liberty as an opportunity to proclaim that greater freedom, which is evangelical freedom? Stated in more concrete terms, does not the benefit of such liberty provide the ekklēsia in the United States with a particular and practical responsibility—for proclaiming the graced freedom made real in Christ and enacting, in service to humanity and in the name of God and the gospel of God, that same freedom? Is it appropriate (to say the very least) for the ekklēsia in the United States to benefit from such liberty, while denying the God-given mandate of the gospel to proclaim, in word and deed, that graced freedom essential to the enrichment of humanity and found in the gift of God in Christ Jesus? One purpose of this essay is to establish the necessity for such as fundamental to the development of an evangelical theology of freedom for humanity; recognizing, as we do, that graced freedom is first and properly given in obedience to God, and secondarily given in service to the neighbor (as the concrete expression of the two-fold love of God and neighbor).

Regrettably, for many today, the word liberty has come to be associated with the all-too-limited concept of individual rights and in extreme measure, the privatization of personal choice; so much is this the case that one finds resistance to the mere suggestion that there are boundaries and demands of what can be reasonably expected of a citizen, external to the individual, to which he or she is obligated in order to maintain what could only be called the common welfare of the community at large. Even more evident is a form of relativism that has collapsed all truth claims into a vast sea of generalization, and so one is at liberty to select that claim which he or she feels best expresses his or her individuality. One cannot assert knowledge of the truth in any way whatsoever, as such truth is said to be non-existent, or merely a misguided claim to self-assertion; one can only speak of the truth in general, as all truth claims are said to be relative if not equal in value.

The one showing the greatest tolerance for and acceptance of all truth claims, as having an equal and legitimate claim to a place in the common marketplace of ideas, is thought to be demonstrating the essence of liberty in and through his or her character. None of this is to say that the word liberty has lost all currency or needs to be retrieved from the trash bin of post-modernity; it is rather to suggest that the way in which the concept of liberty is understood in much of contemporary culture and society cannot bear the full weight of meaning located in the concept of graced freedom as proposed in this essay.

It is not merely the culture or society at large that have been adversely influenced by a limited concept of liberty; the community of faith has now had much of its own self-understanding and substantive ministry shaped and informed by a misconceived application of liberty and its several distorted manifestations (e.g., self-worth as primary; self-assertion; self-enrichment; self-determination; etc.). The vital nature of this essay is found in prior pastoral experience with the manifold ways by which this influence has distorted understanding of the ekklēsia as essentially determined by the Spirit of Christ, under the Lordship of Christ as event, and as accountable to Christ and Christ alone. Even more troubling is the manner in which many in the church/Church have come to embrace liberty as the true substance of the gospel; this has led to several critical and unfortunate distortions of Christian doctrine and dogma that are fundamental to orthodox faith and confessional practices. We will take up this same problem in a later chapter of this essay.

Liberty can be, even in its contemporary setting, understood to be a manifestation of what the apostle Paul refers to as principalities and powers, in the sense that it is built into the order of creation and structured for the purposes of preserving the dignity and just governance of any one nation of people. This would also imply that, as consequence of the Fall, liberty is often subject to the abuse of those same principalities and powers, to be engaged in ways that are contrary to the intent for which God purposed such liberty, and therefore in conflict with the will of God for its rightful purpose and use.

There was liberty (we are not yet speaking of—graced freedom) in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:26–31) in which Adam and Eve could enjoy all the richness of their environment, but within the evident limitations and restrictions (external to them and of God, see Gen. 2:15–17) that had been placed upon them. As we will touch on briefly in a later chapter of this essay, there is also a biblical sense in which a particular form of freedom is the mirror image of liberty as an external reality. We will also need to address the sense in which Adam and Eve were created by God with ontological1 freedom, forfeiting such graced freedom in the disobedience and rebellion of sin, which led to bondage in a multiplicity of forms to which Scripture also bears witness.

As a tentative and initial expression of the much larger argument that needs to be made in the body of this essay, the concept of graced freedom being proposed is not merely an external reality, but is more accurately understood as an ontological reality with extraordinary manifestations in every aspect of the existence of the freed person. While we contend throughout that there can be no division or separation between what is recognized as an ontological reality and the outward actions that give evidence to the actuality of such graced freedom, we would not want to suggest that such association prohibits treating either in isolation from the other. Rather, it is because the ontological reality of graced freedom is manifest in actions (understood in the widest and fullest sense of event) that they must be treated in dialectical fashion; we will say more about this dialectic in the introduction.

Furthermore, in light of the expressed hope of Dr. Barth we will contend that such graced freedom is, at its core, a freedom for humanity. This graced freedom is: (1) the foundation of redemption as the re-affirmation and re-actualization (i.e., recapitulation) of genuine anthropos (humanity created—imago Dei, and as male and female), as a new creation in Christ, in both the individual and larger sense of the term, and under the empowerment and continuing presence of the Holy Spirit; (2) the ground for the establishment of the New Testament ekklēsia, the body of Christ, and the collective manifestation of such evangelical freedom; the event in which such freedom is to be received, acknowledged, confessed, and expressed; and (3) the basis for the missio Dei and ministry as an expression of graced freedom in the ekklēsia, where freedom for humanity is evident as a passion for the furtherance of justice, integrity, and the enrichment of humanity in free obedience to Christ Jesus and as mandated by his gospel. In any and every instance, God alone is the Subjective Agent of graced freedom, while humanity is the objective recipient and beneficiary. As objective recipient and beneficiary of graced freedom, the human being and ekklēsia together—as imago Christi—become the subjective agents of the proclamation of such freedom for humanity in, with, and for the world, and as event.

In the introduction, and in other appropriate context throughout this essay, we make extensive use of the Greek term ekklēsia2 rather than the more familiar use of church/Church under the conviction that ekklēsia more adequately conveys the concept of event, as opposed to the implication of institution or localization of denominational presence normally associated with the use of church/Church. However, whenever we make use of the more familiar terms (i.e., church/Church), the intention is exactly to call to mind the more institutionalized and denominationally centered manifestation. This choice of terminology (ekklēsia) is directly related to the proposed concept of graced freedom which, like the ekklēsia itself, is also and always an event, in that it is the union of ontological reality and consequent actions.

Having some degree of sensitivity for the issues raised these days regarding the need for inclusive language in any reference to humanity (as individual or corporate reality), we find constant reference to either the human, humanity, or human being as incapable of bearing the full measure of what the Bible refers to by way of Man as male and female. Therefore, in both the introduction and in select portions of the essay that follows, we have chosen to make use of the biblical anthropos3 (the biblical-theological term for the human as male and female, which we will use for humanity in general and as part of the created world). We will allow the context to determine the reference to either the individual or the corporate; for example, where anthropos refers to the individual it will be followed by he/she, him/her, and where the term applies to humanity in general, it will be followed by “them, they, or their.”

We now turn to the introduction for a fuller explication of what will be covered in even greater detail chapter by chapter and to the conclusion of this essay.