Through a variety of class readings I’ve happily adjusted to hearing alternative interpretations of familiar Biblical texts in support of ecological concerns. Genesis 1:28 isn’t about control, but rather about service and care. And the reference to Psalm 72 where the king exercises justice is another good reminder about the correct use of dominion. Even Mark 10:45 reiterates the proper understanding of Biblical leadership—servanthood not domination. I appreciate one more clear critique of Lynn White’s interpretations as too selective and unrealistic as well as Robby’s poignant insight that we “need to confess our sin of failing to care for the rest of creation.”
Robby's recounting of the Hasidic tale is a great story that catches the complexity of truth--“We need a coat with two pockets. In one pocket there is dust, and in the other pocket there is gold. We need a coat with two pockets to remind us who we are.” Not either/or, but both. This story vividly speaks of balance and is a fitting introduction to explaining the differing views about the end times and the kingdom of God.
1) Apocalyptic eschatology—an abrupt end with radical divine intervention
2) Inaugurated eschatology—kingdom is already present and not yet consummated
3) Realized eschatology—kingdom fully present now in words and deeds, ours and Jesus’s
I’m familiar with # 1, which Robby noted is popular with poor people. I wonder if that is because they see the present as pretty hopeless and annihilating things would be some sort of twisted justice as well as an instant rescue for themselves.
I’m familiar with #3, which Robby stated is popular with the middle class and upwardly mobile folks. I wonder if that is because it fits so well with their materialist desires and drives.
So, it isn't a surprise that so many folks are theological schizophrenics.
Inaugurated eschatology, located between two extremes, is the one that appeals to me the most. But it is not what I’ve not heard preached from any pulpit. Why? Robby wrote, “Over the last few decades [underline mine], Pentecostal scholars have opted for neither the apocalyptic nor the realized eschatology and instead have advocated for 'already/not yet' eschatology.” What makes scholarship so slow to seep into the pulpit?
Robby clearly explained inaugurated eschatology—“…the kingdom of God is present on earth, introduced by the words of Jesus, “The time is fulfilled.'” Then Robby said [in fresh wording that made me smile] “…contrary to popular opinion, the final vision of Revelation does not contain an image of Christians being resurrected and going off to the wild blue yonder, but rather of the kingdom of God coming down to earth (i.e., the descent of the New Jerusalem)." The most useful description appeared in his illustration of the Lord's Prayer. It is in praying these words that we can participate in both aspects of “already/not yet”: “thy kingdom come”—praying for the future--and “thy will be done”—praying for the present.
The whole problematic 2 Peter 3:10-13 discussion was professional, thorough, but a bit too technical. Although I can agree to it when I’m reading it, I don’t think I can repeat it.
Robby’s concluding points are crucial: Creation is good. We need to participate in the whole life of the church—service and sacraments—knowing our hope is the coming of God. Transforming power comes from God. Apocalypse means unveiling or revelation. Christian apocalyptic texts have much to do with discerning the spiritual significance of the present, not predicting the future. And perhaps most importantly of all: As a consequence of reading and connecting with these ideas, we are better able to contribute appropriate responses to the ecological crisis, which is also a social and economic crisis, because we are moving in God’s spirit working through and in our strong Biblical heritage.
No comments:
Post a Comment