A few of his phrases are incomprehensible to me, like (I’ll finish reading it, but for now…):

Christ’s “vicarious and substitutionary faith.” Substitutionary faith? A vicarious exercise of the will? I have zero notion of what that might mean.

And “when we believe we must say with St. Paul ‘not I but Christ’ even in our act of faith.”

Nobody doubts that we’re utterly dependent upon God’s sustaining grace. God’s the ground of all being. But at some point it become ridiculous (to my mind) to ascribe equal ownership in the same senses and respects at those points where God expects creaturely freedom to be exercised and creaturely personhood to emerge.

I can say:

“I live! Well, not in the individualistic sense of the absolute autonomous identity I once pursued [that’s the “I” Paul is negating and giving up], but in the sense that my identity and unique meaning in the world are grounded in relating by faith to Christ.”

I can’t say:

“I live. Well, not ‘I’ in the sense of my being a person distinct from God, but in the sense that the person I am is somehow mysteriously the person Christ is.”

The context of ch. 2 is justification by faith and not by works of law. Paul narrates his confrontation with Peter over the latter’s duplicitous behavior while among Gentiles (eating with them when certain Jews weren’t around but pulling back when they showed up). Why THAT is unacceptable behavior is what Paul seeks to establish theologically in this chapter.

¹⁹ For through the Law I died to the Law—so that I might live to God

²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me

and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God

Dying (on the one hand) and living (on the other)

Dying to the law (to a ‘way’ of relating to God) on the one hand

and

Living to God (in a new ‘way’ of relating to God) on the other.

I died to the law by being crucified with Christ

and

Now living by faith (as opposed to works).

Works = the old way of relating to God

Faith = the new way of relating to God

What we die to is a way of relating to God based upon merit and conformity to law, more specifically a way of erecting our identity, our understanding of our unique meaning in the world. To die to the law is to sever our relationship to the law in the sense that we no longer view it as stipulating the means by which we relate to and are accepted by God. We no longer center and orient our lives and identities in the successful performance of doing the right thing as the grounds upon which approach and are accepted by God, but instead our identities emerge from a the individual-God I/Thouh relationship in Christ's love and grace. This ‘dying’ (to the law) is accomplished by faith in Christ with whom we are crucified. So there IS an “I” who is crucified with Christ and an “I” who lives on. Paul says, “I died…so that…I might live.” I essentially die to one identity (based on merit and performance) and live in a new identity (based on trust in Christ).

“No longer I, but Christ” is explained by Paul himself in the immediately following “the life I live now I live by faith in Christ.” It’s that simple. No ornate psychology. I think what divides D and me on this is what exactly we feel is negated (what is the “I” of Paul’s “not I”) and what we feel is affirmed (what is the “I” that “lives to God”).

In my view, the “I” that is negated is a false identity (a false sense of the meaning and permanence of my existence), the whole meaning of my life that I’ve erected on the merits of performance and subsequently offered to God. That identity, that self, dies by being crucified with Christ. D and I probably agree on this. Where we aren’t fully agreed is on the “I” who is affirmed. The “I” who is affirmed isn’t “Christ” but the I who emerges in-relation-to Christ. All identities are grounded in some I/Thou relationship. False identities simply have the wrong ‘thou’ in place. Consequently a false ‘I’ emerges. Get the ‘thou’ TO WHOM you relate correct and the right ‘I’ will inevitably emerge. Paul immediately explains what he means by “not I but Christ” with “the life I live I live by faith in the Son of God.” We don't have to guess. He explains himself. My life and identity emerge into the permanence I’m created to long for only when I choose to ground that in Christ. But Paul shows no interest in mapping a psychology per se.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 2/20/2009 5:02:15 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Tom) : 2/20/2009 5:18:39 PM (GMT-6)

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/the-emptiness-of-christ/

(NOTE UNDERLINING)

St. Paul speaks of Christ “emptying” Himself in His voluntary sacrifice for us all (Philippians 2:5-11). It is the only place in the New Testament that speaks of this particular action of Christ - at least as an “emptying” (kenosis) but the concept has always played a large role in the Church’s understanding of Christ’s death on the Cross.

It is interesting to me that Father Sophrony, in his writings, takes this idea of kenosis and applies it as well to the “not-I-but-the-Father” sayings: “I live by the Father” (Jn. 6:57; cf 5:30, 7:18, 15:15).

Fr. Nicholas Sakharov says of Father Sophrony’s point:

Christ, though the incarnate God, avoids any “divine action” of his own, so much so that the Father’s hypostasis [Person] is manifest absolutely through the absolutely “transparent screen” of Christ’s self-emptied hypostasis. Through this kenosis it becomes the “express image of the Father” (Heb. 1:3).

This, it seems to me, says much to us about what it means to become “like Christ.” The moralist approach (which I was taught as a child) is fraught with constant attention to “what would Jesus do?” in a moral calculation that can never end in anything but failure or delusion.

When St. Paul speaks of conformity to the image of Christ it is always clear that this is not something we accomplish, but something that is accomplished within us by God. In particular he says:

I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal. 2:20).

Here is our own kenosis or emptying. “Not-I-but-Christ.” And thus we become transparent and finally transparent such that we are His image. This is not an effort of moralism, but a self-offering to God. And so St. Paul writes:

I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1-2).

Jesus can be the Judge BECAUSE he is HUMAN! 

(That slipped past me.)

A Judgment of Love

Posted February 22, 2009

Sermon for the Sunday of the Last Judgment (I Corinthians 8:8-9:2; Matthew 25:31-46)

Play in popup Download Direct link

« Back

D-

I’ll get to the rest of the article. I’ve read some. Looks like a good article. As you probably suspected, my disagreements with him lie in the “Christ as us” section. He argues two senses for understanding “Christ as us”:

The meaning of the phrase “Christ as us,” as used in this study, can be reduced to two (2) primary prepositional emphases: (1) Christ functioning as us in terms of the identity of our being. (2) Christ functioning as us in terms of the instrumentality of our activity. In other words, (1) Christ expressed ontologically as us. (2) Christ expressed operationally as us. The first of these has to do with the Being of Christ serving as the basis of the Christian’s being and identity. The second of these has to do with the activity of Christ serving as the basis of the Christian's expression and behavior.

I’m fine with (2). It’s how (1) is construed that creates problems. Christ functioning “as us in terms of the identity of our being”? I would argue that’s the one sense in which Christ is not identified as us. Hypostasis is irreducibly unique and incommunicable. We’re hypostatically/personally distinct from Christ (i.e., the ‘person’ I become is not identical to the ‘person’ Christ is) though not independent of Christ (because all personal identity obtains ‘in-relation-to’ other persons and THAT means that the identity of the ‘other’ is constitutive of my own ‘identity’ via the relation).

I’d say: I can’t say ‘who’ I am without saying ‘who’ Christ is. But I don’t say ‘who’ I am by simply saying ‘who’ Christ is.

Any time people edge up close to conferring the “identity of [Christ’s] being” upon us as Fowler does I’m going to complain. And Fowler explains his (1) as “Christ serves as the basis of the Christian’s being and identity.” I’m down with this. No problem. That’s just to say that there’s “no saying who I am apart from saying who Christ is.” But as he works it out it’s obvious he’s trying to say MORE than just this. He equates “Christ’s serving as the basis of my being” with “Christ functioning as us in terms of the identity of our being.” The first is rather simple and uncontroversial. The latter says more (to my mind).

Here also:

A verse often cited to document “Christ’s function as us” is found in John's first epistle. In the context of referring to God's love being perfected, i.e. brought to its intended end in expression towards others, John writes, “As He is, so are we in this world” (I Jn. 4:17). The contextual meaning seems to be that “just as (kathos) Christ is the functional expression of God’s love to others (mankind - cf. Jn. 3:16), so also we (Christians) are the functionally expressive agents of God's love within the world of mankind where we live.” John's underlying assumption is that “Christ as us” (identity) will express God's divine love “as us” (activity) in consistent expression of the character of God (which is the primary thrust of John's epistle).

John’s assumption is that Christ “as us” (IDENTITY) will express God’s love “as us” (ACTIVITY)? Really? Fowler knows that John is assuming this? Wow.

Bro, I’m not denying that activity/behavior doesn’t flow from identity and self-understanding. Our actions ARE the disposing of our identities (whether false identities or our true selves in relation to Christ). Again, if THAT is all Fowler and you mean, then we have no disagreement. But I can hardly believe that all the trouble we’ve been through in debating all that Loder talks about, for example, just boils down to this. I don’t think so. There’s definitely some more significant identification going on (in your minds) between ‘who’ Christ is and ‘who’ we are. You’ll place an “as” in between these two who’s at the deepest metaphysical level. I don’t.

So long as you keep the identities distinct (hypostases in relation, like all hypostases), I’m fine. There can still be a guarded sense in which we can say “Christ as us.” But “X in relation to Y” has to constrain any sense of “X as Y” you might want to posit. I’m cool with the second of the prepositional senses Fowler posits but not the first, unless all he means by the first sense is that Christ is the basis of my being and identity. I can say that. But I think in the end he means something more. Fowler’s careful to concede that he does not believe we become the ‘person of the Son’, and I’ll believe him. But had he not conceded this point explicitly, I would have suspected that this was what his “Christ as us” meant.

But I’ll do this. I’ll read it all real carefully and then get back to you.

Tom

I can imagine you (Tom) saying that this still functionally ends up with us just being "functions of the Godhead" through Christ for some reason...but we'll see.

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/25/2009 5:48:26 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/25/2009 5:57:06 AM (GMT-6)

Then again...

I believe in all this...AND in the epicletic Real Body and Blood Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

What will become of me?  What? 

Maybe I am crazy...hmmm.  I've read myself insane.

I think I'm losing it...
I might be losing it...
I just might lose, I'm losing my mind...

"I've lost my mind, and still haven't found it..."

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/25/2009 6:42:35 AM (GMT-6)

Questions for Tom:

1) Do you believe that the One Triune God CAN answer this honest believer's prayer? 

2) Do you believe that the One Triune God WOULD answer this honest believer's prayer?

2) Do you believe that we believers can pray this prayer all the time, if they so chose?

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/25/2009 7:37:36 AM (GMT-6)

The Church.

----------------------------------