Post Edited (selah) : 5/3/2007 7:50:07 AM (GMT-5)

I think part of the problem is that I'm nearing the end of seminary...

No offense, but I honestly don't think I learned much. I became more self aware and maybe I was "formed" somehow..but overall I just spent a lot of money. I'm not kidding when I say we need courses "love 101, 102, 103" more than ANYTHING. Do you think we'll see THAT in our lifetime? I highly doubt it. Ok so I'm just a walking quaalude/downer these days. Sorry!

As an individual in the midst of this pain, all I have to do is be as beautiful as possible. Be God's expression now. But, given universalism, I can at the same time truly experience peace and patience. I don't know how I would or could do that if I thought that on top of all this suffering, it's only the beginning and relatively NOTHING in comparison to the eternal torment to come for most people.

Post Edited (Corey) : 5/3/2007 8:26:37 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (MANY) : 5/3/2007 8:53:34 AM (GMT-5)

Hey thanks everyone! Good thoughts. It's a blessing to be able to honestly post things that are so heavy on my heart. I knew I'd get wise and loving answers from you open theists. you guys rule

I'm still a little baffled about my seminary experience... and I still don't know where God is calling me to make a big splash ;)

On the one hand, I want maximum kingdom impact. I want to use my gifts/talents/heart/passion to do whatever I can. But on the other hand, I can't stop thinking about what it would mean to help/rescue/feed just one child/mother/family. Just to know that one less is going to bed in fear, hungry, thinking about death or rape... gee, isn't that the goal?

selah

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'"

Post Edited (selah) : 5/3/2007 8:19:44 PM (GMT-5)

Hey, Selah/Corey. I follow the symmetry you make, Corey, with the sense of "eternal" for both reward and punishment. But I think it's also possible to see Christ's words as being symmetrical temporally in an eschatological sense. IOW, Christ may not necessarily be saying that all punishment will be age-abiding. He may be saying that the epistemic-distance of the eschaton is so low that wrong-relating during that time will result in much longer punishment. The whole "where much is given, much is required" thang--like the place where he said that if they didn't believe the law and prophets, even the lower epistemic distance of ressurection would not result in anything but disbelief (which I assume means an even greater hardness of heart requiring greater accountability).

Similarly, that same hardness of heart that results from responding inappropriately to low epistemic distance results in unique sufferings for those who suffer with Christ. These sufferings result in reigning with him.

So if there truly is a temporal reign of Christ (which is what seems to be suggested by the idea that Christ will deliver the kingdom to the Father at some point in time), then it is possible that the Father's reign is also temporal. If this is so, maybe there will be a time when reigning will cease to be, in which case reward ceases. Thereafter, maybe there will just be family unity. The Father with all His children in perfect harmonious love.

In short, maybe the bible never really gets to the eternal state at all. Maybe it's only about the temporal ends and means/side effects (like punishment/reward) of creation. This way, the symmetry can still work with reward and punishment being age-abiding, but temporal. And the age-abiding aspect is emphasized only because of the eschatological emphasis of the unique hardness and suffering of the eschaton.

I see this as possible because the place where Christ talks about Judas having been better off had he never been born seems to refer specifically to the betrayal of Christ as the determining cause of that fate. This, in turn, seems to imply that there will be those who are judged, but for whom it will not be true that it would have been better off had they never been born. IOW, some people will suffer punishment for their mis-relating but not so intensely that life was not worth it. But if all people suffer age-abiding torment, it would seem that all people that end up in that prophesied fire would have been better off had they never been born. Hence, the eschatological-only emphasis of age-abiding punishment. Daniel, too, in ch. 12, seems to prophecy of specific punishments for those who rebel in the eschaton.

When all reward/reigning is over, then all extrinsic worth correlated with the temporal end of creation may be moot. Then, there may be nothing left but familial love. All rewards/punishments will have run their finite courses. All will be enlightened. And all enlightenment, whether that of repentance or that of accountability, will have resulted in the glory of Christ and God. But maybe glory, in the since of reign, will be irrelevant in the eternal state. Familial love forever may be what the eternal state is all about. 

In summary, I'm wondering whether Revelation really shows us the eternal state at all. It seems reasonable to me that the Father's reign, as a reign per se, may be temporal as is Christ's, thereby allowing for truly temporal rewards/punishments--some of which may be age-abiding while other punishments may be less than age-abiding. Just another logical possibility in explaining the greek with the symmetry you're advocating without positing eternal torment.

I THOUGHT OF THIS ESPEIALLY FOR YOU, T.

What Theology Looks Like

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/what-theology-looks-like/

QUOTE:

Some seventeen years ago (I cannot believe it has been that long) I became a “dropout” of sorts, withdrawing formally from the PhD program at Duke University and converting my studies into material for an M.A. in theology. The story is more convoluted and personal than I would care to share in this public forum. But I recall a conversation I had with Stanley Hauerwas, who was one of the Professors on my Committee (as they say).

My greatest concentrated work had been under Geoffrey Wainwright, as gentle and gentlemanly a scholar as I have ever had pleasure to know, and a great guide in all of my studies. It was he that directed me towards the theology of icons - the subject which eventually became the topic of my thesis.

But Hauerwas is one of those figures whom you cannot brush aside or place in the background. Time Magazine dubbed him “America’s Greatest Theologian” (which I’m sure would meet with some argument in some quarters) but it certainly underlines the power of his voice when he speaks (which incidentally includes some of the twang of his Texas roots and a wit that is exceedingly sharp, occasionally crossing the point of propriety). I’ll just be blunt - Stanley has had a tendency to cuss.

I came to appreciate his theology far more when I was no longer in his classroom, surrounded by Hauerwasian devotees who could leave my mind behind in the dust of their quick jaunts through the world of “Post-Wittgensteinian, sectarian Tribalism” (as Hauerwas’ theology was characterized at one point). In my post-Duke musings, I found I needed to confront and digest much that I heard from him and realized that there were points where I would have to agree.

But the conversation which I have in mind concerned my leaving the “program.” I was returning to parish work. In discussing this with Hauerwas I said to him, “I’m leaving the academy (Duke) so that I can do theology” (the parish).  There was no argument from him, but a quick understanding that a parish is what theology looks like (at least in very important points).

Theology that is limited to words in a book (or on a blog) is certainly words - but not really the substance that constitutes theology. We may speak of God, or speak of the Church, but God is not speech nor speech the Church.

Hauerwas, in jargon that became a familiar part of classroom debates, would challenge a student’s argument with the question: “How is that displayed?” I grew weary of the jargon, but the question remained. When you say something about God or about the Church, what does it actually look like? It was a question that had a way of clearing the abstractions and forcing us to reality.

The same, of course, has to be a question placed to our own lives. What does my life look like? What is the character of my existence? Is there anything in my life that could be used as evidence for the truth of the Christian gospel?

I cannot credit myself with pursuing a line of thought faithfully in the years after Duke. Instead, I would have to say that I was myself pursued. “If you believe this is the truth - how is it displayed?” Despite my dislike of the jargon, the question would still come back. “What does the truth look like?”

Eventually (and this is making something quite complex sound too simple) the question took the shape of the Orthodox faith. I should not only say “eventually” but also “inevitably” for that conclusion was already at work to some measure before I ever left my studies. I was writing on the theology of icons, after all.

But the answer still had the same general shape. I left academic theology for the theology that is the parish church - and eventually for the theology that is an Orthodox parish church. The life of a parish is not an abstraction, a theology removed from that about which it speaks - it is, whether well done or not, an embodiment of the life of Christ - His Body, in the language of Scripture. And in that context the whole of the gospel comes to bear. The life of love, of forgiveness, of mercy, of patience, of union with Christ in everything, is finally lived out in a community of people or it remains but an abstraction of speech.

The challenges of that community are simply the challenge of a broken world as it meets the fullness of Christ (in the best of times) and still the broken world meeting the fullness of Christ (in the worst of times).

The worst of temptations in parish life is to live as something less than the Body of Christ. To institutionalize in the worst sense of the word is to bury Christ beneath the sociology of American organizational life. Coming out of that rubble is one of the most serious tasks facing Orthodox Christian communities (I cannot speak for any other community and only speak of the Orthodox community as a member - not as its official spokesman). “How is the forgiving, unrelenting love of Christ to be displayed in the community of which I am a part?” This may be the only serious theological question of our lives. It certainly is a question that cannot be ignored. It is what theology looks like.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm and is filed under The Church, Orthodox Christianity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

oh, sorry Corey. I guess I should have said that I believe it's best to do evangelism (and everything else) working from the clear to the opaque. In other words, it is CLEAR and SURE that when we know/accept/have a relationship with Christ we have eternal life. Anything outside of that is not clear or sure. I would say evangelism should be based on what we know to be clear.

better?