Recently I was in a dialogue with one of our participants here at TFD. I was doing some net research that led me to a review of a book written by two feminist theologians, Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker. The book is titled “The Theology of Presence.” What I actually found was an interview of its two authors by a journalist named Jessica Jernigan. The journalist’s interview was preceded by a summary of the book which I will quote here:

“There is violence at the heart of Christianity. No one who looks at a representation of the crucifixion or Michelangelo's Pietà can question this fact. Some Christians, though, have questioned their religion's reaction to this fact. Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us is a strong, feminist repudiation of atonement theology. In this deeply personal work of reflection and remembrance, Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker argue that belief in the saving power of Jesus's death has created a culture in which violence and suffering are accepted, in which destructive self-sacrifice is endured by the faithful—and especially by women. Rather than build a message of salvation around a traumatic and torturous death—God's murder of his own son—Brock and Parker suggest that Christians seek salvation through love, through compassionate connection with God and the world. They suggest a theology not of atonement, but of presence.” http://www.bordersstores.com/features/feature.jsp?file=brockparker

Obviously, from the perspective of orthodox Christianity, this book and its thesis are way out in left field. The authors are literally attempting to remove the atoning sacrifice of Christ from its central position in Christian theology. What is driving this desire to overthrow the cross is the idea that Christ’s suffering and unjust death are tragic examples of violence that need to be replaced with a kinder and gentler paradigm of God’s love. But, why, you may ask, cannot these feminist theologians see that Christ’s suffering is a wonderful example of God’s love for us and a model of Christian virtue? I am going to suggest a reason why they cannot accept the violence of the cross.

I believe that these feminist theologians are making a critical error that cannot be found in ancient or medieval times. It emerged in the nineteenth century with the rise of philosophical anarchism led by people such as Kropotkin, Bakunin, Marx and Lenin.

This error is the belief that it is possible for humans to live in peace and harmony without the need for just laws made effective by the exercise of coercive force. People such as Mikhail Bakunin [1814-1876] and Karl Marx [1818-1883] advocated that the ultimate ideal for humanity was the elimination of government as an irremediable evil. The state was seen as oppressive with its laws and coercive force. Therefore, they believed that when the right external conditions were established, especially in regard to the production and distribution of wealth, a “new man” would emerge capable of living in peace and harmony without the need for coercion.

The bloody experience of the twentieth-century convinced most people that the utopian fantasy of a peaceful anarchy was not only unrealizable but dangerous. However, hope springs eternal in the hearts of some utopians. Many of these philosophic utopians have now set up shop in the church as “theologians.” They resist the idea that man’s fallen nature necessitates restraint through just laws and coercive government—particularly within the church. They believe that if we get the conditions just right through proper Christian theology and polity that there will be no need for hierarchical church government and we will progress toward reconciliation of all differences by purely peaceful means. For some of these theologians this endeavor must start with scrubbing Christianity clean of all its “violent” concepts—chief of which is the atoning sacrifice of Christ on a cruel cross.

I have previously written on God’s establishment of a universal principle of hierarchy. The fact is the whole universe is ordered by way of a hierarchy stretching from the omnipotent glory and sovereignty of the Trinity through the angelic host, mankind, the animal kingdom and all of nature. Not only has God established a universal hierarchy but, because of its pervasiveness, He seems absolutely enamored with the whole idea of ordered government. This reality, of course, is anathema to egalitarians. Philosophical anarchism is an extreme form of egalitarianism. Obviously, some feminist theologians and other Christian utopians have accepted the failed notions of philosophic anarchism. They tend to believe that government, laws, and coercive measures are not part of God’s perfect plan for nature and His kingdom. The fact is, though, God’s divine government and His law are expressions of His very nature. Likewise, because the universe better expresses God’s nature through His creation of free creatures, there must be coercive measures to deal with moral evil. If you have free creatures you must have coercion to deal with evil. Hence here we find the necessity of the cross and of divine punishment. Likewise, within the church there must be found the redemptive work of the cross and hierarchical government which can apply coercive measures when necessary. God both forgives and punishes. So must His church.

Philosophic anarchists detest this conception of God and want very much to transform Christianity into their utopian image. The lessons of history teach us that this philosophy has been the source of vast mischief and misery. Mischief and misery are the result of defying God’s eternal law which is an expression of His nature.

There have been many theories offered throughout church history as to how Christ could be both God and man. One theory was developed by Apollinaris Laodicea (c.310-c.390) who was a follower of Aruis but realized that the Son of God could not be a creature. He wrote against Arianism but came up with a failed view of Christ's humanity. Apollinarius struggled with how it could be possible for Christ to be the Creator and yet have sadness, fear and other very human reactions. He came to the conclusion that there was some form of human soul in Christ which gave life to his human body. However, he believed that this soul didn’t have its own higher faculties. Instead, Christ’s reason and intellect was supplied by the Son of God. For Apollinarius and his followers, this seemed to solve the problem in the sense that Christ’s lower faculties and body were subject to such things as sadness and fear but his higher nature could stand above these.

There are a number of problems with Apollinaris’ solution. First, the very concept of a “nature” is incompatible with the possibility that a non-rational being could be a man. The definition of a human is that he/she is a “rational being.” In other words, if Christ did not have a truly rational soul, then he was not truly human. Additionally, it is repugnant that Christ’s Incarnation be such that he was united with something distorted and malformed.

Another big problem with Apollinaris’ solution is that it misses one of the grand purposes of the Incarnation, namely, the restoration of human nature. All of man’s nature needed to be restored to God’s original plan and purpose. Above all, human nature needed to be restored in the sphere of the intellect. It is through man’s higher mental faculties that he willfully acts to do good or evil and to love and hate. Consequently, it was supremely appropriate that the Son of God assume man’s intellectual nature. Finally, the Scripture says that Christ “marveled” (Matt. 8:10). One cannot be surprised without a rational soul (cognitively) and it is impossible for God to be surprised. We must, then, admit that because Christ experienced wonderment at certain things that he must have had a fully rational human soul.

Christ had two natures.

For some reason I received the February, 2007 issue of Christianity Today at home in the mail. I didn’t subscribe; however, I perused most of the magazine. What caught my interest was an article by Scot McKnight, “Five Streams of the Emerging Church.” McKnight is professor of religious studies at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago. Among the five “Streams of the Emerging Church,” McKnight notes that the emerging church is post-Evangelical and post-systematic theology. Here is what he says:

“The emerging movement tends to be suspicious of systematic theology. Why? Not because we don’t read systematics, but because the diversity of theologies alarms us, no genuine consensus has been achieved, God didn’t reveal a systematic theology but a storied narrative, and no language is capable of capturing the Absolute Truth who alone is God.”

I’ll stop here to make a few comments and then return to McKnight’s quote.

McKnight notes that the emerging movement is incredulous of systematic theology because there are a diversity of theologies. I do not believe this is true in regard to what it means to be Christian. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants agree on the creedal concepts outlined in the first seven ecumenical councils of the church. These creedal concepts are a summary of orthodox doctrine in regard to God, Christ and salvation.

Secondly, McKnight states that God “didn’t reveal a systematic theology but a storied narrative.” This is only partially true. There are obviously plenty of narrative sections in the Bible including the four Gospels. However, even the Gospels include lengthy didactic teaching from Jesus. Additionally, most of the epistles were written to deal with false doctrine and, therefore, present apostolic teaching to clarify and identify what is true from what is false. A classic example of this are the creedal statements included in epistles like Philippians, Colossians and 1 Corinthians. Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and notice how systematic Paul is at presenting essential Christian beliefs.

Thirdly, McKnight notes that “no language is capable of capturing the Absolute Truth who alone is God.” This is a straw-man argument. Systematic theology never attempts to fully define or capture the infinite nature of God. However, systematic theology presents those truths that safeguard Christian belief from false doctrine. For instance, systematic theology rightly defines the fundamental nature of God as Trinity. Why? This is because the Bible presents God to us as one and also that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each God. We could just leave it at that, except without clear definition of God’s nature—as sure as I am writing this essay—a false teacher will arise to define God’s nature in such a way as to make Christ less then divine—guaranteed. Therefore, the greater danger is to throw systematic theology overboard for a feel-good “storied narrative.” This will only make Christians a large target for Satan’s manifold schemes, chief of which are his false teachers.

McKnight’s article continued to say:

“Frankly, the emerging movement loves ideas and theology. It just doesn’t have an airtight system or statement of faith. We believe the Great Tradition offers various ways for telling the truth about God’s redemption in Christ, but we don’t believe any one theology gets it absolutely right.”

Here we have another straw-man argument. No one I know of is suggesting that humans ever get it “absolutely right” theologically. That’s why we have God’s Word to reveal truth to us. Additionally, Christians do not believe that all of God’s truth is revealed in Scripture. However, the important points are revealed, and it is these points that come under serious attack. McKnight notes that “the Great Tradition offers various ways for telling the truth about God’s redemption in Christ” and we “don’t believe any one theology gets it absolutely right.” Does this mean the Mormons have part of it right? Which part--the part about the Godhead being three distinct “personages?” Does this mean the Jehovah’s Witnesses have the part right about Jesus being Jehovah in a different manifestation? These are not unimportant questions for McKnight and the emerging church to consider. For one thing, both the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have plenty of people who know their doctrine. Therefore, if Christians are unsure about what part of the “Great Tradition” is “telling the truth”, others will be happy to oblige them by providing clarity. However, that clarity may not be from the Holy Spirit, rather, it may be from another spirit.

(A meditation on ST I, 105, 5)

Here is my thesis; it is a well-intentioned mistake try to give God more glory by denying the efficacy of His creatures. This is akin to refusing to recognize a ruler’s official representatives; it detracts from the ruler and insults his authority. The point is that some people think that it is impossible for the same work to proceed from two sources. These people think that if a human operates freely then God cannot at the same time be in control of all things. This is classic either/or thinking. Consequently, they believe that a creature’s activity must ultimately be God operating through the creature. However, by denying the efficacy of creatures, God is denigrated. Here is why.

The first reason is that the operation of cause and effect for all created things would be eliminated. All effects would actually be caused by God. No created thing would cause anything. Some people may think that this gives glory to God because the creature is “nothing” or creatures cannot do anything “without God”, but this actually implies a lack of power in God. The principle here is that the greater the power the more it can bestow active or free agency upon its effects. It is a greater thing for God to give free agency to humans than for Him to operate directly through them. The difference is between a puppet and an independently operating creature. God is more powerful because he can create independently operating creatures and still work through them.

The second reason has to do with purpose. If creatures don’t actually operate for themselves then their purpose for existence is a sham. In a very real way, all created things would seem to be purposeless if they didn’t have their own proper operations. Why create anything if God does everything? The purpose of a creature is to “do its thing”: fish do fish things; rocks do what rocks do, etc. The particular operation of a creature is its purpose. Birds fly and fish swim because that is what birds and fish do. The purpose of humans is to do that which is human. If you take away the power to act as a human, then there is no purpose for humans and their existence is a sham.

What all this means is that God is so powerful that He works in things in such a way that things have their own proper operation. Humans have a proper operation of free agency; yet, God can work through man’s free agency because He is its primary source and cause.

I thought it would be interesting to write a post about what it will be like after the resurrection of the dead. I put this in a general sense because the Bible teaches that all humans will be resurrected (Acts 24:15).

The first thing that we see is that each person will have the same body that he/she had in this life except they will be without defect. The idea that we can inhabit someone else’s body or the body of an animal is foreign to biblical faith. We are a psychosomatic unit (1 Cor. 15:42-44). However, our risen bodies will be of a different quality than that of our mortal bodies. For one thing, our resurrected bodies will be incorruptible (both the righteous and the damned). This means that they won’t wear out or age—that’s good news for most of us (1 Cor. 15:42). They will also be immortal, meaning they will never die (1 Cor. 15:53). Because our bodies will never age or die, there will no longer be any need for food or marital relations. Jesus said to the Sadducees, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). The angels are never married, have never been married, will never be married and have never been through any kind of earthly or heavenly marriage ceremony. Despite what some religions believe, the Bible does not teach that we go to paradise to get 72 virgins to pleasure us nor do we have celestial marital relations in the afterlife.

A good case can be made that we will rise in the condition of the perfect human age which is thirty-two or thirty-three years. How do you get that? You ask. Ephesians 4:13 says, “till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” And 1John 3:2 says, “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” These Scriptures seem to indicate that we will be like Jesus the “perfect man.” We believe that he was approximately 33 years of age at his passion. It is interesting to note that studies by the National Institute of Mental Heath indicate that the human brain does not fully develop until we reach our early thirties.

The Bible indicates that the resurrected bodies of the blessed will be endowed with four incredible properties.

One property will be brilliance. Jesus explicitly stated in Matthew 13:42-43 that at the end of the age the angels “…will cast them (the wicked) into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

Another property will be impassibility. To be impassible does not mean to be without concern or to be impersonally detached. It means to be insusceptible to injury from external things. The Bible states it this way in Revelation 21:4, “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

The resurrected bodies of the blessed will also have a wonderful agility. We see this in the descriptions of Christ’s appearances after His resurrection. He would suddenly appear before His apostles even when they were hidden behind locked doors (John 20:19).

Finally, the resurrected bodies of the blessed will have what is known as subtility. This doesn’t just mean that we will have pliable muscles and joints. This refers to how our bodies will not rebel against us (as described by Paul in Romans 7) but will be subject to our souls. We see by Christ passing through material barriers that His body was completely subject to His direction.

Unfortunately, the resurrected bodies of the wicked will not share in the glory of these four things. For instance, their bodies will not be brilliant shining like the sun. Likewise they will suffer the pains of eternal separation from God (there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth”). In short, while their bodies will be immortal, they will not be in a glorious state of existence.