tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post1582534086441736824..comments2024-03-27T15:57:45.646+11:00Comments on Set Apart In Christ: Incarnation, Atonement and HolinessAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11729367092929790809noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-18656034391919750352009-10-23T16:26:09.056+11:002009-10-23T16:26:09.056+11:00This is an extract from a review of Weaver's b...This is an extract from a review of Weaver's book - non-violent atonement. Weaver is a respected Mennonite scholar, which is to say, a pacifist. I wonder if Hauerwas has done anything around this, following Yoder, who was also a Mennonite. They would be impossible to ignore in any such discussion, particularly Hauerwas. <br /><br />The saving work of Jesus is his struggle against and victory over the structural evil powers of this world. Weaver adds “narrative” to the phrase Christus Victor because some might focus this battle entirely on Jesus’ death. Weaver’s point is that the saving work is one continuous story, in which the cross is just one moment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-38540333018445774272009-10-23T16:15:35.744+11:002009-10-23T16:15:35.744+11:00Do we have to talk about the crucifixon in atoneme...Do we have to talk about the crucifixon in atonement language? Couldn't we talk about atonement in incarnational language? It seems possible from your blog - God makes a move towards us - that is incarnational language. Isn't it 'god with us' that makes us one with God? <br /><br />The idea of the crucifixion as atonement is interpretive. Admittedly this interpretation is biblical, but that does not cancel out the interpretive act of the biblical writers, nor does it necessarily make it authentically Lukan, Johannine or Pauline (I haven't checked this out - it would be very interesting) - Canonization both implies and demands interpretation - hence, the history of biblical studies!<br /><br />Like I said previously, I am no expert - on the NT or theology. But I do feel like there is something in this. I am sure I have seen or read something about non-violent atonement theory. Give me some time to see what I can find.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-34804108505261433242009-10-23T06:01:31.745+11:002009-10-23T06:01:31.745+11:00Adam, we may be on the same page. Holiness/Mission...Adam, we may be on the same page. Holiness/Mission intersection is the direction in which I'm taking my MA dissertation. I hope to see a copy of your book before then ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-21344186155226621632009-10-22T23:27:58.683+11:002009-10-22T23:27:58.683+11:00Just want to respond to the "violence of the ...Just want to respond to the "violence of the atonement". I'm not sure we really have much choice. It's hard to discuss the atonement without at some stage discussing the brutality of a Roman crucifixion. If we believe that Christ could have come at any moment in history, why then? Why the time when the most brutal form of capitol punishment was in use? Why not now when more "humane" (a contradiction in terms, I know) forms are used throughout the world? <br /><br />If we want an understanding of the atonement that is "non-violent" I'm not sure this issue can be overcome. <br /><br />Did you have something specific in mind Anthony? I'd be really interested in your response to this.<br /><br />Thanks<br />AdamAdam Couchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617683663818450549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-2401968208377447932009-10-22T10:22:22.233+11:002009-10-22T10:22:22.233+11:00Hey Adam,
There is something that I think is alw...Hey Adam, <br /><br />There is something that I think is always missed in the Army's rhetoric around holiness, and that is that God is 'Other' - the ultimate other. Holiness likewise, is other - the other which stems from God's 'Other-ness'. Holiness then is in a sense foreign to our experience, foreign (in some way) to our existence, though I understand that statement creates as many problems as it solves. This is a high view of holiness, perhaps even some would argue, an unattainable view.<br /><br />Conversely, my impression is that the Army takes a low view of holiness, by which I mean that holiness seems to be reduced to human activity. It is almost like there is a new holiness code, the living out of which is the evidence that one is holy. This view is of course, absurd. Holiness is reflected through the human life - it must be, if it is of any value. It is a common maxim that there is no holiness aside from social holiness - it is trite but it is correct. Nonetheless, this is in no way the sum of holiness, which I feel it is sometimes(most often?) represented as. The whole point is that we aren't holy that way! So it makes us, in some sense, both holy (perhaps) and unholy (certainly), all at once. <br /><br />The other issue is the exaltation of the individual's holiness and the now almost invisible concept of the church's holiness, which is in my mind far more important, though that is another issue all together!<br /><br />A final point; on atonement. Does the violence of the atonement metaphor serve us any favours these days? In a time when religious violence is anathema, does this symbolism help us. Also, why is there an undue attention on Christ's death? He didn't die to become our Lord, he had always been our Lord. It is as much in his life as in his death, perhaps even more so, that he teaches us God's nature; about what holiness is - the classic statement in my view being the Christological hymn of Philippians 2. (I understand this talks about his death(!) - I am referring more specifically to the issue of kenosis).<br /><br />Anyway, this is now too long and is taking me in directions in which I am by no means an expert! (which is of course, any direction)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-15167878794177857732009-10-22T09:12:49.092+11:002009-10-22T09:12:49.092+11:00Hey Stephen (aka missionlatte)
Just went to your ...Hey Stephen (aka missionlatte)<br /><br />Just went to your blog and realised that was you hiding behind that funky name. Makes me think of Blues Brothers - "we're on a mission with coffee!"<br /><br />Catch ya soon<br />AdamAdam Couchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617683663818450549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-53820474548699850192009-10-22T09:08:34.790+11:002009-10-22T09:08:34.790+11:00Hey missionlatte...
There's a whole other blo...Hey missionlatte...<br /><br />There's a whole other blog in what you have written, in fact it's actually the thesis of a book I've had in mind and starting working on!!! So, I wholeheartedly agree with what you have said in response. I have suggested that the "character" of God is in fact holiness and so our holiness comes from relationship with the holy God. However, God's holiness (who he is) is revealed by God's holy action (what he has done). Therefore, holiness and mission are not two distinct things, but rather two sides of the one coin. Holiness without mission is not holiness. So too, mission without holiness is not mission.<br /><br />Definitely a thought worth pursuing. I can only encourage you to continue seeking this out.<br /><br />God bless.<br />AdamAdam Couchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617683663818450549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-76372197297543082112009-10-22T03:54:10.208+11:002009-10-22T03:54:10.208+11:00Adam,
This is a helpful and thought-provoking pos...Adam,<br /><br />This is a helpful and thought-provoking post and one that I will come back to. I wonder if your post had been entitled, "Incarnation, Atonement, Holiness and Mission" how you would connect the mission of the Church? Just as holiness is meaningless without a relationship with the One who is the source of all holiness, then mission must be an outworking of that relationship. Incarnation and Atonement reconcile humanity and creator and that reconciliation is the fulfilment of the <i>missio dei</i>. The Leviticus call to be holy is about a corporate response more than an individual response. I think we have lost sight of corporate responsibility in a branch of the Church that, rightly, emphasises personal relationship with Christ and personal holiness. If we accept that the Church is the visible and tangible presence of Christ in His world then there are implications for corporate holiness and corporate mission.<br /><br />I am just kicking ideas around in this response - none are fully formed - but you have got me thinking, for which I am grateful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com