Kruse Kronicle

Acting with Tentative Finality in an “Already/Not Yet” World

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

We’ve been having a great discussion at Jesus Creed about John Stackhouse’s Making the Best of It. In the course of the dialog, I wrote:

I think we’re all aware that we do not live in the new creation. But how much better can we expect life to be this side of new creation? There are idealists that tend to believe we have reached a high point in human affairs and our energy needs to be put into preserving and protecting what we have achieved. How do they know further improvements can’t be made to human affairs and that their rigidity is hindering a fuller expression of the Kingdom of God? Then there are idealists who believe we can far more closely approximate the new creation than we do now. How do they know their reconfiguration of institutions and society is going to bring about the closer approximation, or that indeed a closer approximation is possible?

I’m skeptical of idealists of either variety and yet I find that according to the “true believers” from either perspective I’m in their opposing camp.

Another commenter asked a very legitimate question:

Is the middle ground group just trying to “have their cake and eat it too.”

That is a legitimate question. And I think others would charge that what I’ve stated merely leads to tepid cultural accommodation. I believe this is precisely the critique Hauerwas enthusiasts would have of me. Here is my (edited) response.

Personally, I would reject the characterization of finding a middle ground. Rather, it is the radical embrace of polar realities. 1) We are to work for the greatest shalom we can create in the world. 2) There will be no realization of shalom this side of the new creation.

We have to hold on to each pole as tenaciously as the other, even as we confess that we are finite human beings with unclean lips who live among a people of unclean lips. The paradox presses us back upon God and relationship for our final hope and discernment. I’m suspicious that idealism of either the conservative or progressive varieties is an attempt to escape the tension God has placed us within. It leads us away from dependence and humility, and all too often toward moralistic hubris.

All that said, if we’re going to wait until we’ve figured out every angle before we act, we will be paralyzed. That is why we must achieve what I’d call a tentative finality about what we should do and how we should act. We act on our conclusions with conviction but with the door open for revision. We present our choice of actions as our best discernment not as the voice of God. The quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, all operating in tetralectic fashion (Stackhouse's term for the four-way conversation between these) will continue to form us.  

“Field of Dreams” has a scene where Moonlight Graham is at the plate and has been knocked down by two inside pitches. One of his teammates pulls him aside and asks, “He just threw you two pitches inside. What does that tell you about where he will through the next one?” Graham responds, “In my ear?” The teammate responds “No. He’s setting you up for an outside pitch …. but watch out for in your ear.” That is tentative finality in discernment.

Comments

15 responses to “Acting with Tentative Finality in an “Already/Not Yet” World”

  1. Dan Brennan Avatar
    Dan Brennan

    Good observations, Michael.
    I like the polarities in all their fullness. To embrace the realization that we won’t fully experience shalom on this side of the new creation does not mean we enter into some of kind of detached, “que sera, sera.” It is because we are in the new creation however–in all of its vast complexity and interconnectedness–that we can work for and experience shalom in friendships and communities on this side with surprising depth.

    Reply
  2. Virgil Avatar
    Virgil

    “I think we’re all aware that we do not live in the new creation.”
    Bah…the very first sentence is a premise that I cannot accept, and it directly contradicts the idea that we are now living under a “new convenant” which is itself the new creation. Nicodemus had problems understanding the new creation because he also expected a physical re-creation or re-birth.
    The “new heavens and new earth” spoken of in 2 Peter 3 are the renewing of the covenant relationship between man and God. In fact, Mike I think you posted here recently something about 2 Peter 3 where you pointed out that the meaning of “heavens and earth” and the understanding that their “passing” means a physical destruction of the Universe may be wrong.
    Just as Noah’s flood cleansed and renewed the creation at that time (without annihilating it), the fiery passing away of heavens and earth was simply a reference to the burning of the temple in AD 70 and the end of the Jewish animal sacrifice system. That’s how God proclaimed “Behold, I make all things new.”

    Reply
  3. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Thanks Dan.
    Virgil, does it change things if I say … we do not live in the fully consummated new creation?
    My understanding is that with Christ’s return there were will be continuity and discontinuity. Christ is the firstborn of all creation. The new creation is here but embryonic. At a juncture in time the developing new creation will be delivered from the womb. There is continuity between the child in the womb and the child who is born but there is discontinuity about the as well. When I say we don’t know live in the new creation I’m saying the new creation is not yet born.
    Any metaphor has weakness. My point in saying “Already/Not Yet” or saying we are not living in the new creation is to say we are living this side of the discontinuity that is to come.

    Reply
  4. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    Michael I agree with the denouncement of conservative or progressive idealism. But frankly I’ve seen you make a few Hauerwas comments in the past couple months that simply belie the fact that you’ve only read Resident Aliens a while ago (by your own admission). I’m not saying you need to do a dissertation on Hauerwas to critique him, but I sincerely doubt you’ve wrestled with his thought. Especially because he considers himself a realist. In fact, contrasting himself to a Milbankian desire for a new Christendom he notes that he doesn’t believe Christians are to ‘win’ in this world rather we are just to ‘endure.’ That sure doesn’t sound idealist to me, no matter what some of his trendy interlocutors might say.

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Fair nuf Darren. In my defense, I did say “Hauerwas enthusiasts.” 🙂
    Stackhouse identifies three general modes that Christians have pursued to cultural transformation.
    What I sense about Hauerwas, at least from those we are deeply into him, is the same thing I sense from Yoder: Too stark a distinction between two Kingdoms and disparagement of human institutions like commerce and government.
    I’m always open to learning more.

    Reply
  6. Virgil Avatar
    Virgil

    Mike, I can see what you are getting at, but I need to ask a question so I can understand how you see the coming discontinuity. How do you envision this to take place, is it an even of physical nature, or perhaps one’s death, etc?
    To me, the “birth” metaphor used (especially in light of Nicodemus’ story) supports this idea of “renewing of minds” that I believe Jesus was teaching. The metanoia for believers is a real passing into the new creation as far as I am concerned: you are in Christ, you are a new creation. That’s why to me, the “already but not yet” construct is not offering a satisfactory answer, especially in portraying Christ as “victorious” over his enemies. In your opinion, does a renewing of one’s mind in Christ qualify as what you call “discontinuity?” I think we may be talking about the same thing here in this context 🙂
    As far as the idea of “enduring” (referenced by Darren) goes, that is seemingly taken out of its first century context. First century Christians were to “endure” under their present circumstances (severe persecution by the Jewish priests and religious leaders) until the Son of Man comes to deliver them. The destruction of the temple (at least to me) satisfies all the criteria demanded: a new creation, deliverance from persecution, satisfaction regarding Matthew 24, Luke 21, fulfillment of the book of Revelation, fulfillment of 2 Peter 3.
    It is all a change of covenants, and it has to be since the overarching Scriptural narrative is itself a covenantal story. Ultimately I don’t even think this is about “me” – it’s about the creation as a whole, the community of God’s people.

    Reply
  7. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    Part of the issue Virgil is understood in Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation. There is a parallel between what happens on the level of heavenly powers and what happens in the earthly realm (notice I did not say earthly temporal realm, since heaven as different space and matter does not entail different time necessarily). Yet because Christ is ascended there is a tension between his presence and his absence. Of course he is present through the Spirit, the Word, the Sacraments and the least of these, but in his resurrected human bodily form he is absent to us (except it may be argued in the Eucharist). Similarly, as the marriage of heaven and earth approaches there is both continuity (the Resurrection really inaugurates the new creation) and discontinuity (the powers resist and persecution ensues). The final melding of heaven and earth is fully, completely and utterly an act of God’s grace. Therefore, we are to endure, not in some passive, alienated, keeping-our-own-purity-while-the-world-deteriorates sense that Michael and others would like to attribute to Hauerwas (or Yoder, who is read through a Hauerwasian lens), but in the sense that even as we do all we can, building for the kingdom, ultimately we know that it is not about our effectiveness, but our faithfulness.

    Reply
  8. Darren Avatar
    Darren

    You are right to emphasize covenant, but that merely strengthens the need to emphasize the historical outworking of God’s plan. To say that, “The destruction of the temple (at least to me) satisfies all the criteria demanded: a new creation, deliverance from persecution, satisfaction regarding Matthew 24, Luke 21, fulfillment of the book of Revelation, fulfillment of 2 Peter 3” sure does make me wonder what we do with all the Christians being persecuted and martyred right now? The ascended Christ is Lord, not the Church, so there is no room for triumphalism that seeks to coerce the world into being the kingdom now.

    Reply
  9. Virgil Avatar
    Virgil

    “Of course he is present through the Spirit, the Word, the Sacraments and the least of these, but in his resurrected human bodily form he is absent to us (except it may be argued in the Eucharist).”
    Darren, again, there are premises established here that I cannot readily accept. Your assumption above is that the “natural” or “permanent” state of existence for Christ is one of a physical, human body, yet there is little evidence to suggest that. Rather Christ has always been together with the Father, not in a human form, but in a “spiritual” mode of existence.
    I submit to you that a 6 foot tall middle-eastern human named Jesus standing in front of me will not add a single inch to my faith; it will not bring me any further in God’s presence. In fact, that will detract from the power of my faith, which is that of believing in an unseen God; we are attempting to take an infinite, immense, indescribable God and limit him to a shape and form that we can relate to. This was already done.
    Whenever I have those kinds of conversations it usually becomes apparent that the root of the issue is over the definition of the word “presence” (parousia) and our expectation of what that presence of Jesus entails. It’s really a matter of what Jesus meant when he referenced parousia.
    What is your take on that? Do you think that a spiritual presence of Jesus is any lesser than the presence of a physical human body?

    Reply
  10. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “How do you envision this to take place, is it an even of physical nature, or perhaps one’s death, etc?”
    I haven’t a clue of the specifics. Jesus is the firstborn of about the specifics new creation. New creation is very much physical. Physicality is part of our ontology. We were made material beings to be in dominion over a material world and restoration of that is part of what it will mean to be in new creation.
    Jesus is the firstborn of a new creation. Jesus was physically identifiable as Jesus after the resurrection. He had materiality. He could be handled. Yet he also could apparently enter and depart rooms without using doors and windows. 🙂 Our bodies will be resurrected but we are told that there will be no more death and there will no longer marriage. Something clearly will have changed about the physics of material existence but as C. S. Lewis describes things will be come super real not less so.
    I see new creation as both a present reality (already) and a promissory note (not yet.) We are not what we were because we have been reborn. We are not what we will be because the new creation has yet to be consummated in Christ.

    Reply
  11. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Darren, you wrote:
    “Therefore, we are to endure, not in some passive, alienated, keeping-our-own-purity-while-the-world-deteriorates sense that Michael and others would like to attribute to Hauerwas (or Yoder, who is read through a Hauerwasian lens), but in the sense that even as we do all we can, building for the kingdom, ultimately we know that it is not about our effectiveness, but our faithfulness.”
    I haven’t had the sense that Hauerwas is expecting “eeping-our-own-purity-while-the-world-deteriorates.” On the contrary, I perceive that he is about transformation through faithful (non-violent) confrontation and non-cooperation, exposing the falsehood of the world and exemplifying a radical new Kingdom alternative to draw people into the Kingdom. It is the radical confrontation and non-cooperation, or sharply defining where one world end and the other begins that I react against.
    I echo Virgil’s observations about “endure” and Stackhouse makes a similar case. The first century church lived under a time of considerable oppression and hostility. If the nature of the relationship between the church and society becomes more amenable, is confrontation and non-cooperation still the posture we are called to take? Are we absolutizing a posture that was appropriate to a first century context to all other contexts? I get that sense from many Hauerwasians, and especially Yoder.

    Reply
  12. Virgil Avatar
    Virgil

    New creation is very much physical. Physicality is part of our ontology. We were made material beings to be in dominion over a material world and restoration of that is part of what it will mean to be in new creation.
    Mike, does this mean that we will hold to a physical existence for the rest of eternity? What about the “heavenly” or “spiritual” aspect of our existence, and the unseen nature of God? That seems contradictory.
    There are many issues raised by this kind of approach. One that immediately comes to mind is the nature of hell. A physical eternal existence immediately implies a counterpart physical hell where non believers are being physically tormented forever; it also raises many hermeneutical questions about the book of Revelation. It brings to my mind Hebrews 9 and the picture is being presented of Jesus as a High Priest returning in glory after presenting himself as a sacrifice. This seems to be all spiritual imagery which is related to a covenantal change: Israel becomes the Church and the Church becomes the true and NEW Israel of God. The creation is renewed through those dynamic relationships between us and our Creator, relationships which in turn have a literal, real world outcome; i.e. the spiritual teaching of “love your neighbor” literally translates into a physical outpouring of love by feeding, helping, providing for each other. The examples are many.
    I wish you and I had more time to discuss those important things; writing back and forth is kind of cumbersome, not to mention extremely lengthy 🙂

    Reply
  13. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Virgil, you are raising some important issues. I’m bringing in our conversation with Bo, you, and me from the earlier discussion. Others who want to look back at that dialog can go to: The Earth Destroyed by Fire?

    Reply
  14. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    (Virgil, here is your last comment from the other thread.)
    Michael, think covenantally here, that’s what Paul is contrasting. Romans 8 is specifically hard to understand if we do not thing in terms of covenants. Note even early in chapter 7 Paul is dealing with the old covenant body which is illustrated in his own flesh “body of death.” (7:24) Yet, life can only be found “in the spirit” (8:10).
    Throughout Romans 8 Paul is creating the tension between Old Covenant (Law, Old Creation) and the New Covenant (New Creation) in which “the redemption of OUR BODY (singular) will take place. He is even using the imagery of birth (the entire creation was in birth pains) UNTIL NOW.
    The New Creation which was ready to be born while Paul was writing Romans happened in the first century. Remember, the Jewish temple was the ultimate standing symbol of the Jewish law, the body of death, the place where animals were being sacrificed on our behalf. That body of death was destroyed and a new body of Christ (the Church) finally was inaugurated into God’s presence; only in this body can one find life. The Church is the New Creation, the New Jerusalem, the New Israel, the new “living body.”
    If I may recommend, there is a fantastic treatment of this issue in a book titled The Cross and the Parousia, written by Max King. You can get a copy of it at presence.tv if you are interested.
    One last issue, the “already/not yet” idea has major soteriological implications and it creates a real dilemma from that perspective. One of the Planet Preterist columnists did a quick overview of this a couple of years ago and you might consider checking it out: http://planetpreterist.com/news-179.html
    By the way, I hope you realize that I am not arguing with you; I like this interaction because it’s defrosting my brain 🙂

    Reply
  15. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    It wouldn’t be possible to review all the relevant passages in a single thread of comments, although I have thought about building elaborating more on this stuff in a series of posts later in the year. Here is my summary of how I see things without lots of reference to specific scripture.
    It is my position that much about teleos (end purposes) can be ascertained from ontology (our being). The way something exists (i.e., was created) tells gives us important information about its end purpose. But material existence, being dependent on God as it is can only point to penultimate purposes. I think the purpose of creation itself has to come from outside creation.
    So first, let’s start with that great Westminster statement, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” as a possible summary of God’s purposes humanity. Keep in mind here that there is an archaic notion of “enjoy.” The joy is about God’s state not ours. We put joy into God, or “in-joy” him.
    If the Westminster divines got this right, then we might conclude that relationship is the purpose for which we were made. Can we imagine beings with a spirit existence in which we have relationship that is absent a material existence? Yes. Is that the way we were created. No. We were created as material beings for a material world. If it was all about spirit, then why create a material world and create us as material beings in the first place? It is part of our ontology to be material beings, relating to each other as material beings, and to the material world. Not to be in this state means we are no longer human and therefore not what God created us to be.
    God gives us a mission that is consistent with our ontology:
    God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” NRSV
    We were made for earth, to be God’s eikons upon the earth, representing him to all creation, to each other, and back to God. Yes, we live in community with God but we also participate in reflecting God by creatively exercising dominion over a domain, bringing it to its full potential. This eikon quality is central to how we glorify God. I’m convinced that from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, God’s mission is to have world filled with his eikons in relationship to him and each other as they exercise co-creative regency of the world.
    The “fill” and “rule” are the commands given to Adam and Eve. Sin enters into the world and the project is now corrupted, not abandoned. Noah preserved in the flood and is given the same mission. The next story is Babel where the people gather rather than go out to fill the earth. God disperses them.
    Beginning in Genesis 12, we get hints about God’s strategy to reverse the curse. Abraham will be a great nation through whom all are blessed. As we move on through the narrative we see God carve out for himself a people and a land through whom the earth will be blessed. Christopher Wright (“The Mission of God”) represents this as a triangle with God at top point, the people of Israel at the lower left point, and the land of Israel at the lower right point. But this triangle exists inside a larger triangle, though both meet at the top point, which is God. In the larger triangle, the lower left point is humanity and the lower right is the whole earth. Wright uses this graphic to display that God’s mission in scripture is to expand the smaller triangle (God, the people of Israel, the land of Israel) until it comes to occupy the entire larger triangle (God, humanity, the earth.)
    Israel never was able to visualize beyond the smaller triangle. By Jesus’ day, many Jews had come to believe in a resurrection at the return of the messiah. It was very much an earthly new era the dead would be raised to join.
    I don’t believe Jesus abandoned this. He expanded it. He altered the focus from the small triangle so we could see the big triangle. God is indeed going to fill the world with his eikons and the church gives dim witness to what that future is going to mean as it draws others into living according to the coming reality. At some point in time, just as the Jews believed Christ will consummate the new creation, the dead in Christ will be raised to be a part of that Kingdom, but the material nature of existence will in some ways be fundamentally altered. There will be continuity with the past but also radical discontinuity with the past. But the bottom line is that God will have achieved his mission to have world filled the earth with his eikons in relationship to him and each other as they exercise co-creative regency of the world. Our teleos evident in our ontology at creation will have been redeemed.
    I’m not a full Preterist (but likely a partial Preterist.) I’m convinced of a coming resurrection. I think the scripture had something in view beyond 70 AD concerning resurrection. The Early Church fathers all had a coming resurrection in view. I think a spirit from body separation is a product of Greek dualism not the NT church. I see no conflict for soteriology. I’d have to know more about that.
    Thanks for the suggested resources. I’ll look into it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading