As I go through some of my journal entries while working on my thesis, I’m going to be posting a few of them that won’t be involved in it but seem appropriate to share. Here’s my first journal entry:
Wilderness and Action (March 9, 2016)
Bugbee has been speaking about being open to the imperatives situations elicit: about knowing the ‘right thing’ to do in a given situation because of one’s openness to understanding what necessities present themselves. I’m reminded of Samuel Well’s talk of the Christian life being one of improvisation. The Christian has the theme and plot, perhaps even the sketch of the character’s direction. As Merleau-Ponty discusses the self as being what it is becoming, the direction of a character is that which the character is to aim to be (consider the φρονέω ‘mindedness’ or direction towards the humility of Christ (Phil 2:1-11) Paul encourages Christians to keep in the forefront of their mind as they are in the world as one type of character sketch). There is, in improvisation, a freedom of individuality within the limitations of the play itself. This is much the same as Merleau-Ponty would say of freedom: there is freedom in the situation but not in the context that one and others bring to the situation. One can be free to choose; however, the ‘sediments’ of prior choices or the effects of the choices of others remain on the body, just as an actor brings his prior knowledge and experience to the play/character. The sediments that our on the body may contribute to a leaning towards a particular decision; however, in every situation there is freedom to choose. To choose the right thing would be to have an openness to the world as Bugbee is talking about. Bugbee is ambiguous to me so far on how the necessity is elicited or what elicits it, perhaps it’s his moving away from Christianity and embracing Eastern mysticisms; however, without creating a stop-gap God, but embracing that God is found in the natural and it is capable to live with or without acknowledgment of his existence as Bonhoeffer has argued, I think the necessity of a situation, perhaps for the Christian or nonchristian, is guided by the Spirit. That the one who proceeds and constitutes relations would constitute human relations to situations I do not think is far-fetched, it simply embraces an expanse of common grace. Where the Christian life excels is in the recognition of the Spirit’s working, being able to recognize the voice of God (what I take to be the Spirit’s revealing the word-Son who is the character we are minded towards: the image we image). In knowing the voice of God, one knows and has an openness to the necessities elicited in a situation as revealed by the Spirit’s revelation of the image of the Father: the Word and Son of God.
This seems right in considering certain difficult passages, as Abraham’s offering of Isaac or David’s breaking of Sabbath. It seems that the law for both was not that which bound them, but that which they were free to pick up and lay down as the need arose. Granted, when the need to lay down the law arose there was no justification[1] for their actions, but justification would come in hindsight.[2] In considering their responses to situations and their considered righteousness in hindsight as shown in the Scriptures, it seems that the reason for their action was an habituation for acting in accordance with the voice of God, who does not act outside of his given word, but can act in light of the coming fulfillment of the word despite the current knowledge of the one acting. The voice of God, if not clearly seen yet, is not to be confused with the text of Scripture. The voice of God is the event of the Spirit revealing the image and offering up the freedom of the person to choose to be conformed to the image revealed. In their living by faith, Abraham and David acted, not out of current knowledge of a revealed Torah, but out of a revealed image of that which they were to be conformed to and; therefore, that which would show them to be justified within the span of redemptive history. They knew the voice of God because they had formed themselves to listening to it and responding to the necessity (opportunity for conformation) that was given to them. Though the scriptures do not contradict the Godhead’s action, the given word among the people was not necessarily all that it would be. Abraham and David were, in faith, living out the fullness of the word before it had been fulfilled (was being shown in its fullness).
Does this mean that the Christian acts outside of the word as displayed in its current light, if the voice of God is leading them? Abraham and David were acting in light of the word to be fulfilled, but today Christians act out a word fulfilled so it may seem to be that there are no longer situations in which Christians may need to act without justification since, in its fullness, there would be no need to act without being able to give reasonable justification from the scripture for the appropriateness of one’s actions. However, in light of the tension of walking in a land that is to be made new but is as of now engaged in war with darkness, it seems that the attempted escape of Christians from the mystery of walking through the wilderness of Canaan abandons the voice of God (the working of the Spirit revealing the Word of the Father) with a stagnant text. As Gordon Fee has said concerning Israel, the mark of the people of God was not Torah; it was the presence of God. This presence is a continual presence. In Israel the given word was coming to fulfillment thus some actions were committed in light of (though perhaps not consciously recognized as such) that which would be fulfilled. Today, the word is fulfilled (made full) in Christ, but there is a sense in which, because the return of Christ has not happened, the given word is fulfilled but the events of the word have not reached eschatological consummation and thus, if it is within the character of the voice of God to come to people acting beyond present events in light of future consummation, that the voice of God may call for some to act in spite of their own subjective knowledge of the fulfilled word and for them to be shown as justified as all is revealed (including all bad theologies) at the Day of the Lord. Thus, the voice of God may call for action beyond current understanding of scripture but in light of the truth of that fullness which will be shown in clarity at the eschatological consummation; consequently, the Spirit may provide the necessity of a situation as a necessity that will be committed without immediate justification, but in light of the justification of that action to be shown as the Spirit leads into all truth, showing the church how the fullness of the text is full and not merely that the text is full.
[1] Not justification in the soteriological sense, but in their ability to give sufficient reason for their actions.
[2] See Fear and Trembling
Following the Pines 