I have acknowledged that using a single lens through which the fall (I prefer the term ‘falls’: what we read taking place is of successive falls from the ‘good’ in Genesis 3-11) and through redemption will always have a weakness, nevertheless I think that ‘alienation’ and (the converse) ‘reconciliation’ is the central way of viewing those two aspects… thus with the classic ‘creation, fall, redemption (and culmination)’ I am suggesting ‘creation, alienation, reconciliation, new creation’ as injecting content into that helpful framework.
By drawing on alienation and reconciliation I am placing relationship at the centre, not some legal framework. Relational terms are foundational – the term ‘to know’ both in Hebrew and Greek are relational terms. However placing relationships at the centre might be prove challenging so I post here what might prove to be so:
- An emphasis on ‘salvation’ as being heavily weighted toward salvation for a purpose – to be part of the movement (of small people) committed to act and behave in the light of new creation, rather than salvation from (e.g.) ‘hell’.
- That those who participate in the age to come (‘new creation’) will be determined by God. Personally, I am not a universalist, but believe in a wideness in the mercy of God, based upon the character of the God revealed in Jesus. The cross is universally cosmic in effect but calls for a response.
- That the cross is not presented as the means by which God can forgive (‘the wrath of God was satisfied’) but the means by which God can bring in a new era that is not subject to death nor sin (both described as powers in Paul). The resurrection then is vital as if Jesus is not raised from the dead there is no legitimate claim that the new age has been inaugurated – we would still be, as Paul says, ‘ in our sins’. (Jesus has poured out this Spirit from on high – an eschatological Isaiahanic promise.)
- Old Testament sacrifice is within the context of those who are already within the covenant, not presented as a means to enter the covenant – this is an aspect that should be recognised when coming to the Easter story, and seems often to be forgotten.
- That Scripture presents us with the governing story line, but we need to be aware of two aspects – so much of what we read is contingent on a given situation and that the end parts of the story are not pre-written. Contingent in that so much of OT law is focused on Israel as a people, the Gospels as a record of a renewal movement among Israel (or maybe better Judeans – that requires another post to draw out the distinction between ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’); the Pauline letters being the application of the Gospel into the Gentile (those who are not of Israel) world. And the guideline is present where those who claim a God-inbreathed authority for the Scriptures need to stay within the story frame but have to also develop the God-unfolding story into their situation.
Each of the above needs considerable expansion, so I only flag them up here to alert some of the deeply held presuppositions that have been brought centre-stage through the Reformation.
We enter the world of tensions when we engage with things theological and in presenting the four aspects of alienation (and the four aspects therefore of reconciliation) the first tension that we come to is that of reconciliation to God. One of four aspects and the ultimate ground for the reconciliation in the other three areas. God is the source, the ‘space’ within which reconciliation takes place, thus more than one aspect among four. Stating reconciliation to God as an aspect is therefore somewhat limiting. Likewise when we begin ‘from below’ we can marginalise the transcendent. However…
I place humanity at the centre of this discussion, not because we are the centre of the universe but the problems are centred on and came through humanity. I consider such theories of the cross as described in ‘penal substitution’ contain a major flaw as they can present a God who needs to be reconciled. The ‘problems’ are not on the God-side, but on the human and cosmic power side. Reconciliation has never been an issue to God, thus the story of Adam and Eve leaving the Garden (‘temple’) is the story of two parties leaving – the human and the divine. God also leaves the Garden to carry the consequences of what took place there, thus the Psalmist writes ‘where can I go… even if I make my bed in Sheol you are there’. God was in Christ, not separate to Christ, but in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Alienation from / reconciliation to God
There is alienation from God expressed in multiple ways, but shame, exalted ego, and an inability to ‘see’ God are certainly some of the symptoms. The prototypical humans’ eyes were open and saw they were naked, whereas it takes the revelation of God in Jesus to enable us to see God; in that passage that is the reversal of that first recorded fall involving the couple (the story of Emmaus read as the ‘incarnated new Adam and Eve’) who were on the road is that their eyes were open… open not to see their nakedness but to see Jesus.
The promise of Jesus is that he is the way to the Father, not that he is a way to God, and not even that he is the way to God, but in using a relational term the reconciliation is familiar – the way to the Father. Thus ‘brother, sister, mother’ becomes a term for all those who are aligned to the will of God.
One of the great dangers – one which we do not totally avoid – is that of the extent to which my relationship with God is ‘make believe’! By that I do not simply mean fantasy but I / we all relate to the God of my / our creation, and it is not until he comes that we will be like him, for then we will see him as he is:
What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is (1 John 3:2).
That first letter of John hits hard. If I claim to be in relationship with God but do not walk in the light or hate a fellow-believer then I am deceived:
All who hate a brother or sister are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life abiding in them. We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers and sisters. How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? (1 John 3:14-17).
Here is a foundational principle. Reconciliation to God is not based on a law court decision but is deeply practical (hence I think we err if we insist on orthodoxy as being the measure or heresy, we at least have to add orthopraxy). Perhaps we have a ‘hierarchy’ of reconciliation – to God and then to those who carry genuine faith in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Perhaps a hierarchy, perhaps better thought of as concentric circles going out, and perhaps this is why Jesus said the law was summed up in the two commands to love God and to love the neighbour.
Alienation from / reconciliation to ‘others’
There has to be a reconciliation to ‘the other’, and ultimately the ‘neighbour’ is widened to include all. ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’ are questions that receive elevated answers. Eve was the other to Adam and also the same as Adam being ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’. All others are distinct from me, but I have to see them with the same eyes as I see myself, or even stronger to ‘no longer see them after the flesh’ (all categories relating to this age).
Reconciliation to others, reconciliation within community to the level that ultimately all competition (such as trade wars), aggression and conflict (all and every level of war) disappear. Political decisions are not easy but we cannot rejoice when language and activity is used that is so opposing the eschatological hope of Scripture. We could add terms such as ‘scapegoating’ and ‘suspicion’…. and every other aspect that we engage with that pushes us away from others. Perhaps a big one for those of us who carry faith is that of objectivising others or of relativising the contribution of those who do not share our faith.
Alienation from / reconciliation to self
I was not sure what order to bring in the aspect of ‘others’ or ‘self’. We are told to love others as we love ourselves and we could push that toward understanding that if we do not come to terms with who we are that we will not be able to extend that same understanding to how we see others. If the centrality of sin is to fail to discover the reason for which I am alive (‘to fall short of the glory of God’) then true self-discovery is a vital part of our growth toward becoming truly human.
Selfish pursuit with a self-centred focus on self-achievement is fraught with danger but to become the ‘best’ version of who we are so that we can become the best resource to others is important. It is said of Jesus that he became mature (through what he suffered / experienced) so that the result was he became ‘the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him’ (Heb. 5:9).
In reconciliation to oneself issues of shame, guilt, self-forgiveness, and of developing a right perspective so that we become a life source.
I presume it now becomes clear that the ripples go in all directions. If reconciliation with God is at the centre and that is the starting point the ripples should flow from there in every direction though sadly the ripples can stop. Once they stop religion replaces something genuine (relational) with something false.
Alienation from / reconciliation to creation
And the final area of reconciliation is with the wider material world that we are intrinsically part of. ‘Mother earth’ as a term carries the danger of either we are nothing more than material or that all is divine, and yet there is a sense in which Genesis pushes us in that direction for the witness is that humanity is made of the dust of the earth. The relationship of people and land is so explicit in Scripture (if we read Scripture with no pre-knowledge of the book and then was asked to give the connecting word to ‘heaven’ we would reply with ‘and earth’, not ‘and hell’). With over 1200 references to land in Scripture it is not a small theme, and in the record of the ‘falls’ we have that ‘the earth will be cursed because of you’. Alienation results, with the only way for fruit now to come is through the sweat of the brow and engaging with the thorns and thistles.
There is an eschatological hope for the liberation of creation, not its destruction – and there is even a judgement in Revelation on those who destroy the earth:
the time [has come]… for destroying those who destroy the earth (Rev. 11:18).
[A slightly aside note:
There is also a judgement in Paul on those who destroy the ‘Temple’ of God, the people within whom God has placed the Spirit. We have in 1 Cor. 3: 17 ‘If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple’; I highlight the Greek verb in use here in Paul: εἴ τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φθείρει, φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ θεός… (ftheiro); in Revelation we have the same verb with an augment added (diaftheiro) – augments are often added to make the verb stronger! καὶ διαφθεῖραι τοὺς διαφθείροντας τὴν γῆν (Rev 11:18).]
In Romans 8 where Paul writes about the groan of creation it seems that he is drawing from the experience of bondage in Egypt under Pharaoh. Then Israel cried out; now creation cries out in bondage; now we are the new Pharaoh, humanity being a hard taskmaster ever commanding for more resources to be brought for what we are building.
The four areas above deserve much more development, and one day I might do that, but for now a few observations / challenges.
Observations
- The four above areas are not necessarily on the same level but they are deeply interrelated.
- Wholistic reconciliation would be evidenced by a development in all four directions and certainly where there is no development beyond ‘reconciliation with God’ there is ever the potential and danger to draw us into deception or even to living a lie. There is a line that can be crossed from relational reconciliation to religious entrenchment.
- The ‘best’ is when there is a continual back and forth of ripples of reconciliation that flow between all four aspects.
- We should affirm wherever we encounter works of reconciliation that take place in any of the above four areas – and writing as one with faith in ‘God’ – wherever we encounter any such works, including where it is expressed by someone who does not carry faith, and might even be in opposition to faith. We have to get beyond the fear of ‘salvation by works’ and let such critical verses be set in their context: that of religious activity!
- And pushing it further, there is a wideness in the mercy of God, we do not need to claim that someone is ‘saved’ provided they are working for (e.g.) an ecologically-healthy future, but neither do we need to write them off in the here and now nor in the ultimate future (none of our business… that is a God-task!). Some might come to faith who begin in one of the other aspects of reconciliation; some might not. Our task is not to narrowly evangelise but to widely evangelise – to spread ‘good news’ for the hope that is in us at every level, which includes our hope for this world’s future. (Beyond, and in contrast to what we have reduced evangelism to, ‘witness’ is the requirement on us… life-style, words, and in the light of this post, how we work toward reconciliation in every area. Maybe even to borrow a concept from elsewhere – we are as reconciled to the extent that we are promoting reconciliation.)
- I am not happy with terms (sorry to get technical) with regard to pre-, post-, or even a-, millennialism. I am agnostic as to what we will experience this side of the parousia but I am clear we are to work, pray and relate so that our contribution is pulling toward ‘new creation’ realities.
