Kingdom Harbor

Greg Boyd is involved with some very deep and provocative research and writing at the moment (and always).  He gives us a link to a recently published article entitled “Two ancient (and modern) motivations for ascribing exhaustive definite foreknowledge to God: A historic overview and critical assessment.” If the title is any indication I would guess this is a lengthier read! He also gives a fascinating preview of a very significant book he’s working on called “Jesus Verses Jehovah” grappling with the apparent violence of God in the Old Testament who can seem quite irreconcilable from the picture of God revealed in the person of Jesus in the New Testament.

For anyone who has struggled with the violence, nationalism, vindictive nature and so on of the Old Testament story of God and the world, this book will be a must read when it appears (hopefully) in the summer of 2010.  But for those of you who can’t wait, here’s sneak preview of his outline and argument quoting from Greg’s blog:

The core of the book is structured around six “principles.” Just to provide a little “heads up” as to the direction I’m going, here’s a short definition of each principle.

The Christocentric Principle: All of our thinking about God must be rooted in Christ. Jesus reveals what God has always been like. We thus need to read the Old Testament “through the lens” of Christ.

The Principle of Incarnational Flexibility. If Jesus reveals what God has always been like, then God didn’t start being “incarnational” with the Incarnation. Rather, God has always been willing to humbly “embody” himself within our fallen humanity and has always “borne our sin.” The portrait of Yahweh as a nationalistic, law-oriented, violent-tending warrior god is the result of God condescending to “embody” himself within our barbaric and deceived views of him in order to work toward freeing us from them. (The reference to “god” rather than “God” in this previous sentence is intentional, since I argue God takes on the semblance of a sub-Christ-like “god” when he condescends to work within our fallen framework). Like Nanny McPhee, God is willing to appear as ugly as he needs to in order to free us from our ugliness and eventually reveal himself as he truly is to us (which is what takes place in Christ).

The Principle of Contrastive Pedagogy. Though you’d never get this reading the Old Testament itself, Paul tells us that the most fundamental reason God gave the Law was to increase our sin and, by way of negative example, drive us to Christ. I argue that when we read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ, we can say the same thing about the nationalism and violence of God’s program in the Old Testament. It tells us more about what God is not like and how not to build his Kingdom than it tells us what God islike and how we are to build the kingdom. When Jesus shows up, he reveals a God and a Kingdom that invalidates nationalism, is rooted in empowering grace (not law) and is utterly free of violence, for it is centered on loving and serving enemies.

The Principle of Punitive Withdrawal. When Jesus was crucified, God delivered Jesus up to wicked humans and “the powers.” Moreover, by entering into solidarity with us in our spiritually oppressed and fallen condition, Jesus experienced God-forsakenness. Since all of our understanding about God must be centered on Christ, Jesus’ abandonment and God-forsakenness should form the center of our understanding of how God punishes sin. He does so by withdrawing his protective presence and turning people over to experience the consequences of their decisions — a truth that is confirmed throughout the Old Testament. God’s “wrath” is his withdrawal.

The Principle of Cosmic Conflict. Jesus’ ministry as well as the whole of the Old and New Testaments reveal that the world is engulfed by cosmic forces of destruction. Like a dam being opened, when God withdraws his protective hand to bring judgment, the powers are allowed to carry out their evil intentions and chaos ensues.  Yet, whenever God “pours out his wrath” by withdrawing himself, he does so with a grieving heart and for the ultimate purpose of bringing healing and redemption.

The Principle of Responsible Identification. Though he was in fact all-holy, on Calvary the Son of God identified with our sin to the point of bearing our guilt. So too, the Father is said to have afflicted his Son (Isa. 53) though in fact he merely allowed wicked powers using wicked people to crucify Jesus. When we read the Old Testament through this lens, we find God frequently identifying himself as the agent of violence, though the context makes it clear that he is merely allowing violent agents to do what they want to do. God is portrayed as doing what he actually merely allows.  There are historical and exegetic reasons for this, but the theological reason, I argue, is that God has always been a God who takes responsibility for all that he allows — even though he detests much of what he allows. This is how God bears our sin and why he takes on the semblance of a nationalistic, law-oriented warrior god.

I argue that each of these six principles are rooted in Christ and confirmed throughout Scripture, and they take us a long way in reconciling the crucified God with the violent portrait of God found in the violent strands of the Old Testament.

What do you think of this initial thesis and line of argumentation?  Let me just say that it is certainly not uncontroversial and conventional.  I look forward to being challenged once again by a passionate student and teacher of the Bible who’s not afraid to rethink conventional readings in light of a careful wrestling with the ambiguity and complexities of Scripture and the world in which we live. I don’t agree with everything Boyd teaches, but he constantly challenges me and pushes me back to both Scripture and the centrality of the crucified Jesus who stands at the center of their meaning.