In our last post I hinted that I had an approach to viewing salvation that offered a greater chance at reconciliation than a model that sets up a one to one relationship between belief and salvation. As I pointed out in that post, possibly one of the inherent dangers lurking within the Protestant ethos is precisely this relationship. For if my belief (in either a story or a person) is my salvation (even if that belief is brought to pass through a gift of grace from God) than that which informs my belief is utterly central. In fact, I must know with certainty that the thing informing my belief is inspired, without error, and free from corruption. If I encounter one who has a different source, or interprets that source differently than I do (thus resulting in a different belief) than it is my duty as a human and a Christian to change their interpretation so that their belief is correct, and, consequently, the surety of their salvation can be achieved. Sadly, that duty will be and has been met with equally strong determination not to be fundamentally altered. I am, of course, talking about attempts at reconciliation within the Protestant Communities. Reconciliation becomes another word for compromise instead of the very center of the faith. The resulting disunity should be as unsurprising as it is tragic.
By contrast, and in a way of offering a possibly different way of understanding salvation, let me introduce a new word. The new word is anagogy. In Greek, it means, "uplifting". It refers to the action wrought upon our persons when we encounter Christ. We find ourselves uplifted into sharing His life. It is made possible because of the prior decent of Christ -- the beautiful hymn in Philippians 2 captures this eloquently. It isn't an exaggeration to say that the early Fathers of the Church, both in the East and in the West thought that the central core of the gospel is the very present uplifting of our whole person into the life of God. The central concept here is a two fold action, not a story. We tell stories about actions, not the other way around. We declare this story to be true, not because we assert belief at it, but because the action which the story is relating is, in some sense, taking place still inside of us.
Let me explain that last sentence. If salvation is the relatively passive act of being uplifted into the life of God, then how do we partake (participate, really) in our own salvation? Well, certainly believing that the action is taking place (and so being able to also believe the story, and the person) plays a role, but only a secondary role. The really central thing is to do things that nourish the life of God in us. We would almost wish that there were actions that could be done that were neither only human (for that would be a sort of magic -- a manipulation of the Divine) nor only divine (for then how can I partake?) but dual -- actions whose causative agent is both God and Human and whose result is the real increase of the life of God in us.
That was a long sentence! Nonetheless, we do find that such an action exists. We call an action which has as it's subject both God and Human and has as its object the uplifting of the soul into God a sacrament. And so baptism, the real substantive entry into the life of Christ on earth is a Sacrament. Similarly, the Eucharist is the means by which the life of God is nourished in us. Both of these great sacramental (dual subject) actions are possible because of what Christ did. Scripture is the story that we tell (and, really, that God tells) about this action. And we should expect this as well. We should expect that the story told about an action done by both Human and God is told by Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, and by God Himself.
Again, we are not surprised when we go back into the quote from John 6 in our last entry to discover that the this belief on the one he has sent (vs 29) is belief that takes place after an action. What is the action which makes possible the belief? What is the action which the story tells? It is simple. Christ declares His Flesh to be the bread of life and says, "If anyone eats of this bread he shall not die." He then beautifully and expressly says, "Truly truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
This is surely a great mystery. Indeed, it is the great mystery. Living in Christ is something into which we are uplifted by God -- but, in such a way to that we also are able to partake, to truly participate. I suggest that this anagogic uplifting of our persons into this life in Christ is salvation. Of course we naturally also believe it to be true. But I think the belief is secondary, a result of an action that already is something we have partaken in.
What implications does this have for reconciliation? Well, it takes some of the emphasis off of the text that informs our belief and how we respond to that text by placing the emphasis on the sacramental action instead. In fact, it implies that I don't have to have everything worked out in my mind before hand, in order to be saved. Presumably, there is even room for one's belief to be somewhat wrong! The important thing is not that our ideas about "what is going on" are correct, rather, the important thing is that we come to partake in the uplifting of our persons into the life of God by eating Him. Seen in this light, if you and I disagree about what we believe, and we both are baptized and are eating Him, then our Christian duty becomes one of living together, with our very real disagreements, in Christ. We don't have to agree (as in the former model) in order to believe correctly and so be saved.
Reconciliation can once again become the center of the gospel, not merely another word for a compromise that, by virtue of it's concessions waters down belief until it is no longer salvific.
No comments:
Post a Comment