PROLOGOMENA

CREDO

March 15, 1974

Copyright 1999 All rights reserved
[Apologies for the graphics. They're hand-drawn & crude, but they show up better than the ones I originally did in PowerPoint.]

CONTENTS
PROLOGOMENA (Things that must be said first)
OF GOD AND MAN AND THEIR INTERRELATIONSHIP
	The Existence of God
	Creation
	Sin
	The Nature of Evil
JESUS CHRIST
HOLY SPIRIT
THE CHURCH
WORD AND SACRAMENT
	Word
	Sacrament
		Eucharist
		Baptism
SALVATION AND ESCHATOLOGY
	Salvation
	Eschatology

Home - Topics
PROLOGOMENA (Things that must be said first)
The locus of theology is the tension between two poles: God and Man. For while theology is about God, it is done by and for human beings. We talk about God in order that we might come to some realistic understanding of the meaning and purpose of our own lives. Since God is by definition the ultimate Reality with which we have to do, the theological enterprise posits and relentlessly pursues the "ultimate truth" about life.
But the one unavoidable "datum" with which theology must inevitably contend is that there is no way to know concretely and empirically either that God is or (if God is) who God is. Any statement on the subject of God which purports to be inerrent should be viewed with utmost suspicion, for there is no "object" among all the other objects of our experience which can be labeled "God" and studied with the same precision employed in the study of either the physical or the human sciences. God is an "intangible" whose existence, nature and purpose can only be inferred.
In order to be at all relevant, then, theology must begin with that which is tangible and from it construct opinions and theories regarding that which is really beyond human ken. One fundamental tenet of theology is that this intangible God has revealed him/her/itself to humankind and provided all necessary data with which theology must work. The problems begin when one tries to spell out just exactly where, when and how this "Revelation" has taken place.
Jesus of Nazareth is held by Christianity to be God's primary means of revelation. In Jesus, it is said, can be found all that is needed to be known about God. That may well be true, but how would we "know" this if others before us ("Tradition") had not said so?
Scripture, as the witness to God's activity in the world up to and including the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth and the beginnings of the Christian Church, is also held (again by Tradition) to be another primary source of Revelation. How are we to verify this claim? It does seem rather ridiculous to assert that the God who is said to be the Creator and Lord of the entire universe should be perceptible by only such limited means.
Thus, there are those who argue for a "natural" knowledge of God which can be derived from Experience and clarified by Reason. This is the stance which shall be taken by this writer. For, while it is true that our experience and (what passes for) reason can often lead us to erroneous conclusions, it is also the case that they can lead us to the truth. In fact, what is often forgotten by the proponents of a "special" and "limited" Revelation is that Scripture itself is nothing more than the record of the theologically interpreted experiences of certain historically and socially conditioned people. Talk about the "divine inspiration" of scripture or even about God's incarnation in Jesus Christ is a theological conclusion of those who in these sources find their "truth," but it cannot be the presupposition of the objective inquirer. Insofar as that to which the Christian faith attests is true--universally so according to the church's claims--that truth must be universally discernable and verifiable in human experience as interpreted by reason.
All interpretation of experience is done from within the bounds of the interpreter's personal perspective or "world view," the particular set of "glasses" through which he/she looks at the world and the system by which he/she assesses the significance of what is seen. One's perspective is a construct of the implications of those experiential phenomena which have proved most decisive or influential in the individual's own life history; it is also greatly influenced by prevailing historical and social conditions and modes of thought. While the theologian cannot avoid being restricted by the influence of his/her particular perspective, honesty requires an awareness and explication of that perspective in order that both the theologian and his/her audience might both avoid the mistake of claims for objective infallibility and at the same time appreciate whatever truth comes through his/her particular perspectival facet of experience. It is logical to assume that whatever objective and "ultimate" truth lies behind all limited human perspectives can be perceived and truthfully articulated within the bounds of any and all human perspectives.
The following is written from a personal/psychological perspective. It begins with experience, the reasoned interpretation of which leads to the articulation of (what is perceived to be) the "ultimate truth" behind that experience. This process produces a perspective or "world view" from which all subsequent experiential phenomena are analyzed. This analysis, the writer hopes, tests both the adequacy of the perspective and the decisiveness of the phenomena analyzed. At any rate, certain conclusions are reached which seemingly correspond qualitatively with at least the most essential "Christian" conclusions postulated in and through other perspectives.
Short shrift has been give to some "traditional" Christian doctrines. In constructing the skeleton of one's own theological system, it is difficult artificially to impose upon it the "flesh" of other systems. However, if what is said "adds up" to "God's redeeming love for sinful Man," the job (at least from a Christian standpoint) has been done. That love is, after all, the Christian message. (Back to Contents)

OF GOD AND HUMANKIND AND THEIR INTERRELATIONSHIP A World View Constructed
The Existence of God
Human beings, in their efforts to interpret the meaning of their existence, are seemingly unable to do so without some reference--either affirmative or negative--to that transcendent Something which we call "God" (and which is known by other names to other people in other times and places). Whatever else the word "God" might connote in human language, its overall reference is to a "superhuman" or "supreme" Being in charge of the world.
Since we have nowhere outside our own world to look for evidences of God, we must look within our world itself. In this search we will not find proofs, but only intimations of God's existence, nature, and purpose. However, since one's concepts of God have a provable influence on the direction and quality of his life, we will seek to be as responsibly open to "truth" as possible.
Whenever we as human beings are confronted with something which shows evidence of design and creativity, we immediately assume that some intelligent being has made or created it. A good example of such an assumption is found in our attitude toward archeological discoveries. Ancient buildings or potsherds buried deep in the earth are never thought of as having "just happened." Instead, they are diligently studied for evidence of the nature of the intelligent beings who made them and the purpose for which they were used.
Similarly, when we survey our world and, indeed, the entire cosmos in which we live, taking into account the intricacy of design and the delicacy of functional balance, it is difficult not at least to consider the possibility that some higher intelligence has created it all. Let us then suppose that our assumption is correct and seek to discover, by study of that creation, the nature and purpose of its Creator.
As has already been stated, creation of anything presupposes intelligence, and the Creator of the universe must undoubtedly possess intelligence of the highest conceivable order. The sheer immensity of creation would connote power.¹(View Note) Its beauty implies artistry, etc.
All of the attributes we have thus far listed (intelligence, power, artistry), not to mention the ability to create anything at all, are qualities of persons as we experience them. Therefore, if the world is "created" and indicative of the nature of its maker, we must conclude that this creator is, in some sense, a "personal" being. In order to understand the implications of this personhood we will have to look at the crowning achievement (at least as we see it) of creation itself: the human personality (encompassing mind, emotions and will). By looking at this model (which is the only one we have) we can gain our best clues as to the nature and purpose of that creative Being we call God.
The human personality is a decidedly complex phenomenon. We are unique individuals who can discover and develop our individuality only in the context of relationships with other individuals. This is a well-known fact of psychology which needs no elaborate substantiation here. In the process of interaction via which we become what we are, there is both the predetermination of the context in which we find ourselves (historical, social, genetic, etc.) and our freedom² (View Note) to react to and act upon that context in ways which we consider appropriate and effective (powerful). Since God is evidently "personal," and since to be personal is to be relational (both free and determined), we must infer from our human observations that God is also relational, both determined by and free to act powerfully in the context of his/her/its relationships.
There remains the question of to whom God relates. Are there other beings like Godself with whom God consorts in some celestial sphere (similar, for example, to the Greek "Pantheon")? Although we have no way of knowing, our concept of God can entertain no such possibility. God is by definition the "supreme" and "ultimate" Reality with which we have to deal. God is the superlative instance of all that can be attributed to him/her/it. Since there can be only one example of the superlative, for us there can be only one God.
If there is only one God, there can be only one other possible source of relationship for God of which we can have any experiential knowledge: lesser, intelligent beings (such as we) deliberately created by God for the purpose of relationship. (Back to Contents)
Creation
Theology has always been much preoccupied with the means by which God created. It is difficult to understand why this preoccupation should continue, since Science is now quite capable of taking over and adequately answering the question. It is theologically more important that creation, however accomplished, be attributed to God (since such attribution gives meaning and purpose to human life) than that the exact methods be spelled out in detail.
It has seemed necessary to explain creation in such a way as to prove that the world belongs totally to God alone (else God would not be "Supreme") and that it is "good" (in order that we not sink into despair over our obviously ambiguous human situation). The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo has been generally accepted as fulfilling these requirements. However, the idea of creation out of noting is humanly incomprehensible, and theology does itself and the God it serves a disservice by trying to foist upon the human mind a doctrine the acceptance of which is both impossible and unnecessary.
Another idea has been that God brought order and purpose into pre-existent chaotic matter.³ (View Note) Here we can still conclude that "creation" is God's ("proprietorship makes for ownership") and that it is (at least seemingly, most of the time) "good" (because it is God who has put it in order). But this concept leaves the problem of the origin of the "pre-existent" matter and is unsatisfactory for that reason.
Another, more fruitful, way of thinking about God as Creator deals not with how God did it but rather with what God might have done. This is by way of analogy with human artists. An artist creates something that is separate from himself but which, in a very real sense, also contains a part of himself. For example, "The Pieta" is not Michelangelo, but one can certainly "see" Michelangelo in "The Pieta." "The Mona Lisa" is not da Vinci, but one can recognize it as da Vinci's work. Such an idea is helpful, and it lends credibility to our thesis that God should be in some way discernable in creation. However, there is still the problem of the nature and origin of the materials used for the artistic creation.
One possibility is that these "materials" came from the very being of God. Instead of creatio ex nihilo we would have creatio e sui ipso. We can think of God as primal "energy," generating the matter of the universe out of his/her/its own being (according to the physical law that energy is convertible to matter and vice versa), creating not only the universe and the beings within it but also the possibility for the development of God's own personhood.⁴ (View Note) Thus, all that exists can be seen as an integral part of the cosmic "body" of God,⁵ (View Note) and the various personalities which function within that body as contributing both constituently and relationally to the personality of God. Creation is then a process still in progress (as can be substantiated by Science); and as God works toward the perfection of this "creation," God is also working to actualize perfection within Godself.
We must here set forth exactly what we mean by the word "perfection." Since human beings differ as to what constitutes the "valuable" or the "good" (of which "perfection" would be the superlative instance) we must simply decide for ourselves what we will label thusly, appeal to those who agree with us for corroboration, and leave others to make up their own minds.
"Perfection," to this writer, is that which is appropriately and effectively (powerfully) loving, and includes whatever qualities are necessary for the actualization of this powerful love. Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc., plus the other more personal qualities ordinarily ascribed to God, may or may not be appropriate and effective. The important thing is that love be actualized, not that certain auxiliary "attributes" be consistently manifested. Even if it becomes necessary to show that certain qualities are intrinsic to a particular (Christian) view of love, this does not disprove the point that Love, as an end, is more important than the means by which it is actualized. (Back to Contents)
Sin
The problem of evil has always plagued humankind, and especially Christian thinkers. The entire mission of Christianity is to deal with evil, both specifically in its concrete manifestations and ideologically as that which must, in the end, be "conquered" by God (with our help, of course). Because it has always seemed important to credit God with absolute perfection, it has been necessary to explain the origin and existence of evil, or sin, as being from some other source than God. Sin has been attributed to the perversity of humankind (the "Fall"), and "Satan" was brought into the picture as the scapegoat. This type of explanation is incomprehensible to this writer, for it must also be explained how either Satan or "Man," existing as they supposedly did in perfect communion with God, could possibly have gotten it into their heads to rebel.
A better explanation, although one which will probably appear to "orthodox" Christians as blasphemous, is that evil, like the "good," is part of the present nature (although not part of the final intention) of God. That is, if creation is a process through which God is actualizing God's "perfection," it would be logical to assume that the imperfection still extant would (in our perceptions) appear as "evil" (the absence of "good"). Evil can be seen as that part of the "masterpiece" which the "Artist" has not yet finished, or as that part of the creative plan not yet actualized. Even to go to such lengths as this in order to explain the source of evil does not nullify the message of the Christian faith that the good will conquer evil and, indeed, has already technically proved victorious in Jesus, whom Christians call Christ. The role which Jesus plays in our understanding of good and evil, and our fate in relationship to the two, will be taken up later. First, however, we must further analyze the nature and effects of evil as it relates to humankind. (Back to Contents)
The Nature of Evil
Although there may be at least some connection between the two, evil seems to exist in two distinct forms: natural and personal. Natural evil consists of the "violences" of nature, (e.g., earthquake and storm, drought and flood, disease, death by "natural" causes, etc.) and represents the not-yet-perfected in physical creation. Natural evil obviously affects the well-being of humanity and also may be, in some cases, affected by us. (For instance, we can sometimes control or alleviate the effects of natural disasters, or we can increase the possibility of their occurrence by poor stewardship and care of the ecology.) But for the most part, it is personal evil with which humankind is directly concerned.
Personal evil would refer to the "violences" which humans do to themselves and to each other and is also called "Sin" (individual instances of which are called "sins"). Another synonym which we shall use for Sin is "Alienation." The word specifies the nature of Sin as a relational phenomenon. There is no sin which is not an injury to oneself or another person and, conversely, that which does no injury to any person (oneself or others) cannot be called a sin. Injury done to a person by a sin produces alienation (the building up of "defenses" against relationship with others as a means of protection against further injury). This is a state out of which more sinful behavior must (almost?) inevitably issue. Since "Sin" manifests itself in "sins" which produce "alienation," which leads to more "sins," etc., we can say that Sin=Alienation. From this analysis we can also see the self-perpetuating character of Sin/Alienation. In order to understand more clearly how this process works, let us analyze the structure of human relationships.
Customarily, the term "relationship" has referred to the process by which various "communications" (verbal or otherwise) are sent and received by separate and distinct entities. With such a definition, a "picture" of, say, the God-Human relationship would look like this:

Add another "man" to signify the plurality of the human scene, and we have:

The picture grow more complicated the more "men" we add:

I submit that such a concept of relationship is no longer viable. We now know (through psychology) that human beings are not simply separate, individual entities who send and receive communications from other separate, individual entities. Rather, our individuality is constituted by the relationships in which we engage, and we are not separate from one another but are all a part of one another (e.g., the "internalization" of the significant other, etc.). The communication which takes place in relationships is not simply a matter of sending and receiving inanimate "messages" but, rather, a giving of oneself and a receiving of the other. Understood in this way, a "picture" of relationship would actually look more like this:⁶(View Note)

Or this:

Even such models as these, however, leave much to be desired, because they still presuppose autonomous entities freely choosing to give or not to give of themselves and to receive or not to receive from others. Experience appears to verify such a concept, although closer examination will show that this is not the case.
Consider "Person X" and "Person Y" in relationship. Obviously, the emotional state of both parties will determine the quality of their interaction. For the sake of simplicity, we will group all possible emotional states under two general categories: Love and Alienation. Love is that state which has the effect of opening one up to relationship, while Alienation has the opposite effect (e.g., "He has a wall built up around himself.").
If the emotional state of "X" is characterized by Love, he/she will choose to give that love to "Y", because it is the nature of Love that it must be shared. "X" may choose the means of Love's manifestation, and that manifestation must be interpreted by "Y" as "loving" in order for "Y" to benefit.
If "Y" is also open (loving), he will receive the love given by "X" and to offer love in return. However, if "Y" is "alienated" by Sin, he may be partially, or almost completely, closed to the love offered--in which case he will be unable to receive the gift whether or not he wishes to. But because Love does have the effect of "opening people up," every such offering of Love, even to the alienated and "closed" person, works to break down the protective "wall" so that eventually that person may be able to participate fully in loving relationship.
Conversely, "Y", if "closed" will instinctively act toward "X" in an alienated and alienating manner. He chooses the manifestation--harsh words, physical violence, etc. In reaction to such negative behavior, "X" may choose to build up a wall (alienate himself from "Y") in order to protect himself.
In reality, of course, very few people are completely open or closed to love-in-relationship. We are open to some person and closed to others, and our moods with respect to any one person may vary. But the operative principle is the same, in that Alienation builds barriers while Love removes them. Sin is a relational phenomenon and its result ("fallenness") is its identical twin: non-relationship or Alienation. The point of it all is the Love (however manifested) inevitably produces and is the only medium or relationship; Alienation (Sin) is both the cause and the product of non-relationship. (Which brings to mind an old cliché: "Love makes the world go 'round.")
Now, if personhood is the crowning achievement of creation, if personhood can only exist in relationship, and if relationship can only exist in Love, then the "ultimate truth" with which we have to deal as we search for meaning and purpose in the living of our lives is Love. Since God is also the ultimate Truth, we must conclude (at the risk of being inexcusably trite!) that "God is Love."
To have gone to such great lengths in order to reach an already generally accepted conclusion might seem rather unjustifiable unless the new (?) way in which the old conclusion is reached sheds new light on the implications and connotations of that conclusion.
Let us draw another "picture" of relationship based on what has been postulated thus far. Only now we must change the metaphor and, instead of speaking in terms of "openness" and "brick walls," we will use the idea of the permeable or impermeable membrane. No account will be taken of the multitudinous possible manifestations and interpretations, but only of the essence of Love and Alienation.
Here we have a picture of perfect relationship. The dotted lines represent individuals who are "open." They are individuated or embodied in a "membrane" that is permeable and through which Love (represented by the dots*) can flow freely from one to the other.

In th[e] relationship [shown below], is almost completely impermeable, although the love from has partially penetrated the barriers and is still working, now from both inside and out, to break them down still further.

Meanwhile, however, , who is exhibiting alienated -ing, behavior toward , causes a partial closing in , thus proportionately reducing 's outflow of and intake capacity for Love.

If God is Love and Love is the medium of relationship, we can say, in the context of our pictographic illustration, that God is represented by all the little dots ( ). Now, the God-man-man relationship looks quite different from our earlier drawings. God is not a "third party" in relationship but, rather, the medium and means by which any two or more human parties can be enabled to relate. In fact, there is no relationship apart from God as Love (whether or not Love is consciously recognized as being God).⁷(View Note)
All of the above is just another perspective or "world view"--a different way of saying some of the same things that the Christian Church has said since its beginning. The Church has always viewed God as one, personal, creative, loving, powerful, etc., and humanity as sinful and alienated from itself and from God. Love has always been viewed as the power which overcomes Sin and Alienation and as the only real basis for relationship. Now we have a different way of understanding why.
We have taken a slightly different approach with regard to the analysis of the way in which Love works, and we have come to some different conclusions on the subjects of creation and evil. However, as stated earlier, these different approaches and conclusions in no way contradict the basic conclusion of Christianity that the God in which we (literally) live and move and have our being is "good" and that we can trust that God with our ultimate fate. In order to spell out just why this is so, let us bring our constructed "world view" to bear on some of the other basic doctrines of the Christian faith. (Back to Contents)

JESUS, THE CHRIST
Within the confines of our present perspective, Jesus of Nazareth, in order to be viewed as "Savior," would in some way have to represent the supreme human example and source of openness to Love-in-Relationship. Through him would have to come the means by which the self-perpetuating nature of Sin/Alienation can be broken and the fruits of Love realized in human life.
An analysis of his teachings, especially as represented in Matthew 5:7-27, would show that he certainly had very definite ideas about how such a task should be accomplished--ideas which, when put into practice and properly interpreted, do produce amazing results in the breaking down of interpersonal barriers.
Most of the episodes of Jesus' life and ministry as set forth in the four "Gospels," especially the "healings" and "exorcisms," suggest that his followers and interpreters saw in him those qualities which normally tend to serve the purposes of Love rather than Alienation. According to these stories, such episodes were misinterpreted by onlookers (the "establishment") and produced alienation in these people, however much they might have been motivated by Love on Jesus' part. But what about stories which depict Jesus as exhibiting signs of alienating behavior (e.g., denunciations of the Pharisees and the "cleansing" of the Temple)? A case can be made for the claim that these behaviors on Jesus' part were the appropriate and effective way for Love to operate in the particular situations involved. We'll leave it at that for want of space . . .
But the decisive event complex on which the followers of Jesus based their faith in him as Son of God and Savior was his death and resurrection. In his death, all the forces of Alienation which existed in the world and had been brought into terrifying focus upon him--through misinterpretation of his words, deeds, and significance--seemingly had resulted in the total destruction of the possibility of the effective presence of Love in human life. Whatever had been seen in him by his followers and properly interpreted as the epitome of God-Love (e.g., Peter's "confession," Matt. 16:16) had, to all appearances, been conquered by alienation/evil.
Such things had happened time and time again in human experience, and there was no reason to suppose that this event was any different. There were, however, two differences which in time his followers perceived: 1. Jesus' ability to return complete, unconditional and self-sacrificial Love to the very people whose behavior toward him represented the epitome of Alienation ("Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34) and 2. his "resurrection."
The resurrection of Jesus has always been the cornerstone of Christian faith, yet it represents one of the most problematic of Christian doctrines. It does seem strange that in a pre-scientific age all sorts of magical powers could easily be attributed to God, while in an era when humanity itself is experimenting with ways to accomplish "miracles" we find it difficult to believe that God could have done the very things we are trying to do (the preservation of our bodies for later resuscitation, for instance). Perhaps the concept of God herein presented and the hoped-for "re-sacralization of life" will resolve some of the difficulties. But, at any rate, the resurrection is a difficult doctrine for modern, "secular" humanity.
Whatever the actual circumstances of that event, however, it is apparent that the disciples and friends of Jesus, at the very least, were convinced of the survival of the Love which they had thought to have been destroyed. These people were somehow assured that not only had they witnessed God-become-fully-human in a human-become-fully-divine,⁸ (View Note) but also that this divine/human life represented the ultimate truth about life itself--that life-in-the-divine is of "such quality that it cannot die."⁹ (View Note) Thus the passion with which they proclaimed their good news and the willingness with which they died for it.
We who are removed by two millennia from the actual events of Jesus' "resurrection" and who have difficulty grounding our faith in that particular happening might be pleased to know that Christianity does not claim that "resurrection" to be unique to Jesus. Not only is this event used as a guide for hope beyond physical death (about which we can have no concrete evidence), but also as a paradigm for that which can happen to us in our own earthly lives. Whenever we experience a rebirth in ourselves and others, personal growth toward maturity, the broadening of horizons, the restoration of broken relationships, et al., we have experienced a "resurrection." Insofar as such signs are discernable and convincing to us, they point the way to acceptance of the past and hope for the future.
This demonstration of all-encompassing, unconditional Love by Jesus of Nazareth and the power generated by the divine affirmation of that Love in the "resurrection" set loose a force in human relationships which Christians believe has turned the tide in the Love versus Alienation battle. With this evidence of victory before us, we can consciously and confidently bring all our energies into play (those energies being God's "energy" manifested as powerful Love and incorporated within us), deliberately working for the dissolution of the barriers which divide and alienate us, responding with Love instead of Alienation when we are wounded by Sin, participating with God in the furtherance of the "salvation" which Love assures. (Back to Contents)

THE HOLY SPIRIT
There is no need in this system for a separate doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God (as Christianity has always affirmed), the God who is both around us and in us and by whom Jesus was (and we can be) "filled."
Even though it was deemed important in the past to differentiate the various "functions" of God into a "Trinity" (Creator/Father, Redeemer/Son, Comforter/Spirit), these distinctions are no longer necessary. All of the activities of God can be seen as being performed by one Being simultaneously creating (energy -> matter), redeeming (permeating that which is created) and comforting (manifesting that presence to all creatures). (Back to Contents)

THE CHURCH
The Church is a body of people who consciously equate the presence of God-Love in their own lives with that same presence which was fully incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth and who, in his life and death, see the shape of their own call (indeed, compulsion--for Love must be shared) to loving service to all, insofar as they are enabled by the divine presence within them. In the continual "resurrections" which they experience, they find hope for the eventual final triumph of the Love whose continual incarnation they seek to facilitate and multiply.
Those who are the church see their mission as encompassing three basic thrusts: 1. The creation of opportunities for the further incarnation of God-Love both within (nurture) and without (mission, evangelism) their own ranks, while 2. Creatively opposing those sinful aspects of human relationships and social institutions which produce Alienation rather than at-one-ment (prophecy, social action), all the while 3. Explicitly pointing both among and beyond themselves to God as the source and end of their life and ministry (witness, celebration).
This tri-fold mission can also be categorized under the ancient headings of koinonia (fellowship, or the conscious experience of at-one-ment), didache (teaching), diakonia (service), and leitourgia (sacramental worship), all of these in the interests of kerygma (the Christ event as proclaimed and reenacted).
All of the functions and activities of the church are mutually supportive and interrelated and, while circumstances might call for the temporary emphasis on one over the others, none should be forgotten or ignored.
The institutional church is that organization (or, more accurately, that group of organizations) which carries on the administrative and organizational duties made necessary by the essential, God-given task of the spiritual church. It cannot be reasonable to assume that there is any divinely-ordained structure for the institutional church. Certain structures which worked well in New Testament times are alluded to in those writings, and these structures have been elaborated on or abandoned throughout the history of the Christian tradition, most of these moves being explainable in terms of historical or social necessity. Whatever structure gets the job done in keeping with the nature of the job is not only permissible but also demanded. (Back to Contents)

WORD AND SACRAMENT
Although the Church is free to use any means congruent with its nature and purpose in order to achieve its ends, there are two foundational aspects of its life which remain constant (although taking variable forms). These aspects are at least implicitly present in all of the Church's activities, but explicitly so in worship, or leitourgia. In them all other activities find their focus and therefrom derive their impetus. They are Word and Sacrament. (Back to Contents)
Word
The concept of "the Word" includes both God's "Word" to humanity and our words about God's "Word." The "Word" expresses the message of salvation or deliverance from evil/alienation as this deliverance has been and will be accomplished. It is the Gospel of at-one-ment as paradigmatically expressed in and through Jesus of Nazareth. The Word also spells out the appropriate response of humankind to the Gospel as loving service to all in the name of that which is All-in-All.
It is vitally important that preaching and teaching about the Word and its implications be done in a manner that is both "appropriate" to the essence of the message intended and "understandable"¹⁰ (View Note) to the hearer. Throughout the history of the Christian faith it has always been necessary to articulate and explicate (theologize about) the Gospel by means of linguistic forms and symbols which act as vehicles for the message but are not, in themselves, the message. Omnipotence, omniscience, etc., with reference to God, " virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, etc., regarding Jesus, and other various theological formulae (e.g., the "Trinity") were all means of explaining deeper truths to the people of the day.
Unfortunately, the symbols of one era lose their significance in another and, at the same time, are often dogmatically substituted for the underlying truths they were intended to express. In order to counteract such tendencies it is necessary constantly to reformulate theological statements¹¹ (View Note) in order to strip away the esoteric verbiage and "streamline" the "vehicle." It could be argued that even the new formulations which are worked out (such as this one, for instance) are just as esoteric and incomprehensible as their predecessors. However, it is the case that each new believer/theologian is unconsciously influenced by the spirit and thought forms of his/her day and will inevitably in some way speak to his/her contemporaries in ways in which previous theologians could not. (Whether or not that which is said is "valuable" is another story!)
Also, as has been mentioned before, the more different ways an idea can be stated, the greater the possibility that it will be understood. The "Word" of God remains the same, but it must continually be reincarnated in a multitude of different forms. (Back to Contents)
Sacrament
The Christian sacraments have been defined both as "means" of grace and as "outward and visible signs of inward and invisible grace" ("grace" being the unconditional Love of God and the influence of that Love in human life). The former definition has often been interpreted to mean that unless a person receives the sacraments he/she cannot receive or benefit from the Love of God. Such an interpretation gives the institutional church tremendous power over the lives of its people, threats of excommunication being enough to bring all but the most recalcitrant rebel into line. It also has the effect of endowing the sacraments with an almost magical quality and of confining the redemptive poser of God to ecclesiastical manipulation.
If each sacrament is seen as a means of grace, some of these dangers are avoided. The Love of God is mediated through these channels but not through them only. Mourners do not agonize over the fact that the departed loved one was unbaptized. "Conscientious objectors" to certain church policies feel more free to speak their minds.
However, the "outward and visible sign . . ." definition is more indicative of the meaning of "sacrament" and "grace" as understood here. Grace is the Love of God which surrounds and (at least partially) interpenetrates all life. Whether or not we realize its presence it is here, working toward our eventual total at-one-ment with God and one another. Those who are aware of this Presence and consciously respond to it (the Church) both celebrate and give witness to it through the symbolic sacramental acts. These symbolic acts may be "means" of grace if they have the effect of "raising the consciousness" of either the witness/celebrants or any observers. But they are primarily an outward and visible sign of recognition and response to that Love/Grace which is already within. (Back to Contents)
Eucharist
The Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, is recognized as a sacrament not only because it is said to have been instituted by Jesus himself but also because it is most symbolic of his total significance. The bread and wine, representing his body and blood, are broken and poured out as potent reminders of the Love that through him was poured out unto death in order that we might know the meaning and end of life. Because the eucharistic elements are taken into and become a part of the bodies of all participants, they are reminders of that interpenetrating Love which is recognized as being in all. (Back to Contents)
Baptism
Baptismal rites have been a part of the initiatory ceremonies of many religious systems. Baptism signifies cleansing and a renewal of life. In the Christian church there has been much controversy 1. over the necessity of baptism for salvation and 2. the related issue of infant versus believers' baptism. Both of these issues turn on the particular definition of sacrament which is held and, obviously, according tot he definition we have adopted, it could not be considered a necessity for but rather a sign of the salvation already present.
On this basis it would be possible to make a good case for believer's baptism, because only a person who is old enough to be cognizant of the basis and implications of Christian faith is able to make a symbolic witness to that faith by accepting baptism. However, it is not merely the individual concerned but also the community as a whole which celebrates and gives witness to the Love-which-operates-in-human-life-whether-or-not-it-is-recognized.
Therefore, both infant and believers' baptism should be administered by the church in order that its witness to the all-encompassing nature of Love be complete and adequate. But neither form of baptism should be used as a "rite of initiation" into church membership. That function should be left to Confirmation, which represents the individual's conscious decision to respond to God's love through a life of committed discipleship. Baptism symbolically represents the movement of God "toward" humankind, while Confirmation signifies the corresponding movement of humankind to God. The functions of the two rites should be specifically clarified in the minds of Christians and never allowed to become confused in theory or practice.¹²(View Note)(Back to Contents)

SALVATION AND ESCHATOLOGY
The term "salvation" customarily refers to the "fate" of the individual, whereas "eschatology" deals with the fate of creation as a whole. However, because of the interrelatedness of the two (the individual to all creation and vice versa), it will be necessary to discuss the two concepts in the same section. (Back to Contents)
Salvation
Drawing on the "picture" or" world view" we have constructed regarding the nature of humans as we relate to other humans by means of God-Love, Sin/Alienation being the counter-force which Love seeks to overcome, "salvation" would necessarily be the process by which the barriers of impermeability to Love are broken down by that Love, leaving the person "open" to full relationship in Love with all other persons.
The actual mechanisms by which this works are many. A person can cognitively comprehend the implications and intentions of the Love of God and consciously will to experientially appropriate that Love in all areas of his/her life. Or one can experience the Love and only later (or never) fully comprehend it, however much he/she benefits from its transforming effects. Often there is a combination of the two mechanisms; and, since the details of experience and modes of human comprehension are so various, there is no way of pinning down exactly any one way in which the process of salvation works.
It should be emphasized that, while Jesus is the paradigmatic example, confirmation, and (human) enabler of the salvatory process, salvation is in no way limited to "faith in Jesus." In one sense, salvation does not even have to include "faith in God." Love operates in human life whether or not it is recognized as [the] being of God. Certainly, recognition of God-Love, as this Love was demonstrated by Jesus, and conscious participation in the process not only "helps things along" but also brings comforting assurance of final "salvation" in a world which badly needs that assurance. But this recognition and participation constitute discipleship, not salvation per se.
1. Justification means that, in spite of our condition of alienation and Sin, the Love of God continues to operate for our benefit and eventual salvation. God acts toward us as if we were already fully "open" to relationship in Love ("righteous"), refusing to allow our alienation to produce alienation in Godself. By "faith" (that our experience of God-Love is indicative of the real and ultimate nature of things) we perceive and appropriate our justification, but faith is not a condition of justification itself.
2. Sanctification is another word for the process by which Love conquers Alienation and becomes dominant in the individual's life.
3. Final "Perfection" is perfection in Love. It is conceivable that such perfection could occur "in this life," and such a possibility should always be a goal, but because the alienation people inevitably encounter almost inevitably builds up some barriers, it is doubtful that very many of us will reach that level. While the church ascribes perfection-in-love to Jesus, it is interesting to note that Jesus specifically refused to do accept such designations. ("There is none good except the Father." Matt: 19:17) There is something about the nature of Love which brings about an other-centeredness so complete that the truly loving person is quite unaware of and inclined to discount any reference to signs of his/her own "perfection." (Back to Contents)
Eschatology
It is utterly amazing that Christian theologians can talk about the "doctrine of the last things" in terms of God's final triumph over all evil (Sin/Alienation), the allegiance to God of all humankind and nations, etc., and totally ignore the fact that there are, have been, and will continue to be literally billions of people who, because of circumstances beyond their control (accident of birth, historical conditions, etc.), have never been much affected or transformed by God-Love operating in human life on earth. For various reasons, evil and alienation are so rampant in certain situations and experiences that the "innocent" people caught up in and involved by those situations could not possibly believe in or benefit from the message of the Gospel (if they ever heard it at all!).
If we add together a loving and powerful God, plus the human situation as it actually exists, plus God's (supposed) intention that all humanity be reconciled to each other in Godself, the only "sum" at which we can logically arrive is eventual universal salvation.
Such a doctrine would have to be predicated upon the presupposition of individual, personal survival, in some manner, after death. It would have to take into account traditional ideas of "Hell" and the "wrath and judgment" of God. But most of all it would have to recognize that whenever we speak of the "last things" (just as whenever we speak of God) we are speaking strictly "by faith" about that for which we have no verifiable evidence. We can only infer from our experiences of the past and present that which we expect to take place in the future.
Certainly there is a "Hell," which we all presently experience in varying degrees of intensity depending on our degree of alienation. Judgment and wrath (God's? or our own?) condemn our self-perpetuating alienated behavior. But can anyone who has ever even partially comprehended the magnitude and power of the Love of God ever espouse a doctrine which would allow for the eventual, final exclusion of anyone else--even a Hitler or a [name the current pariahs in the news]--from eventual participation in and transformation by that Love? Can the character of God-Love change from all-inclusive to partially exclusive? That would be Alienation. Is there any way that we, upon apprehending this power in our own lives, can arbitrarily limit the effectiveness of that power beyond this miniscule smattering of the whole of Reality with which we are presently acquainted?
We cannot know or even partially spell out the details of what is to come. But the general shape of God's/our future is certainly clear. We know "that [our] Redeemer liveth" (Job 19:25a), and that "neither death nor life nor angels nor their hierarchies nor the present nor the future nor any supernatural forces either of height or depth nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the Love God has shown in Christ Jesus our Lord!" (Romans 8:39-39) This is the heart of the Christian Gospel. And it is all that is necessary for anyone to know. (Back to Contents)

ENDNOTES
¹For the purposes of this writer, the word "power" must be redefined. It will not be used as that which overwhelms and subdues all with which it comes in contact, but as the ability to function appropriately and effectively in any situation in order to bring about a desired end. Thus, "power" could include either "strength" or "weakness," depending on which quality is appropriate and effective in a given situation. (Back to text)
²Cf., Gordon Kaufman, Systematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968), pp. 336 ff. (Back to text)
³Both Genesis creation stories (beginning at Gen. 1:1 and 2:4) start with this assumption. (Back to text)
⁴According to Dr. Leroy Howe (in lectures for the class in "Systematic Theology," Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Spring, 1974) and whatever other sources might have led to his opinion, "Personhood must be embodied." (Back to text)
⁵In such a view, the pursuit of knowledge and truth in any field can rightly be equated with the quest for knowledge of God. Nothing that is known to be true in one area of study can contradict truth in another, and all fields of human inquiry can serve as counterbalances to the others, so that untruths can more quickly and decisively exposed and corrected. This concept also paves the way for what Albert Outler has set forth as the primary task of theology in this secular age--the re-sacralization of life. When our discoveries of truth in the areas of science, psychology, history, etc., can be seen not as alternative explanations for God but as insights into the ways in which God actually works, perhaps we will at last be capable of the maturity required for authentic and fulfilling life in this world. Perhaps only then will we be able to re-enter "Eden." (Back to text)
⁶Different shapes signify the uniqueness of individuals. (Back to text)
⁷To say that Love is God is not to reduce God to the status of being simply an intangible "affection," but rather is intended to elevate the "Affection" to its proper place as the essence of relationship, which is the essence of God. The "Image of God" in this system would be the human capacity for (and inability to live authentically without) loving relationship. It is marred by Sin/Alienation, and it is this capacity which is healed and strengthened by the salvatory process. (Back to text)
⁸From the perspective here presented there is no justifiable dichotomy between "divine" and "human" nature. Only by being "filled" with the divine Love do we become "fully Human" in the sense of being what God intends humanity to be. Therefore, to be fully human is to be "divine" (although finite), and there is no difficulty in understanding the "two natures" of Jesus as in reality one nature, rather than as a case of incompatible "Siamese twins!" (Back to text)
⁹Rachel Henderlite, A Call to Faith. (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1955), p. 144. (Back to text)
¹⁰Schubert M. Ogden, "What is Theology?" Perkins Journal, Winter, 1973, page 3 (Back to text)
¹¹Any preaching, teaching or "witnessing" about Christian faith and practice can be regarded as a "theological statement." (Back to text)
¹²While Confirmation is a rite of initiation into the church, it should not be thought of as a sacrament. That term should only be used for celebrations of God's initiative toward us, not our response. (Back to text)
Home - Topics