Christian Realism 6

Last updated on: June 23, 2008 at 12:30 am by Scot McKnight

Christian Realism 6 2008-06-23T00:30:57-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If step one in Stackhouse’s theory of Christian realism is to sketch his method, step two is to provide the big themes that put all of Christian realism and ethics in context. This is all found in chp 6 of Making the Best of It. His question, “Who are we, for Jesus Christ, today?,” is set now in the context of the biblical Story. (Everyone “Stories” today; good, we need to.)

His story is the same as everyone else’s too: creation, fall, redemption, consummation. But he says somethings here that deserve conversation.
First, the one who takes the Fall seriously knows that “nature” cannot determine Christian ethics. Nature, he would argue, is not as God intended it to be.
[He points to homosexuality, but I would have a question here: How does Stackhouse’s Christian realism take into consideration the limits of the Fall — a broken world — and yet at the same criticize the view that “what is, is good”? I think this can be answered, but this question arose as I read this section. Let me put this differently: let us assume homosexuality is not God’s design. Is homosexuality then something to be embraced by a the “realism” in Christian realism? Is not accepting cracks in the world part of realism? Why, then, do we accept war but not homosexuality?]
Second, in his redemption section he offers some strong critique of the Anabaptist vision. He critiques the “imitation of Christ” tradition (WWJD). ” ‘What would Jesus do?’ therefore is the wrong question for Christian ethics. … Instead, ‘What would Jesus want me or us to do, here and now?’ is the right question — or, if I may, Who are we, for Jesus Christ, today?” (190-191)
Question: I think he’s a bit hard on what imitation means for he seems to assume it is too literal but I wonder how many of us think the “WWJD?” approach is really the question he thinks should be asked. What do you think?
Third, his approach to Scripture is that we have to know what the Bible was saying at its point in the Story. Thus, Moses and Jesus and Paul each played their part in the Story. No one plays the trump card.
Now he critiques the Anabaptist view …
The Sermon on the Mount (SoM) was meant literally and Jesus intended us to do it. Lessening these is lessening the demand of Jesus upon his disciples. There is here a “clarity and radicalism.” He doesn’t agree.
1. The “clear and radical” version is “incoherent with itself” (195). The SoM’s statements are not as clear as many think. Gouging out of eyes is not literal but how do we know that? Some of this cannot be applied to parents or to churches. We don’t “simply” obey the SoM.
2. Only Jesus lives within the kingdom totally. “So since the Kingdom is ‘already, but not yet’ come, we should not be trying to act as if it has already and fully come, even as we strive to yield more and more to the impulse of those values that draw us forward and upward from ‘the age to come’ “(197).
3. This “clear and radical position” has never been done in the history of the Church. “Not even close.”
He prefers an ethic of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church to live out the gospel in each age. “God recognizes both our sinfulness and the topsy-turvy world in which we live” (198).
He says a few things about heaven and they sound a bit like Tom Wright, and I will soon do a series on the blog on the meaning of “heaven” in the NT. Then he sums up some vital principles for Christian ethics:
1. The individual matters, and so does the social.
2. The physical matters, and so does the spiritual.
3. Unity matters, and so does diversity.
4. The world to come is in continuity with this world, and fulfills the noble aspirations of this world, even as it clearly transcends this world.
5. The principle of win-win-win. Thus, altruism is in one’s own interest and God’s own interest. It is not about losing so others can win, but losing that leads to winning — for all involved. “No zero-sum, but abundant life forever and for all” (205).

Public Issues

Previous Post

June 23, 2008

Advent Christians

Next Post

June 24, 2008 Pompei

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the name of Saul's son who ruled Israel except Judah after Saul died?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Abner Jonathan Mephibosheth Ish-bosheth