The teaching elder at Westwinds (Dave McDonald) recently posted on his blog about Theosis and Substitutionary Atonement. If your not even remotely interested in Atonement theories, don't bother reading it. If you're curious (as I am) about the theological leanings of (at least one) emerging church, his post is a good place to start. Dave strikes me as a very intelligent and articulate man - I'm sure he'll be able to address the issue in an understandable way. Incidentally, if you're looking for my take, you'll find it in the comment I left on his blog.
Hatushili
Monday, February 19, 2007
Westwinds Theology
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The link you posted didn't work(at least for me), But due to your recent injuries I'll not dog you...
I don't know what I did wrong, but I seem to have fixed it. Blame it on the Vicodin!
Hatushili
Once again I need help. I’m not sure that I’m quite grasping the two atonement theologies he mentioned: Christus Victor and Theosis. Is his claim that these theologies are another way of looking at the substitutionary atonement and the work of Christ or that these are all together different avenues to a personal relationship with Christ? I’m a bit confused. However, I did read your ditty about language usage and I would agree with an updated vocabulary.
He's posted quite a few more posts concerning theosis, but still really hasn't addressed any of the comments posted concerning what he's saying, particularaly addressing his apparent desire to do away with "sin" as part of the message.
After reading Dave McDonald's post and the responses on his blog, I feel that the responses were quite correct and that Mr. McDonald is cutting against the latter half of 1Cor. ch.1 through ch.2. The cross must not be emptied of meaning by our wisdom (1Cor.1:17), even though it is foolish to those who don't believe (v.18). We cannot tell people what they want to hear at the expense of the message of Christ crucified (and why He was), no matter how that is received (vs.22,23). Finally, remember that it is "the called" who will receive the gospel and believe. The truth that we are to deliver will never have mass appeal; but it must be accurate so that God will have His people to respond to His call.
Obviously, many of us can improve in how we interact with people so that, as others have said in response, the message is understood by our listeners (be they one or one hundred in number).
Tact is a much needed characteristic for much of life, witnessing especially. Avoiding being an offense ourselves while recognizing the offensiveness of the message (the hearer's sin, the need of a blood sacrifice as payment, and the inability of the hearer to attain Heaven and godliness through his own efforts)
is difficult; but sidestepping sin,
while ensuring that we won't offend, leaves a message that will make people feel good without addressing behaviour (the "u" is for Nathan) or a need for faith (since sin is off the table, there is no need for anyone to trust in another for Heaven or reconcilliation -- unless the Theosis aspect leads there).
So, while I appreciate Mr. McDonald's desire to connect, I tend to feel that Hatushili is correct in that the language needs to be deconstructed for our society without loosing the essential message.
Obviously I agree with you Haggis!
I honestly get the feeling that Theosis is just Dave's "pet" right now. I'm not sure that, say, 5 years from now he'll still be preaching and teaching it with as much emphasis.
I don't know if his emphasis is born of a frustration with the standard Evangelical "Gospel=Atonement" thinking. I wrestle with this oversimplification myself, but I'm fairly convinced that removing sin language is not the solution.
I've often avoided the "sin" word by simply pointing out that Heaven is perfect (a truth almost everyone I've ever spoken with has agreed to) and people aren't (including me and the person to whom I'm speaking). Almost no one ever disagrees with the statement - and it's really just "sin" language repackaged.
Post a Comment