Charlie -

The reference to the berakhot is very interesting; I wonder if it or a version like it was prayed in the first century?  Your reference is precisely the sort of thing that we ought to pay attention to when looking at historical context - and what a historical context!  If reading Paul against this background, would not Gal. 3:28 be a reference to the universal redemption of the Messiah and the ingathering of all nations?  Thank you for drawing our attention to it.

I haven’t read Smith’s volume, so I can’t say much at all on point.  My only concern is the reduction of homo sapiens to homo desirans.  No longer are we seen as beings who might aspire to wisdom; we are instead reduced wholly to, and defined wholly by, our own appetites.  I reject this.

The question of a theology of creation is a good one, but I also fail to see how someone like Rogers can be said to rely on a theology of creation when he raises no question at all about transsexuality - which is not a matter of creation, but can only be thought in the wake of a certain kind of technological advance.  The language of creation might be important, but a theology of creation which comprehends Scripture, the Church’s historic understanding(s), and the current state of inquiry into the Book of Nature - such a theology seems lacking, to me, at least in my perusal of Rogers.  Indeed, his conflation of sex and gender indicates to me that creation is not at all important in his exegesis of the NT.

Just a few thoughts.

Ben,

I too hope that someone will be able to answer the question about how long ago that prayer was said.

Smith wouldn’t talk about appetites, but with an Augustinian flavor, speak about desire as those things we love. “Aspiring to wisdom” would be exactly the kinds of desire he would say characterize the desires the Kingdom of God.

I did not say that Rogers was relying on a theology of Creation - quite the contrary, he seems to flee from any such thing!

As an aside, I have pondered the story of the Fall, and have often wondered why nakedness suddenly becomes an issue. Was it a matter of modesty? Likewise, in the story of Noah’s son Canaan seeing his nakedness, and being cursed, what’s the big deal? I don’t think either story is about sexuality - it is about Creation. In the Fall, our own createdness becomes a problem, and we cannot abide it. So we cover it up. Our “creatureliness” is a constant reminder that we are broken, and our relationship with God especially is fractured. So it is not surprising that those, as Zack have pointed out, who want to eliminate the Logos, don’t deal well with Creation or have a very well made theology of Creation.

I have to admit that while I am quite wary of the fleshly direction of progressive theologians, I am also concerned about the potentiality of an overly ascetic/spiritualized version of how love, desire, and aspiration for the divine intersect.  It can smack of a baptized gnosticism if we’re not careful.

As far as foreheads are concerned, I fear mine is not quite so elevated as my fellows who have already ascended to planes higher than I could hope to dream of, much less see.

Lenny,

I would have said that it was exactly the progressives who have gone the gnostic route to avoid the implications of embodiness/Creation.

Historically, gnosticism produces two equal but opposite responses: body=evil, therefore 1) indulge the body since it will be destroyed anyway, or 2) do all you can to suppress the body since it is evil.  I don’t doubt there may be progressives of the first type, but most progressives with whom I am familiar seem to argue “body=all good, therefore can only produce good (denial of sin, evil, corruptibility).”  A balanced Christian response is “body=good but corrupted, therefore embrace the good through faith in Christ (new creation), while mortify the sinful nature and train the body for eternity (spiritual disciplines).”  As Benjamin did earlier, we’ll leave monergist/synergist distinctions for another day.

LA,

I agree, but point out that Rogers (in the original post) seems to say what is really important is the immaterial/soul, thus leaving us free to do what ever we want with the material (not quite either type). That is why I pointed to the First Things article.

Ah, so much to comment on here. Trust me when I say that I’m limiting my comments to one major topic here, simply to keep from sitting at my computer and writing for a couple hours, not because what I leave unaddressed is unimportant.

I think we need to examine this crucial point which continues to crop up: creation. Particularly, I hope we could not only consider the givenness of the material order, in light of Genesis, which many of us (including myself) and many traditionalists or conservatives writing on the topic of sexual difference, gender roles, and marriage (from JP II to the authors of the conservative paper to the HoB), believe is a crucial point in addressing these topics. What I want to ask is whether could we also give ourselves to the task of trying to consider a stronger version of the sort of theology of creation that might rest behind progressive discussions of these same topics?

I say this because I remain unconvinced that it is entirely a kind of Gnosticism, though it certainly resembles it at times, and I take the argument from the First Things article quite seriously. In some cases, I think it is quite correct. Some progressives are Gnostic on these issues (or agnostic about them, really). But, among the more theologically articulate progressive voices I have encountered, Gnosticism is not the whole story. Both Rogers, and a number of progressives I encounter in the Diocese of MA and in school, would point to a rather different understanding of creation, which is not simply identifiable as Gnostic and which is worth our consideration here. It is somewhat similar to what I have been speaking about before, which is no accident. What they might be concerned with is how we understand the original creation in light of its renewal in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is, what are the continuities and discontinuities between 1) the original creation or original purpose of creation, 2) the renewal and/or transformation of creation in Christ’s resurrection, 3) the future resurrection life of the redeemed, and 4) the current role of sexual difference and embodiment in the Christian community? Are there sharp discontinuities between any of these, what are they, and why are they there? In contrast, are there continuities, actually or potentially, and how do these impact current practice? And, in the end, does discontinuity or continuity, so to speak, “win the day?”

While I think that many of us would agree there are some key discontinuities between these different areas, the place where I think a lot of progressives might put it is between 1 and 2, which impacts their understanding of 3 and 4. I have not seen many of them do so explicitly in writing, but several personal dialogues I have engaged in with particular progressives always seem to shape up along those points, and I think that it would make Rogers’s arguments (and many others) much more coherent if we assumed that the following sort of statements lie behind their thinking:

“The division of humanity into male and female had a particular creational role for the purposes of bearing children. However, when Jesus Christ assumed human nature and renewed it in the resurrection, his perfected humanity was neither male nor female. It had no sexual difference and stood in radical discontinuity with the original creation. This lack of sexual difference is a characteristic of all resurrection bodies and will be that of our own when we become ‘equal to the angels.’ One participates in this resurrection body even today through baptism into Christ. By undoing the signs of sexual difference amongst ourselves, we may participate in the resurrection and in Christ more and more. Since such participation is clearly a good thing, we not only have the option of undoing sexual difference, but the imperative to do so at an ever exceeding rate.”

By thinking in this way, a “strong” (or at least more theologically articulate) progressive argument could take stock of Genesis 1-3, Gal. 3:28, Matt 22:30, as well as advocate for a certain kind of inaugurated eschatology. By talking about overcoming “sexual difference” rather than gender or sex, the progressive argument can speak about both. Hence, it can attempt to address same-sex marriage, all sexual acts, gender roles, and transsexual or transgender issues all in light of this question around the continuity and discontinuity between creation and new creation.

I’m not saying that such an argument doesn’t face difficulties (I think it faces massive problems), but it shows that the fault lines, or the focuses of the discussion between progressives and traditionalists, will have to deal not only with Genesis, but eventually with Genesis-in-light-of-Christ. A counter to these arguments has to take into account a lot more material, arguing not only that the original humanity was split into male and female, but also arguing whether and how that the division endures into the present, whether and how it is to be overcome in the eschaton, and how the overcoming of that division both is and is not realized in the present day through ascetical activity. And, of course, two of those ascetical activities, identified in the progressive paper to the HoB, are marriage and monasticism.

Again, some thoughts. Respond as needed. I’m taking these points head on in my Diocese of residence, so I’m practically fishing for aid in thinking through them.

I really like raising the issue of Creation - New Creation. “where are we headed” is an important question (doesn’t Aristotle smile down on us?).

It will mean that we must carfully answer the question, “How do we deal with where we are now.” What of the original Creation is lost, and will be recovered in New Creation? What that is gone will actually be transended? Or put another way (Wright is strong here): what are the continuities and discontinuities between Original and New Creation?

For example, there seems to be good reason to think that “languages, tribes and nations” will continue to ‘exist.’

The Matt 22:30 passage is very interesting (we should hear clearly the warning that we know neither the scriptures nor the power of God!). Seems like it is “marriage” that goes away. But what does it mean to be like the angels?

The Evangelical in me says that a central question involves asking and answering the question about the Fall - are not both we and the whole Creation broken? I believe that the power of the Resurrection is at work in me, but that is not nearly finished! The more I ponder the idea that God loves me to the very depths of my darkness (and brings the Cross to those places), the more I am left speachless.

So in this time between times, we live both under the Cross and in the power of the Resurrection. This is a point that I think critical. Is there a sharp discontinuity between Old and New? Is our sexuality broken and needs to be remade or is it progressivly getting better (as we ‘understand’ it better)?

You are spot on in identifying the theological differences in how we understand creation.  However, to talk intelligently on the matter, we also need to unearth the differences in how Scripture is used and understood. 

A particular theological template is read into the liberal approach to Scripture before one draws out supporting exegesis.  I am well aware we all have theological lenses, but I find the liberal/progressive lens less responsive to Scripture as an authority over the reader, but more of a conversation partner from which good stuff may be gleaned, discarded, or reinterpreted according to a personally-based set of axioms.  That, to me, is clearly contrary to what Scripture says about itself and how Scripture has been regarded throughout vast swath of Tradition.

That invariably impacts our reading of the creation/new creation narratives.  As one who still is comfortable identifying himself as an Evangelical within the Episcopal Church, we need to lay out (even more, understand) our own foundational assumptions before engaging the task of elucidating a theology of creation.

CC- I really agree with you that some greater account needs to be taken of the Fall. That is, regardless of whatever the theology of Creation/New Creation might be, we have to first understand what the situation is that the New Creation might be breaking into. I was just spending a good deal of time in Colossians this afternoon, and I was truly struck (as I am each time) by the fact that human beings are not the only ones spoken of as being “estranged” and “hostile” and only reconciled “in the body of his flesh” (Col. 1:21). Rather, that point is actually an addendum or development of the original discussion in the letter: the Son of God is the one through whom and for whom all things were made, both in heaven and earth (1:13, 16). And, equally, all things were reconciled through him and for him, now by the cross:

“All things were created through him and for [or ‘unto’] him. And he is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become pre-eminent in all things, since all the fullness was pleased to dwell in him and, through him, to reconcile all things unto him, making peace through the blood of his cross, whether things on earth or things in the heavens.”
(1:16c-1:20; my translation, taking “unto him” eis auton of v. 20 as a reference to the Son, rather than the Father, since, presumably, it would be neuter if the Father were being spoken of in this verse, as the Father is described with a neuter nominative “all the fullness” pan to pleroma. Again, my interpretation.)

Just how this is the case needs to be examined more thoroughly. Some of the Greek Fathers, notably Maximus the Confessor, see it as having to do with the special role of humanity within the created order, which would accord well with Romans 8:20. Humanity lost its place in the universe, and, due to its special role of spanning the gap between created and uncreated natures (through the indwelling of the Spirit and contemplation of the Logos), the Fall of humanity drug the entire created order down. The Fall really needs more attention and, I would argue, recognition in this debate.

LA- I also totally agree with you that there is a great deal of work that needs to be done in the Episcopal Church on the topic of what Kevin Vanhoozer would call “First Theology.” That is, what is our basic interpretive stance when we engage in the theological project? What are our sources? Particularly, how do we deal with Scripture? I would have to agree with you that there is a certain kind of “free hand” in many progressive circles when it comes to placing oneself under the Word of God, one which I think makes it all the more difficult to engage in any sort of dialogue.

At the same time, I often think we have to engage in multi-leveled discussions on many of these topics. While it would be more orderly to sort out our understanding of authority before we engage in the task of theological dialogue, I simply don’t see that sort of discussion shaping up immediately to the exclusion of all others. Hence, my advocacy for also advancing the conversation in other ways. I also think that discussion the question of Creation/New Creation might be particularly well-suited to exposing differences in biblical interpretation and theological method. For example, I tend to think that our creational theology ought to be developed with reference to Scripture and those developments in the patristic tradition which address it, of which there are many, particularly in those writings of certain Fathers (like Athanasius) whose ideas on creation and the role of the Son in creation influenced the dogmatic definition of the Trinity and the definition of the two natures of Jesus Christ.  Yet I tend to think that such an approach might actually make some conservatives of a more evangelical bent, with whom I would normally view myself allied, quite uncomfortable because I view the task as needing both biblical exegesis and patristic excavation, whereas some evangelicals might simply want to see the task of exegesis get on, without any necessary reference to the Fathers. A discussion of these theme might reveal deeper differences in all camps in this our Church.

But perhaps I’m wrong?

ta panta “all things”!
NT Wright has been very influential for me on this point!

I can’t remember where I heard this, but the speaker made the point that in its original cultural context, one of the things a hearer would have heard in Gen 1-2 is the building of a temple, where the last thing placed in the temple is the image of the Deity - humanity is the “image of the Deity placed in the temple of Creation.”

We could no longer fulfill out cultic role because of our rebellion - now Jesus is the New Humanity placed in the New Temple - New Creation.

Which makes me think of 2 Cor 5 - “If anyone is in Christ—New Creation!”

Which takes us back to Gal 3:28. No longer slave/free, male/female, Jew/Gentile are all the result of being “in Christ.”

Which brings me back to this passage in one of your posts:

“The division of humanity into male and female had a particular creational role for the purposes of bearing children. However, when Jesus Christ assumed human nature and renewed it in the resurrection, his perfected humanity was neither male nor female. It had no sexual difference and stood in radical discontinuity with the original creation. This lack of sexual difference is a characteristic of all resurrection bodies and will be that of our own when we become ‘equal to the angels.’ One participates in this resurrection body even today through baptism into Christ. By undoing the signs of sexual difference amongst ourselves, we may participate in the resurrection and in Christ more and more. Since such participation is clearly a good thing, we not only have the option of undoing sexual difference, but the imperative to do so at an ever exceeding rate.”{/quote]

- Is the complimentary gender in Gen 2 necessary to be the image of the Diety?
- If it is, how can that requirement go away in the New Creation?
- Which is another way of asking about the assumption that “perfect humanity” in Jesus would be neither male nor female.

Sorry to be so sketchy! Hope you can fill in some of the spaces…

Share on Facebook

I think we have similar thoughts running through our minds here. Wright has been very influential for me on this point as well, though I always feel like I’m still sorting out just what I think it all means. I think the person you’re referring to with regards to the building of a temple in Genesis 1 is John Walton, of Wheaton. He makes the point in a few publications; I came across it in his *Ancient Near Eastern Thought*. NT Wright has also quoted Walton on this point in a couple lectures which are posted on his website.

I’ve also always been influenced by Wright’s view that if we are to say that something is fundamentally wrong about same-sex marriage or any other LGBT-related questions, then it must somehow tie into what we think is most beneficial or harmful to the human person, what expresses the “wise image of God” best. Wright ties it to a number of places, but one major point which first started me going along this train was his discussion of the differences between Rom. 1 and 4. In one, a lack of recognition and thankfulness leads to abuse of the person through sexual acts which “against nature.” In the other, proper worship and recognition of God leads to fertility for Abraham and Sarah. Wright always seem to think there was something rather important about those two distinctions. That small suggestion has had me trying to work theological anthropology into the current debates ever since.
[of course, I think this point runs aground on certain other issues, but that’s for another time]

Anyway, I’ll need to run some of this through my mind a bit more before replying in full or developing any more thought, but I think we’re zeroing in on a lot of important material which coheres rather nicely around this question. Glad the discussion is still moving!