Originally Posted by aron
"He trusted in God; let him deliver him now; if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God." Matthew 27:43
"All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." Psalm 22:7,8
WL had something that he called the "heart of the divine revelation", contained in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, and Philippians. I think of, for instance, the phrase, "until Christ is formed in you" in Galatians 4:19. Now, I'm no scholar and surely some could argue differently (or present the same argument differently), but I'd like to show how the conceptual Christ formed by WL deviated from that which was being presented in Paul's epistles.
Remember that at the time Paul was writing, they didn't have a New Testament (NT) corpus. The written gospels probably weren't in wide circulation either, at least in present form. What the Christian assemblies had was the extant scripture, which today we call the Old Testament (OT). So when Paul said for the word of Christ to dwell in you richly, was he talking about his epistles? Were the saints really supposed to pray-read his letters?
No, he was talking about the OT. And while the Psalms weren't exclusively Paul's 'word of Christ', they were heavily cited in the NT and clearly had prominence: Paul specifically mentioned them as revelatory sources twice, in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. Along with singing psalms, were various songs which the believers used, parts of which are probably quoted in the text of NT epistles. But I'll make my case with the Psalms, though by no means were they alone understood as being the 'word of Christ'. But they're convenient for us to access today because they have widespread NT precedence (i.e. usage) and line up well with Jesus the Nazarene (probably why NT authors cited them so frequently).
What kind of Christ did Paul's epistles envision being formed in the Christian believer? First, he said that the word of Christ would dwell in them richly, meaning it's living and operative (cf Heb. 4:12). The living oracles (the OT prophetic words of Christ) function within the fallen but redeemed and regenerated human being to turn their thoughts (focus, attention, volition) back to the Father. Originally the prophetic word provided a framework, then Christ came and inhabited this word to the letter (see e.g. the quotes above: Psa. 22 transposed to Matt. 27). Next, the textual equivalent, or parallel, of the word of Christ indwelling us richly is the idea of being filled with the Spirit. So the Spirit that comes when we declare, "Lord Jesus!!" fills us when we access the word of Christ by singing. This is the Spirit that gives life, the same life-giving Spirit that raised Jesus from on the third day. It is indeed a word of Spirit and life.
With me so far? Okay, I hold that this is nothing less than "Christ making His home in our hearts", which gradually leads to "not I but Christ in me", and to "Christ being formed in us". Similar to WL's scheme, except in this case, Christ isn't shorn of historical context. This Christ is the one who lived and walked and breathed in Galilee and Judea, who died and went into the earth, only to rise to glory on the third day. But the Christ formed within their oeuvre is a Christ from WL's hymns, footnotes, teachings and outlines, a Christ controlling access to the word and even excluding the word, if necessary. A generic Christ who can be anything that they need him to be for the LC church life, a Christ removed from the word of scriptures, which scriptures WL called "low", "natural", and "fallen men's concepts" and the like. The choice is clear: I think WL and crew made it easy for us.
I'll repeat what was written at the start: that one could use the same verses and phrases above and argue differently, or could argue similarly using different verses or phrases. I'm not a systematic scholar, and randomly picked a few verses that seemed useful to my case. And I go by memory, so one could also claim, and maybe even show, that WL spoke or wrote differently.
But for me, the Christ that WL's adherents claim is indwelling them richly, and organically and metabolically assimilating into their beings to make them the same as God in life and nature, is a Christ removed from the word of God. It's a Christ of convenience, and of show, a Christ of a Bible expositor's imagination, and that being a Bible expositor who prized his own imagination more than the biblical text. So when they wave their phrases and platitudes it can be hard to say, "amen". I'd love to, but it's hard. Because frankly I don't know what Christ they're talking about.
|