Resurrection Dogmatics: Restatement of Purpose
Before continuing my series on the resurrection of the body I want to clarify some things about my blog. I named this site Resurrection Dogmatics partly in honor of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics but also because in my experience and reading, the topic of the resurrection has become very marginalized. When the topic is treated it is almost always in reference to Jesus' resurrection with apologetic motives. Rarely is the true significance of the resurrection examined and propounded. Furthermore, except for a few scholars resurrection as a proper soteriological concept is non-existent. Salvation is almost always exclusively dealt with in terms of Jesus' sacrificial death and the atonement it brings for humanity's sin. In my opinion, most of Christian exegesis and theology has been insufficient due to this exclusive focus on Christ's death.
But that's a discussion for another time. I'm saying all of this to emphasize that the resurrection has become in most Christian circles an appendix to the gospel message and to theology in general. My site exists in part to correct this by posting periodically on issues related to the topic of resurrection. Thus the title of my blog, Resurrection Dogmatics. What is not the purpose of my site is to beat people over the head with resurrection. My site is not dogmatic in this sense. I hope that I do not come across like this. I apologize if at times I have seemed to act in such a manner.
As I enter into dialogue with Patrick over the issue of the resurrection of the body, I would ask my readers to make sure I do not inadvertantly cross the line into the kind of dogmatism that this site is not meant to be characterized by. If any of you at any time feel like I'm doing this, please let me know. In the meantime, I have added Patrick's blog to my list and I would encourage you to visit. He has some very keen insights on various issues and updates very regularly. Tomorrow, part 2 to my current series should be up. But the weekend is approaching, and those who regularly visit my website know, because of my two jobs, that is the hardest time for me to post. Regardless, part 2 should not be up any later than Sunday.
*Note: See original statement of purpose here.
But that's a discussion for another time. I'm saying all of this to emphasize that the resurrection has become in most Christian circles an appendix to the gospel message and to theology in general. My site exists in part to correct this by posting periodically on issues related to the topic of resurrection. Thus the title of my blog, Resurrection Dogmatics. What is not the purpose of my site is to beat people over the head with resurrection. My site is not dogmatic in this sense. I hope that I do not come across like this. I apologize if at times I have seemed to act in such a manner.
As I enter into dialogue with Patrick over the issue of the resurrection of the body, I would ask my readers to make sure I do not inadvertantly cross the line into the kind of dogmatism that this site is not meant to be characterized by. If any of you at any time feel like I'm doing this, please let me know. In the meantime, I have added Patrick's blog to my list and I would encourage you to visit. He has some very keen insights on various issues and updates very regularly. Tomorrow, part 2 to my current series should be up. But the weekend is approaching, and those who regularly visit my website know, because of my two jobs, that is the hardest time for me to post. Regardless, part 2 should not be up any later than Sunday.
*Note: See original statement of purpose here.
Naming one's blog can be tricky! No matter what name I come up with, I always end up dissatisfied with it after the fact. ("Toward Jerusalem" is my third attempt.)
In my experience and reading, the topic of the resurrection has become very marginalized. When the topic is treated it is almost always in reference to Jesus' resurrection with apologetic motives. … Except for a few scholars resurrection as a proper soteriological concept is non-existent.
I'm not sure I agree with that.
It's certainly true with respect to popular treatments of the resurrection — including the average Sunday a.m. sermon.
But among scholars? I think they're rather disinterested in its apologetic value.
Scholars recognize Jesus' resurrection as a proleptic eschatological event, the beginning of the new creation. Also as vindication after Christ's rejection and suffering (God's "yes" to Jesus as a corrective to the world's "no" to Jesus).
Those are the two concepts that immediately come to mind for me. I'm sure there's more … and I'm interested in seeing what you mean when you refer to "the true significance of the resurrection".
Posted by
stc |
4:54 PM