Before you make broad generalizations, may I ask if you have read the book? If not, why don’t you? From the post, it would seem that you are up to the intellectual challenge.

A quantum world which Einstein (via E=MC2) told us that everything is just a temporary always changing (moment to moment) modification of energy or play of light.

Put in another way, ALL of this is just a Light show, or a boundless field of radiant energy.

Blake: Energy IS eternal de-lite (delight)

Thanks for the comments; I’m glad you benefited from the book. Hope you have the second edition!!

Blessings on your ministry!

I have just finished reading your book Elements of Biblical Exegesis and just wanted to thank you for your efforts. I have been a pastor for nearly 30 years and found much to refresh my thinking in this area. I am a former United Methodist who has gravitated to conservative evangelicalism and while I could differ with some of your editorial comments, I want to commend you for the wealth of practical suggestions and your obvious passion for understanding God’s Word.

Blessings,
Jesse Waggoner

http://www.twitter.com/JesseWaggoner

Thanks to you, too. “Communal kenosis for the good of the world” is clearly missional, though one might (rightly or wrongly) conclude that it is not evangelistic.

Thanks also for pointing us to Farrow’s book and paragraph, and for raising the question of non-human creation, etc. As for non-human creation, I think Norm Wirzba and some of his students at Duke are moving in this direction, but I’ve not yet thought it completely through.

Thanks for your good words to/for both of us, and for the reminder that kenosis is inherently, not implicitly, missional.

For MJG – Sir, arguing that this work is not about mission has some analogical kinship with arguing that Philemon has nothing to say about slavery. If we could, by God’s grace, get as kenotic and theotic as you and Paul point us, we would not miss a step in our mission. Kenosis does not imply mission. It is categorically explicit. It is ontologically explicit. To get/be kenotic is astounding theotic missional presence! May we keep aiming ourselves this direction.

For DWC – Perhaps—instead of antithetical—your review might be offered from the perspective of how a grasp of MJG’s work, esp. Cruciformity/Inhabiting, will properly inform/vivify mission. Your point will be sound and your review will be much more of the missional heuristic you want to offer. Kudos for the import you give mission! It can rightly be part of the seamless garment for this—Cruciformity/Inhabiting, that is—to be what is “sent.”

Thanks for you both “talking out loud,”
Mike C.

For a book under 200 pages it seemed enough to work out theosis and the cruciform God. I am hoping that future conversation includes how this participation in the cruciform narrative identity relates to non-human creation and other subjects such as art and aesthetics.

With respect to Paul’s “mystical and doxological” thought, I was reminded of the book “Ascension and Ecclesia” by Douglas Farrow where he is discussing Irenaeus, the eucharistic community and the world:

“But the church, believing in the renewal of creation, offers an oblation which commits it to a life of responsible engagement with the world for the sake of its transformation. Not that the church itself can or will accomplish that transformation from below, so to speak, or assist the world to do so…Indeed, the new possibilities implanted in its oblation by the Word and the Spirit, just because they are eschatological, consistently thrust the church back to the cross as the ground and pattern of its engagement. But in the cruciform life of the church, in the witness above all of its martyrs, is the evidence of an unrelenting devotion.”

These works (i.e. contemplation and worship) are not so much preliminary or foundational to outreach as they are part of that work. How can it be otherwise? If the church truly does participate in the cruciform narrative identity of God, then when it breaks bread it does not do so only for its own transformation, but also for that of the world.

And thanks for this. It is really good to hear the “full circle” in your words–from contemplation to service/mission. Some folks worry that contemplation sounds privatistic or non-missional.

There is a book out there called “Not the Cross but the Crucified.” I’m not sure what the book’s thesis is, but it should be that living in Christ/the cruciform God is about a dynamic relationship with Christ that is embodied in concrete practices–not an unhealthy devotion to the cross per se or to “suffering” As I have said on numerous occasions but never written (as far as I can remember), cruciformity is not the work of God unless it is, paradoxically, life-giving to others (see 2 Cor 3-5, etc.)

Blessings…

But this process of transformation takes some human cooperation, including especially contemplation of the exalted crucified One (2 Cor. 3:18). For Paul, this is not merely a form of ancient, perhaps vacuous, mysticism, but a sustained reflection on, and identification with, the narrative pattern of Christ crucified and of its paradoxical power to bring life out of death (2 Cor. 4:7-12), all enabled by God himself at work in the individual and community” (Phil. 2:12-13).

I have been experiencing a rather unique transformation over the last couple of months. Once the concept of “Cruciformity” was reassessed and grasped in my mind, my spirit hungered to reflect on Christ crucified. From out of my contemplation came a spirit of servanthood like I’d never seen lived-out in me before!! Over this past weekend, I ministered to several people in ways that confirmed that the Lord’s mission was at work through me. I have fixed my focus and identity on the Crucified Christ narrative; I now see with eyes of compassion which compel me missionally onward. I can confirm this inhabitation of the Cruciform God by my change of heart and missional mindset.
So, I look forward to reading, Inhabiting the Cruciform God and hearing your missional reading of Paul’s letter to the Philippians.