A Generous Orthodoxy

[Rick Henry]

Dear John,

If I were wise, I would wait until having had a good nights sleep before taking a strike at this lure; but, with that said . . .

When you wrote above:

Quote: . . . I feel the want of a language of Christian amity, which can acknowledge difference and yet recognise the Risen Lord.

I remember thinking, as I read it, that this is without a doubt the single greatest obstacle to a generous Orthodoxy. And, to continue, as you also wrote of:

Quote:. . . the question of how we can be sure that we are following the Gospel of the Lord.

I would respond by asking what is the Gospel of Christ? What was the good news that He preached? What was His proclamation, His Kerygma?

And, I think most would answer as I do, IT is the Kingdom of God.

And, while understanding very well the following may be untenable for many whom hold the majority view in what is considered here to be the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, I would like to suggest that the Church defined in this way is *not* to be drawn up perfectly parallel or used interchangeably with the Kingdom.

And, why do I go into all of this? This is because I would like to suggest further that as we may consider the primacy of language, "our" speech, "our" logos, and "our" reason, there is a distinction here (from where I sit) between a "churchy" language and a Kingdom language.

Beyond considerations of what may be the lowest common denominators (which I often feel are the highest common denominators), and beyond even any attempts to define the nature, limits, and boundaries of the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church via either propositions or experience/encounter . . .

I would like to suggest that the type of Oneness spoken of by Christ in His priestly prayer will never be found between those arguing from any ecclesiological place/plane. I think at best, amity may be found at some point by some. However, it seems more than apparent to me that it is only when those come together who already speak a Kingdom language (and this is not to be confused with a mere desire or preference for some type of ecumenism), that barriers and boundary markers come down and are pulled up.

It seems to me that whether we are talking about something as simple as the yellow crocuses in Marie's backyard, or something as complex as a coined phrase like a supra-epistemology, it doesn't matter . . . the Church is manifest clearly and the Kingdom of God is manifest clearly to and through those within (but, now I lay myself open for the charge of some sort of gnosis).

However, to keep going, from this we could speculate then what is the role of the one who would bring unity to the Church of Christ? And, we could consider that if one must necessarily BE in the Kingdom of God to partake of this union, this communion, then why would one who feels called to be a minister (who points the way) speak to those who can only find division(s) and promote division in such things as nature or academic theology? There is no division in the Kingdom of God is there. Why would any even speak to those who have no choice but to be divided about such things as unity (when the issue is the inner life, Kingdom living)?

And, here, I would like to further suggest is exactly where the rubber meets the road! But, and knowing this is a cosmic irony of the first class . . . who can speak of this (or the question of 'how can we be sure?') in any way other than with speech about flowers and made up words? Who can define the Kingdom of God (viz. shall we say 'basileology'?) But, again, as the rubber meets the road, those who practice Kingdom living can recognize each other even from great distances across Internet wires with conversation about flowers, cakes, and made up words.

After that miserable run at the buzz bait, I better quit for now.

But, yes, John, the problem of language as it relates to the Kerygma of Christ and His priestly prayer.

In Christ,
Rick

PS Just as you say above this is all about 'recognizing the risen Lord' and 'being sure we are following His gospel/kerygma!' . . . because what is more important than this?