A Few Observations on Tradition and Progress

I've been thinking a little bit about the interaction between tradition and progress. Although I don't like the word progress as it sounds mechanistic and artifical I think it best captures the move to more functional "open structures" in our theological relationships. By open structures, I want to suggest the application of our own values alongside others that are firmly in place yet open-sourced to constant modification. They remain ours yet everyone's. Of the two: some short observations: Tradition looks inward. It thrives on a principle of conservation. It holds back to ensure self-preservation. It breeds suspicion and fears anything that does not reflect its own energy. It feigns outwardness so long as there is nothing ventured. It sees covenant as doctrine instead of relationship. It loves itself in order to distinguish it from what it is not. It therefore requires the same love and when it does not receive it, it cannot initiate. It only reciprocates. Progress seeks its energy from the outside. It holds itself out and keeps nothing in. It makes itself vulnerable to others despite the danger of non-response because it recognizes the necessity and value of the object of its affection. It stipulates no condition, and it does not seek its own good but the good of others. It inheres self-giving and rejects self-preservation. It loves what is not itself in order to love itself.

Messianism - Reflecting Four Abrahamic Models

The soon-coming already-here kingdom of God is part of the larger narrative of messianic hope and expectation in Christian Theology. This theology is contrasted to the soon-coming already-here messiah of Judaism. In the first, the features largely are an historical-theological eschatological perspective. Jesus in his historical embodiment ushers in the kingdom of God. With the promise of his second coming, the theological idea of the reign of Christ in time culminates in history. Both messianic versions center around the central figure of worship, Jesus.

Like Christianity, Judaism's traditional messianic theme centered around a figure. Whether it was Elijah or Moses, this redeemer came from the haeretz Israel, was connected with the historic reality of Israel, and would therefore consummate the redemption narrative there, although not all were natives. A second concept sees a non-embodied messianic reign. Those like Rav Kook, and perhaps even Maimonides, who did not consider the messianic person a principle of Jewish faith, saw messianic expectation as the ushering in of good will and universal love. With these in place, the need for a supernatural personality is displaced and the messiah becomes transparent in the action of the people.

Both Judaism and some versions of Christianity have this idea of mending the world to bring in messiah. While no formulaic theological concept exists for this impulse in Christianity, the idea of tikkun olam in Judaism is the idea of doing the work of messiah. Messianic expectation is therefore communal and participatory. In Christianity, the idea almost appears redundant, provided one only assumes it as a type of preparation for full communion, which most Christians who subscribe to this notion do.