Becoming a Christian, as Understood from Its Endpoint

Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg proposes that the meaning of history in its entirety must be understood from its endpoint, when God and the world are reconciled to one another. This meaning has yet to be revealed, as it awaits in the future, but it has been hinted at in the past through Jesus Christ, who acted in history as the Savior of the world.¹

Let us call this perspective the "end-of-history theory." If this is correct, might it help explain why some of Jesus's demands for his followers are so difficult?

Consider Luke 14:33: "So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions." I must admit that my constitution rails against such ascetism. I enjoy material things, especially music and books. Now, it could be argued that the class structure of the Roman Empire basically consisted of the rich and the poor and did not include a middle class,² thus making the text irrelevant to a middle-class person. But surely it cannot only be apparent to me that such a verse as this is worded quite strongly and contains no qualifications whatsoever. I think here of Kierkegaard: "Yes, it seems as if all this research and pondering and scrutinizing would draw God’s Word very close to us. Yet this interpreting and re-interpreting and scholarly research and new scholarly research is but a defense against it."³

Kierkegaard also writes: "For my part I do not call myself a 'Christian.'"⁴ He is not speaking here as an atheist; rather, Kierkegaard is placing more of an emphasis on becoming a Christian than being one. Being a Christian is an arduous goal that the individual strives toward and often fails to achieve, so it is more accurate to say that one is becoming a Christian than that one is one.

Back to Pannenberg's end-of-history theory and Jesus's strict demands. Maybe Christ's words so often sound coarse because we overlook the fact that he is anticipatory of the end. That is to say, Christ's demands are truly for the end and not the present. It is at the Final Judgement that the Christian will give up all their possessions, and in the meantime, they will become progressively less attached to their belongings.

Is this interpretation helpful, or does it lead one to the "cheap grace" that Bonhoeffer warned against and "the crowd" that Kierkegaard opposed?

Notes

1. For helpful summaries of Pannenberg's thought, see Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (1^st edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 302–305 and Steffen Losel, "Wolfhart Pannenberg's Response to the Challenge of Religious Pluralism: The Anticipation of Divine Absoluteness.," Journal of Ecumenical Studies (1997), https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Wolfhart+Pannenberg%27s+response+to+the+challenge+of+religious...-a020513754.

2. Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey (2^nd edition, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 31–32.

3. Søren Kierkegaard and Charles E. Moore (Editor), Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard (Walden: Plough Publishing House, 2014), 84.

4. Ibid., xii.