What do you think?
Rate this book
Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord
An exhaustive examination of the New Testament, probing the issues of grace and salvation and evaluating their meanings in the context of contemporary movements for freedom and liberation
Paperback
First published August 28, 1980
About the author
Edward Schillebeeckx
156 books16 followersEdward Cornelis Florentius Alfonsus Schillebeeckx was a Belgian Roman Catholic theologian born in Antwerp. He taught at the Catholic University in Nijmegen. He then continued writing. In his nineties, he still wanted to finish a major book about the Sacraments.
He was a member of the Dominican Order. His books on theology have been translated into many languages, and his contributions to the Second Vatican Council made him known throughout the world.
He was a member of the Dominican Order. His books on theology have been translated into many languages, and his contributions to the Second Vatican Council made him known throughout the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 20, 2013
Wow! This is quite a book. For being over 800 pages I can't say that it is really worth it. It's scholarly breadth is top notch. Schillebeeckx again brings his style and critical drive to the whole of the NT cannon in search for the meaning of the word "Christ".
This book is really two books. Within it is about a 400 page analysis of NT documents. The rest is Schillebeeckx's argument about who Christ is. It is an arduous undertaking to read, but it is also refreshing.
There is not much out there in contemporary theology which represents the neo-orthodox tradotion which was prominent around the turn of the 20th century. Shillebeeckx synthesizes all the various strands of thought and forms a critical and well thought out tradition for our modern times in encountering the Christ. Shillebeeckx's goal is simple: Who do we say Christ is? What do we make of him in our modern world?
To answer this Schillebeeckx examines the NT literature which shows how the writers adapted and re-interpreted the Christ in order to fit their circumstances and environment. But through these various strands there were elements which remained constant.
Then in a Tillichian style Schillebeeckx gives an existential basis for us to relate to Christ through the reconciliation of our alientation, failure, death, guilt, suffering, and meaninglessness. Schillebeeckx follows the pattern of modern theologians of changing the language of faith, but at the same time, I believe, he stays true to the heart of the Gospel.
However, it must be recognized that there are some fundamental doctrines which have to be reconsidered in order to accept Schillebeeckx line of thought. The first is Biblical inerrency. The Word of God is Jesus and the canon of the NT represents an experience the Church fathers had with the risen Lord. This experience can be described as revelation, and in order for us to take this revelation seriously a critical examination of the text becomes necessary. For Schillebeeckx the text of the Bible is authentic, but the authority of the Bible only comes through an interpretation, and thus necessitates an experience. There is no stand alone authority of the Bible. It rests on faith.
The next is Christian Particularism. Now as a Chritian Schillebeeckx remains faithful to the claim that salvation is only found in Jesus, but at the same time Schillebeeckx is moved by grace and the reality of the solidarity of man. Schillebeeckx is not committed to the idea of a definate distinction as to what "marks" a Chritian and non-Christian. Though it is never explicitly stated, Schillebeeckx seems to fall into line with a kind of soft universalism. But at the same time, Schillebeeckx remains committed to evangelism and sharing the Gospel. For Schillebeeckx there is almost no distinction between sharing the informational datum of how Jesus is Lord and at the same time bringing a person to a deeper awareness of brotherly love and community. Both are representatives of the same phenomenon and neither should be neglected for the sake of the other. In this vein, Schillebeeckx looks no further for a definition of what a "Christian" is other then a follower of Christ, and at the same time it was Christ's mission to reconcile the world to him.
In all, I do not think Schillebeeckx offers anything "new" theologically. Salvation still comes through faith, and it is still by grace, and it is still through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are dimensions of the Christian faith which Schillebeeckx challenges, like the ethical demands found in the NT, but he does not abandon. Schillebeeckx identifies with an import of ethical influence in the NT, unique to our experience in Christ, but this does not follow a fundamentalistic or literalistic trend. In all Schillebeeckx sees the Christian faith is a dialogue. There is an inherent tensions which exists and we must involve ourselves in the resolution. Being dogmatic and objectifying excludes us from this process, which Schillebeeckz sees as God's continuing saving activity among men.
This book is really two books. Within it is about a 400 page analysis of NT documents. The rest is Schillebeeckx's argument about who Christ is. It is an arduous undertaking to read, but it is also refreshing.
There is not much out there in contemporary theology which represents the neo-orthodox tradotion which was prominent around the turn of the 20th century. Shillebeeckx synthesizes all the various strands of thought and forms a critical and well thought out tradition for our modern times in encountering the Christ. Shillebeeckx's goal is simple: Who do we say Christ is? What do we make of him in our modern world?
To answer this Schillebeeckx examines the NT literature which shows how the writers adapted and re-interpreted the Christ in order to fit their circumstances and environment. But through these various strands there were elements which remained constant.
Then in a Tillichian style Schillebeeckx gives an existential basis for us to relate to Christ through the reconciliation of our alientation, failure, death, guilt, suffering, and meaninglessness. Schillebeeckx follows the pattern of modern theologians of changing the language of faith, but at the same time, I believe, he stays true to the heart of the Gospel.
However, it must be recognized that there are some fundamental doctrines which have to be reconsidered in order to accept Schillebeeckx line of thought. The first is Biblical inerrency. The Word of God is Jesus and the canon of the NT represents an experience the Church fathers had with the risen Lord. This experience can be described as revelation, and in order for us to take this revelation seriously a critical examination of the text becomes necessary. For Schillebeeckx the text of the Bible is authentic, but the authority of the Bible only comes through an interpretation, and thus necessitates an experience. There is no stand alone authority of the Bible. It rests on faith.
The next is Christian Particularism. Now as a Chritian Schillebeeckx remains faithful to the claim that salvation is only found in Jesus, but at the same time Schillebeeckx is moved by grace and the reality of the solidarity of man. Schillebeeckx is not committed to the idea of a definate distinction as to what "marks" a Chritian and non-Christian. Though it is never explicitly stated, Schillebeeckx seems to fall into line with a kind of soft universalism. But at the same time, Schillebeeckx remains committed to evangelism and sharing the Gospel. For Schillebeeckx there is almost no distinction between sharing the informational datum of how Jesus is Lord and at the same time bringing a person to a deeper awareness of brotherly love and community. Both are representatives of the same phenomenon and neither should be neglected for the sake of the other. In this vein, Schillebeeckx looks no further for a definition of what a "Christian" is other then a follower of Christ, and at the same time it was Christ's mission to reconcile the world to him.
In all, I do not think Schillebeeckx offers anything "new" theologically. Salvation still comes through faith, and it is still by grace, and it is still through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are dimensions of the Christian faith which Schillebeeckx challenges, like the ethical demands found in the NT, but he does not abandon. Schillebeeckx identifies with an import of ethical influence in the NT, unique to our experience in Christ, but this does not follow a fundamentalistic or literalistic trend. In all Schillebeeckx sees the Christian faith is a dialogue. There is an inherent tensions which exists and we must involve ourselves in the resolution. Being dogmatic and objectifying excludes us from this process, which Schillebeeckz sees as God's continuing saving activity among men.
July 10, 2026
THE CONTINUATION TO HIS ‘JESUS: AN EXPERIMENT IN CHRISTOLOGY’
Edward Schillebeeckx (1914-2009) was a Dutch Catholic theologian and Dominican priest, who wrote a number of important "progressive" books in the Catholic tradition.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1977 book, “The perspective of this book is different from that of its predecessor, ‘Jesus: An Experiment in Christology,’ of which it is a continuation. At this point I am not concerned, as in the first volume, with those features of the ‘historical Jesus’ which may have led to the New Testament confession of him. Now I am immediately concerned with the New Testament elaboration of what Christians experienced in their encounter with Jesus the Lord. I might say that the first book was a ‘Jesus book,’ though it did not neglect the Christ; this second volume is a ‘Christ book,’ though it does not forget Jesus of Nazareth… Some critics of that book… fail to respect the particular literary genre and type of communication presented by … my book…. Here I am no longer dealing with form, redaction and tradition criticism in order to get as close as possible to the ‘historical Jesus,’ but am taking the texts… [and] seeing them in their specific LITERARY context… within the specific socio-cultural reality of the milieu above all of those for whom these New Testament texts were directly written, so that they could be read aloud in the liturgy.” (Pg. 22-23)
He states, “One of the fundamental tasks of theology is to attempt to put into words new experiences, with their criticism of earlier experiences… to formulate them as a question to the religious tradition, the church, and to the social and cultural circumstances in which the church finds itself… We must begin from the fact that ‘revelation’ is an element in the self-understanding of all religions. Religions and religions of revelation are quite simply synonymous. This aspect … in no way implies the assertion that alongside such truths which are accessible to human reason there are also supra-rational truths which then become the object of religious faith.” (Pg. 42-43)
He asserts, “Theology is an outline sketch to secure the health of religious confession and liturgy, as rooted in a profoundly human experience, and to articulate contexts of experience in which God can be talked of in meaningful terms… Religious thematization … forfeits that ground when it is detached from its basis in experience… in the unconditional mystery which directs all our experiences, overturns them and gives them a new direction. ‘My ways are not your ways.’ (Isa 55:8) This problem of religion and ethics recurs today in all its magnitude in the question of the relationship between redemption and man’s concern for liberation and emancipation. I hope that this book will point a way towards a meaningful solution.” (Pg. 60-61)
He suggests, “If… we cannot affirm faith or talk people into it on mere external authority, Christians who continue to experience decisive faith in Jesus will be able to invite others to renewed possibilities of experience… I sometimes wonder how, if we had never used the word ‘God’ before, it could be meaningfully introduced into our vocabulary? It is a thought which is worth an experiment. Besides, sometimes it is THE event in a normal human conversation---at least if the word God is not used too early, or too late.” (Pg. 64)
He argues, “During the period of the origin of the canon… people argued that the holy scripture of the New Testament had authority because it was inspired by God. To begin with, it was the other way around. A religious group of people, Christians, under the spell of Jesus, who was experience and testified as to God’s salvation, had recognized its own group identity in particular inspiring writings, as the expressions of the faith experiences of fellow Christians within a developing tradition of Christian experience… Furthermore, they had already arrived at their Christian identity through the liturgical reading of these writings… Thus the original authority of the Bible lies in the element of revelation which has passed through the experience and interpretation of these early Christians. Within the church community … the element of revelation which keeps escaping us at last comes into its own; however wretched and human the expression may be, revelation is communicated in it.” (Pg. 69)
He adds, “to ask people to accept the Christian revelation BEFORE they have learnt to experience it as a definition of their own life is an impossible and useless demand, which goes against the structure of revelation.” (Pg. 76) “True, Christians are convinced that they have a message for all men, but they do not have a monopoly on the truth.” (Pg. 79)
Commenting on the Gospel of John, he observes, “The question now is whether the beloved disciple had anything to do with the circle associated with Stephen. In John 21:24 the ‘author’ of the Gospel of John is identified with the ‘beloved disciple,’ i.e., with someone who has a rather tense relationship with Peter as the spokesman for the Twelve. Thus the ‘author is not one of the Twelve (that is already suggested by the Fourth Gospel itself; and this author is certainly not John... the Gospel of John itself excludes this: cf., John 21:2 and 21:7). (Pg. 344) “John is evidently interested in ‘intimates’ of Jesus who do not belong to the Twelve.” (Pg. 346)
He asserts. “Provisionally in history, the rule of the Christian community is its resistance---as a suffering witness---against the absolute power of the emperor… In this apocalypse, Christ, is not the ‘eschaton’ of time but the ‘centerpoint’ of our real history, the significance of which will only become manifest in the eschaton, at the parousia.” (Pg. 448)
He states, “The tendency of some Christians and theologians to make religion simply a matter of the heart cannot be based on the New Testament; furthermore, it presupposes a false philosophical personalism which CONTRASTS the personal dimension with structures and the institution.” (Pg. 562)
He also argues, “The danger of referring to a ‘political’ or to an ‘apolitical’ Jesus consists in the fact that people feel that this removes the need for any political arguments! Even if Jesus was political---or apolitical---in his time, it does not tell us how we should behave in the light of the same faith in other historical situations. The social criticism which is to be found both in the New Testament and the Tanach is always a RELIGIOUS criticism of society; but that does not say anything for or against a non-religious social criticism and the necessary ethical consequences which emerge from this for a Christian.” (Pg. 585)
He notes, “I am convinced that the theologizing of the ‘Israeli-Palestinian’ conflict is theologically false. Anyone who wants to speak in this context of the will of God … will have to look for it in the social justice, the specific human rights of all those who are caught up on this conflict, and will have to look for it in justice and love.” (Pg. 626)
He observes, “The way in which suffering became a theme for preachers from the 19th century until well into the 20th is clear from pastoral letters---these are examples of the integration of suffering through the weakening of its critical force: the mysticism of suffering establishes the ‘existing order’ in church and society.” (Pg. 700)
He points out, “The Christian message does not give an EXPLANATION of evil or our history of suffering. That must be made clear from the start. Even for Christians, suffering remains impenetrable and incomprehensible, and provokes rebellion… I think that in … the doctrine of redemption we are on a false trail, despite the deep and correct insight here that God is the great fellow-sufferer, who is concerned for our history.” (Pg. 728)
He cautions, “we could and should listen to a warning here against general religious psychological approaches in which religious experiences of the gift of grace are classed with experiences under LSD, as some recent literature (taking up from what has been called the ‘religious revival’) would have us believe (however, we should not be at all horrified at what are in fact striking psychological affinities).” (Pg. 771)
He suggests, “Anyone who wants to form a party which at least shows political unanimity over basic social and political questions… will not gain members on the basis of an almost universal religious conviction, but on the basis of a common POLITICAL conviction. This brings me to a first conclusion… Christians combine politically not on the basis of a Catholic or Christian conviction held more or less in common, but on the basis of a common political conviction. The Second Vatican Council recognized the legitimacy of a political pluralism among Christians.” (Pg. 784)
He continues, “The consequence of this situation is that it prevents these churches from speaking a liberating word at a time of crisis. Even if churches inwardly dissociate themselves from a system which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, institutionally they are so tied up with the system that they have to keep their mouths shut. In order to be able to present their message, they have to keep quiet about this message! That is the vicious circle in this situation. In order to be able to continue to exist as a church, people keep silent about the demands of the gospel.” (Pg. 788-789)
He observes, “here we touch on what is perhaps the sorest point of the contemporary religious problem… what Dorothy Sӧlle (along with many others… as a corrective to the ‘death of God’ theology) has called the death of the ‘immediacy’ of God… The heart of the problem therefore seems to be: Does the believer have a DIRECT relationship with God or not?… I would venture to make the following comments. If by talking of the death of the ‘immediacy of God,’ one means that man has no UNMEDIATED relationship with God, then I fully agree. However, things look different if we consider this same … unmediated relationship from the other side, for in my view there certainly is an unmediated relationship between God and us.” (Pg. 808-809)
He asserts, “Nevertheless, the prophetic vision of Jesus is not… a SOLUTION to the problem of human life… We should see what Paul calls redemption in hope… only as an ingredient in the final, eschatological and also THEORETICAL reconciliation of ‘human reason’ with the living God: the eschaton as the revelation of the intrinsic evidence for God even for human critical rationality…” (Pg. 821)
He summarizes, “History teaches us that there has never been a perfect redemption, but that in Jesus there is a divine promise for us all, and that this is anticipated in any definitively valid act of doing good to our fellow men in a finite and conditioned world in which love is always doomed to failure and yet nevertheless refuses to choose any other way than that of loving service.” (Pg. 836)
As with its predecessor, there is a LOT to consider in this huge book; and Christians (except perhaps for very conservative Catholics) may find this book quite stimulating.
Edward Schillebeeckx (1914-2009) was a Dutch Catholic theologian and Dominican priest, who wrote a number of important "progressive" books in the Catholic tradition.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1977 book, “The perspective of this book is different from that of its predecessor, ‘Jesus: An Experiment in Christology,’ of which it is a continuation. At this point I am not concerned, as in the first volume, with those features of the ‘historical Jesus’ which may have led to the New Testament confession of him. Now I am immediately concerned with the New Testament elaboration of what Christians experienced in their encounter with Jesus the Lord. I might say that the first book was a ‘Jesus book,’ though it did not neglect the Christ; this second volume is a ‘Christ book,’ though it does not forget Jesus of Nazareth… Some critics of that book… fail to respect the particular literary genre and type of communication presented by … my book…. Here I am no longer dealing with form, redaction and tradition criticism in order to get as close as possible to the ‘historical Jesus,’ but am taking the texts… [and] seeing them in their specific LITERARY context… within the specific socio-cultural reality of the milieu above all of those for whom these New Testament texts were directly written, so that they could be read aloud in the liturgy.” (Pg. 22-23)
He states, “One of the fundamental tasks of theology is to attempt to put into words new experiences, with their criticism of earlier experiences… to formulate them as a question to the religious tradition, the church, and to the social and cultural circumstances in which the church finds itself… We must begin from the fact that ‘revelation’ is an element in the self-understanding of all religions. Religions and religions of revelation are quite simply synonymous. This aspect … in no way implies the assertion that alongside such truths which are accessible to human reason there are also supra-rational truths which then become the object of religious faith.” (Pg. 42-43)
He asserts, “Theology is an outline sketch to secure the health of religious confession and liturgy, as rooted in a profoundly human experience, and to articulate contexts of experience in which God can be talked of in meaningful terms… Religious thematization … forfeits that ground when it is detached from its basis in experience… in the unconditional mystery which directs all our experiences, overturns them and gives them a new direction. ‘My ways are not your ways.’ (Isa 55:8) This problem of religion and ethics recurs today in all its magnitude in the question of the relationship between redemption and man’s concern for liberation and emancipation. I hope that this book will point a way towards a meaningful solution.” (Pg. 60-61)
He suggests, “If… we cannot affirm faith or talk people into it on mere external authority, Christians who continue to experience decisive faith in Jesus will be able to invite others to renewed possibilities of experience… I sometimes wonder how, if we had never used the word ‘God’ before, it could be meaningfully introduced into our vocabulary? It is a thought which is worth an experiment. Besides, sometimes it is THE event in a normal human conversation---at least if the word God is not used too early, or too late.” (Pg. 64)
He argues, “During the period of the origin of the canon… people argued that the holy scripture of the New Testament had authority because it was inspired by God. To begin with, it was the other way around. A religious group of people, Christians, under the spell of Jesus, who was experience and testified as to God’s salvation, had recognized its own group identity in particular inspiring writings, as the expressions of the faith experiences of fellow Christians within a developing tradition of Christian experience… Furthermore, they had already arrived at their Christian identity through the liturgical reading of these writings… Thus the original authority of the Bible lies in the element of revelation which has passed through the experience and interpretation of these early Christians. Within the church community … the element of revelation which keeps escaping us at last comes into its own; however wretched and human the expression may be, revelation is communicated in it.” (Pg. 69)
He adds, “to ask people to accept the Christian revelation BEFORE they have learnt to experience it as a definition of their own life is an impossible and useless demand, which goes against the structure of revelation.” (Pg. 76) “True, Christians are convinced that they have a message for all men, but they do not have a monopoly on the truth.” (Pg. 79)
Commenting on the Gospel of John, he observes, “The question now is whether the beloved disciple had anything to do with the circle associated with Stephen. In John 21:24 the ‘author’ of the Gospel of John is identified with the ‘beloved disciple,’ i.e., with someone who has a rather tense relationship with Peter as the spokesman for the Twelve. Thus the ‘author is not one of the Twelve (that is already suggested by the Fourth Gospel itself; and this author is certainly not John... the Gospel of John itself excludes this: cf., John 21:2 and 21:7). (Pg. 344) “John is evidently interested in ‘intimates’ of Jesus who do not belong to the Twelve.” (Pg. 346)
He asserts. “Provisionally in history, the rule of the Christian community is its resistance---as a suffering witness---against the absolute power of the emperor… In this apocalypse, Christ, is not the ‘eschaton’ of time but the ‘centerpoint’ of our real history, the significance of which will only become manifest in the eschaton, at the parousia.” (Pg. 448)
He states, “The tendency of some Christians and theologians to make religion simply a matter of the heart cannot be based on the New Testament; furthermore, it presupposes a false philosophical personalism which CONTRASTS the personal dimension with structures and the institution.” (Pg. 562)
He also argues, “The danger of referring to a ‘political’ or to an ‘apolitical’ Jesus consists in the fact that people feel that this removes the need for any political arguments! Even if Jesus was political---or apolitical---in his time, it does not tell us how we should behave in the light of the same faith in other historical situations. The social criticism which is to be found both in the New Testament and the Tanach is always a RELIGIOUS criticism of society; but that does not say anything for or against a non-religious social criticism and the necessary ethical consequences which emerge from this for a Christian.” (Pg. 585)
He notes, “I am convinced that the theologizing of the ‘Israeli-Palestinian’ conflict is theologically false. Anyone who wants to speak in this context of the will of God … will have to look for it in the social justice, the specific human rights of all those who are caught up on this conflict, and will have to look for it in justice and love.” (Pg. 626)
He observes, “The way in which suffering became a theme for preachers from the 19th century until well into the 20th is clear from pastoral letters---these are examples of the integration of suffering through the weakening of its critical force: the mysticism of suffering establishes the ‘existing order’ in church and society.” (Pg. 700)
He points out, “The Christian message does not give an EXPLANATION of evil or our history of suffering. That must be made clear from the start. Even for Christians, suffering remains impenetrable and incomprehensible, and provokes rebellion… I think that in … the doctrine of redemption we are on a false trail, despite the deep and correct insight here that God is the great fellow-sufferer, who is concerned for our history.” (Pg. 728)
He cautions, “we could and should listen to a warning here against general religious psychological approaches in which religious experiences of the gift of grace are classed with experiences under LSD, as some recent literature (taking up from what has been called the ‘religious revival’) would have us believe (however, we should not be at all horrified at what are in fact striking psychological affinities).” (Pg. 771)
He suggests, “Anyone who wants to form a party which at least shows political unanimity over basic social and political questions… will not gain members on the basis of an almost universal religious conviction, but on the basis of a common POLITICAL conviction. This brings me to a first conclusion… Christians combine politically not on the basis of a Catholic or Christian conviction held more or less in common, but on the basis of a common political conviction. The Second Vatican Council recognized the legitimacy of a political pluralism among Christians.” (Pg. 784)
He continues, “The consequence of this situation is that it prevents these churches from speaking a liberating word at a time of crisis. Even if churches inwardly dissociate themselves from a system which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, institutionally they are so tied up with the system that they have to keep their mouths shut. In order to be able to present their message, they have to keep quiet about this message! That is the vicious circle in this situation. In order to be able to continue to exist as a church, people keep silent about the demands of the gospel.” (Pg. 788-789)
He observes, “here we touch on what is perhaps the sorest point of the contemporary religious problem… what Dorothy Sӧlle (along with many others… as a corrective to the ‘death of God’ theology) has called the death of the ‘immediacy’ of God… The heart of the problem therefore seems to be: Does the believer have a DIRECT relationship with God or not?… I would venture to make the following comments. If by talking of the death of the ‘immediacy of God,’ one means that man has no UNMEDIATED relationship with God, then I fully agree. However, things look different if we consider this same … unmediated relationship from the other side, for in my view there certainly is an unmediated relationship between God and us.” (Pg. 808-809)
He asserts, “Nevertheless, the prophetic vision of Jesus is not… a SOLUTION to the problem of human life… We should see what Paul calls redemption in hope… only as an ingredient in the final, eschatological and also THEORETICAL reconciliation of ‘human reason’ with the living God: the eschaton as the revelation of the intrinsic evidence for God even for human critical rationality…” (Pg. 821)
He summarizes, “History teaches us that there has never been a perfect redemption, but that in Jesus there is a divine promise for us all, and that this is anticipated in any definitively valid act of doing good to our fellow men in a finite and conditioned world in which love is always doomed to failure and yet nevertheless refuses to choose any other way than that of loving service.” (Pg. 836)
As with its predecessor, there is a LOT to consider in this huge book; and Christians (except perhaps for very conservative Catholics) may find this book quite stimulating.
August 27, 2019
How do I describe my feelings and at the same time the impact “Christ, The Experience of Jesus as Lord” has had on my faith and belief in God’s immanent presence in my life and the world? Fr. Schillebeeckx starts with a review of the importance of remembering that the first disciples were sharing a powerful experience of truly knowing and experiencing Jesus, the Christ! They were sharing the experience! The question Schillebeeckx asked was can we recreate that same experience today of who Jesus, the Christ, is in our lives? Failure is not an option!
He points out that the first disciples were writing about “the gift, or God’s grace, is not revealed either from above or from below, but horizontally, in the encounter of human beings with one another within our human history” (49). This grace, this encounter of God shared with others, is explored through one of the most intense books I have ever read! But, oh so worth it.
So much is covered in a book of this magnitude. This journey is a discovery of how grace appears throughout the scriptures and must be experienced in our lives as we discover God’s presence in every aspect of the journey through His grace. The journey left me with a renewed sense of hope in God’s continued presence in our lives; with the ever-evolving development and transformation of our faith as we grow in awareness of Jesus’ presence in our lives. In other words: I am expecting to encounter God! This, I suspect, is the main reason for this classic.
I want to highlight the last major section entitled “Salvation from God, experienced through man and the world”. Fr. Schillebeeckx grapples with the thorny questions of life, political integration, death, liberation and suffering. Specifically, he asks how does God’s grace guide us through these complexities of life so that humanity is better by the gift of faith and God’s life through Jesus.
He ends with a compelling homily that challenges us with the same question that Jesus asks his disciples: “who do you think that I am?”. Without our lives having the experience of Jesus, as the first disciples experienced Him, will we be able to have an answer that matters to our current generation that addresses our contemporary struggles and needs? Fr. Schillebeeckx’s answer: we must have an answer worthy to be called His disciples.
He points out that the first disciples were writing about “the gift, or God’s grace, is not revealed either from above or from below, but horizontally, in the encounter of human beings with one another within our human history” (49). This grace, this encounter of God shared with others, is explored through one of the most intense books I have ever read! But, oh so worth it.
So much is covered in a book of this magnitude. This journey is a discovery of how grace appears throughout the scriptures and must be experienced in our lives as we discover God’s presence in every aspect of the journey through His grace. The journey left me with a renewed sense of hope in God’s continued presence in our lives; with the ever-evolving development and transformation of our faith as we grow in awareness of Jesus’ presence in our lives. In other words: I am expecting to encounter God! This, I suspect, is the main reason for this classic.
I want to highlight the last major section entitled “Salvation from God, experienced through man and the world”. Fr. Schillebeeckx grapples with the thorny questions of life, political integration, death, liberation and suffering. Specifically, he asks how does God’s grace guide us through these complexities of life so that humanity is better by the gift of faith and God’s life through Jesus.
He ends with a compelling homily that challenges us with the same question that Jesus asks his disciples: “who do you think that I am?”. Without our lives having the experience of Jesus, as the first disciples experienced Him, will we be able to have an answer that matters to our current generation that addresses our contemporary struggles and needs? Fr. Schillebeeckx’s answer: we must have an answer worthy to be called His disciples.
Want to Read
November 14, 2016it's good for me
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews