In the Dutch Reformed theology of A. A. van Ruler, Christ is "central" but not the "central concern" since He is only an "emergency measure". Over against the Biblical revelation of Jesus Christ as the Center or Beginning in Whom the Trinitarian fulness dwells bodily, van Ruler asserts that the evangelists and apostles in John 1, Col. 1, and Heb. 1 "easily become somewhat lyrical in their tone". "A dogmatician is a bit calmer. At times he has the feeling that things blend too much in this lyricism. Especially when he reads Col. 1" (Hendrikus Berkhof, _Christian Faith An Introduction to the Study of the Faith, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979 [1973] [trans. Sierd Woudstra], p.168, with reference to A. A van Ruler, "De verhouding van het kosmologische en het eschatologische element in de christologie" (1961), now in _Theologisch Werk_, I (1969), pp.156-174. See also pages 104, 115 of Henry Vander Goot, _*Tota Scriptura*: The Old Testament in the Christian Faith and Tradition_, in Henry Vander Goot (ed.), _Life is Religion Essays in Honor of H. Evan Runner_, St. Catherines, Ont., Paideia Press, 1981). Again, van Ruler writes "in radically anselmian terms", that "The fundamental idea in this connection then is this: God in Christ is only there in the particular form in order to bear the guilt of sin and take it away from the life of created reality, so that the created reality may once again be restored before his face. I believe that this basic reformational intention is correctly understood only when one dares to express it in what initially seems a shocking expression, namely that God in Christ is an "emergency measure"...The incident of sin, and only the incident of sin, occasioned and made necessary the incarnation. For this reason the whole of the incarnation and all that accompanies it must be considered as incidental..." (Arnold A. van Ruler, _Calvinist Trinitarianism and Theocentric Politics *Essays Toward a Public Theology*_, Lewiston / Queenston / Lampeter: The Edwin Mellin Press, 1989 [Toronto Studies in Theology Volume 38] [trans. John Bolt], pp.130-131). This tendency to separate the dynamics of Creation from the Cross (and Eucharist) is also evident in the Reformation notion of the Covenant of Works versus the Covenant of Grace. For an argument against this separation, see Dale Claerbaut, _God's Covenant with the Creation: Its Scriptural Basis and Historical Unfolding_, Princeton, New Jersey, 1971 [A thesis submitted to the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of Theology], in which the pattern of death and sacrifice, recapitulated throughout the whole of Creation, is indicated as central to the Biblical Idea of Covenant. I mention the radical Anselmianism viewpoint (taken by some Protestants out of a more catholic context which would have kept it in balance) simply to suggest a possible reason why these Protestants might find it difficult to attach a notion of Sacrifice to the Eucharist. The Cross is not really central to their ontology nor to their epistemology, or, at least, they do not know how to participate Cross and Eucharist as the central dynamic of their life in its entirety (i.e., worship and the "Cultural Mandate"). Their theology may typically tend to overemphasize Law. To repeat a point I made some years ago, the inadequacy of mere "Law" as the interpretative principle of Christian cultural action, let alone worship, however, can readily be understood through reflection on the Biblical meaning of the Cultural Mandate. As itself Law, the Cultural Mandate must be related to Gospel as Law is to Gospel -- We are no longer subject to Law but under Grace (I Corinthians 9:19-23). We can no more perform the requirements of the Cultural Mandate of ourselves than we can depend on ourselves for Salvation. By Grace is the Cultural Mandate effected, through the living faith which issues in works. Calvary is therefore no mere parenthesis in world history, for it is here that Jesus has wrought the whole of the mandate we failed in our first parents. Considered from the perspective of sin, the Way of the Cross is Salvation, but considered from God's ultimate point of view, the way of the Cross is THE CULTURAL ACTION PAR EXCELLENCE. As the life of perfect obedience to the *whole* of God's Law, it entails perfect obedience also to the Cultural Mandate of which it must be an exemplary display. Any dualism posed between Salvation and the dynamics of Creation is consequently absolutely unwarranted and unbiblical, and is rooted in sin. Life in its entirety is religion. Not the way of the Law which was nailed to the Cross, but simply the Way of the Cross itself, as revealed in Christ, the Way, The Truth, and the Life, is the restoration of the true order of Creation, the fulfillment of the Cultural Mandate, and the hope for the Glory that is to be. This restoration of nature by Grace is no mere repristination but the transfiguration in Christ of the whole Creation into the Age to Come.

June, 1996

mmm

Index