Brueggemann_Covenant as Human Vocation_Int 33 (1979)

7/28/2019 Brueggemann_Covenant as Human Vocation_Int 33 (1979)

1/16

Covenanting as Human VocationA Discussion ofthe Relation of Bible and Pastoral Care

WALTER BRUEGGEMANN

Academic Dean

Eden Theological Seminary

The biblical metaphor of covenant sets the primaryissue of pastoral care, namely, grounding in anothervis--vis self-groundedness.

A T THE OU TSE T, we can recognize that the Bible offers no single perspec-

JLJL tive on anthropology; and more than one posture might be consideredhere. Of those possibilities, the one we consider here is the following: Covenantis the dominant metaphor for biblical faith by which human personality can be

understood. That metaphor provides important points of contact and abrasionwith psychological alternatives in our society.1

It is not self-evident that covenant is a dominant metaphor for all of the Bible.However "covenant" as used here refers most broadly to a way of perceiving reality.Two disclaimers are immediately required. First, "covenant" is not used here inany precise, technical sense to refer to the "treaty hypothesis" now so dominant

in Old Testament studies.2

Second, I do not refer to "covenant" in the way ofEichrodt, which tended to fit everything into one mold.3 Thus in using the metaphor,I do not specify any particular school of biblical interpretation and mean insteadto speak of a most fundamental affirmation of biblical faith, an affirmation whichI judge to be the presupposition of various biblical traditions.

Note that "covenant" is characterized as a metaphor, that is, as a way of discerning and articulating reality impressionistically, which permits a variety of

1. The tension and/or contrast of biblical perspectives with the dominant alternatives in ourculture is well stated by Robert Katz, "Martin Buber and Psychotherapy," HUCA 46:413-31(1976).

2. On that scholarly enterprise, see the review and assessment of Dennis McCarthy, OldTestament Covenant (Richmond John Knox Press 1972)


2/16

nuances, dimensions, and possibilities. But the metaphor gives a focus to all these

diversities and makes a main claim in distinction to some other anthropological

options.4

The purpose of this article is to consider a way in which fresh conversa

tion with psychological disciplines can be enhanced. We hope that biblical

perspectives can both serve as support and criticism.

The primary claim of "covenant" as a way of understanding our theme of

"pastoral counseling and theological anthropology" is that human persons are

grounded in Another who initiates personhood and who stays bound to persons

in loyal ways for their well-being. This is, of course, a way of saying that human

persons have to do fundamentally with God. Moreover, it is to claim that human

persons have to do with a quite specific identifiable God whose name we have

been told and into whose history we have been invited. Covenant is the deep and

pervasive affirmation that our lives in all aspects depend upon our relatedness to

this other One who retains initiative in our lives (sovereignty) and who wills

more good for us than we do for ourselves (graciousness; cf. Eph. 3:20).

The affirmation that human persons are grounded in Another of course di

rectly contradicts the current temptation to self-groundedness.5 It is a special

temptation of modern persons (though it did not begin there)6

to believe that

our life springs from us, that we generate our own power and vitality, and that

within us can be found the sources of wholeness and well-being.7

Either we prac

tice self-sufficiency effectively (which none of us can do long enough), or we

find we are not self-sufficient and are driven either to guilt or despair. Against

the pervasive biblical insistence that human life is in relation to Another, tempt

ing ideologies around us believe that life is grounded in self. These understandings

presume that the self is the essential unit of meaning. The self is where the issues

of life and health may be "solved." Against such claims, the biblical metaphor of

4. On the literature of biblical anthropology, see the summary statements of NormanPorteous, "Man, Nature of, in the Old Testament," IDB, K-Q (New York, Abingdon Press,1962), pp. 242-46; and S. V. McCasland, "Man, Nature of, in the New Testament," ibid.,246-50. A most recent and helpful statement on OT issues showing how the primary issues arcrelational is Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, FortressPress, 1974).

5. On the destructive and seductive nature of self-groundedness, see the statement of AlvinW. Gouldner. He is especially sensitive to the "social science" mode of discourse as essentialto the ideology of self-groundedness: "Both science and ideology are grounded in a culture ofcareful discourse, one of whose main rules calls for self-groundedness . . . " (The Dialectic of

Ideology and Technology [New York, Seabury Press, 1976]), pp. 42f.

6. On the motif in the OT, see Donald Gowan, When Man Becomes God (Pittsburgh,Pickwick Press, 1975).7. On the meaning of modernity as an alternative life-world, see the strictures of Peter


3/16

Covenanting as Human Vocation

Interpretation

covenant sets the primary issue of pastoral care, namely, grounding in Another

vis--vis self-groundedness.

I

Thus, we may begin, as the Bible persistently does, concerning even anthropology,

with the One in whom we are grounded. It is clear that much of the psychology

used in pastoral care has not been grounded in this other One. The abandonment

of God in modern psychology has likely been because of authoritarian or irrelevant caricatures of God. But if we are to build a fresh conversation between Bible

and pastoral care, we must abandon such caricatures and learn to speak about

the faithful covenanting One for whom the Bible makes claims.

It is likely that the consciousness of the Enlightenment has been decisive for ourabandonment of God-talk in pastoral care. An undialectically positive notion offreedom, and with it an undialectically negative notion of authority, have createda situation in which "coming of age" has meant getting free from God and makingit "on our own." The quest for modernity has been to become a self who is the

ultimate unit of meaning.8

As Calvin has said so plainly, a consideration of human personality must be

linked to a consideration of God.9

The God of the Old Testament and of the

New Testament is disclosed as a God who wills covenant, makes covenant, and

keeps covenant. God's creation is an act of covenant-making with his creation.10

The wisdom teaching of Israel can be understood as discernment of the order

liness and reliability ordained by this faithful Other.11

The "miracles" of Jesus

8. Philip Rieff has most clearly indicated the nature of the pursuit of individual freedomwhich regards repression as undialectically the primary human problem (The Triumph of theTherapeutic [New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1966]).

9. Calvin begins with this recognition :"True and substantial wisdom principally consists of two parts, the knowledge of God,and the knowledge of ourselves. But while these two branches of knowledge are so in-timately connected, which of them precedes and produces the other, is not easy to discover. . . no man can take a survey of himself but he must immediately turn to the contempla-tion of God, in whom he "lives and moves."

He concludes :"But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves be intimately con-nected, the proper order of instruction requires us first to treat of the former, and thento proceed to the discussion of the latter," Institutes of the Christian Religion I (Phila-

delphia, Presbyterian Board of Christian Education) pp. 47, 50.10. That point, of course, has been established most clearly by Karl Barth, Church Dog-

matics, III (Edinburgh, & Clark, 1958).


4/16

are presented as acts which restore persons to the covenant community. The

ultimate hope of the apocalyptic tradition is that there will be a new age in

which relatedness characterized by justice and righteousness will be given. If the

metaphor of covenant is understood broadly as relatedness to and grounding in

Another, it is a metaphor which relates to all these various biblical traditions.

Out of these diverse materials about this other One, let us consider these four

claims made concerning God which matter decisively for pastoral care:

1. The covenant-making God wills and has the power to make somethingnew.

12 Real newness (creatio ex nihilo, resurrection from the dead, justification

by grace)13

is the peculiar capacity of God. He has not entrusted to any of his

creatures the authority to present underived, unextrapolated newness, least of all

newness about ourselves. Newness in our lives is a gift from this other One. It is

God's gift-giving which breaks the vicious cycles of grudge and isolation and

makes possible our giving of gifts to each other, which makes newness possible

(Eph. 2:8; James 1:17; cf. Matt. 7:11 / / Luke 11:13, for the affirmation of

human gift-giving) ,14

The entire Bible bears witness to this One who destroys and creates (Deut.32:39; Isa. 45:7; Jer. 1:10). His forming of the worlds, his liberation of Israel,

his anointing of David, his deliverance of exiles, his summons to disciples, his

silencing the storm, his call to Lazarusall these attest to this Other giving new

ness that can be given only in this way. This ground of humanness is against

every ideology which believes everything is already given that will be given.

2. The way of this covenant-making, newness-presenting God is by speech.1*

His creation is by his word. His Exodus is by decree. His forming of Israel is by

of the elementary relationships between man and man, faith in the similarity of men and oftheir reactions, faith in the reliability of the orders which support human life and thus, implicitly, faith in God who put these orders into operation." See Wisdom in Israel (New York,Abingdon Press, 1972), pp. 62f.

12. In the OT, it is esp. Second Isa. who ponders the power of God to create an utterlyunderived, unextrapolated historical newness. Our own outlook, like that of ancient Babylon,no longer knew of any gods who could bring newness. On the subject of newness in SecondIsa. and appropriate speech forms, see Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Philadelphia,Fortress Press), forthcoming, Chap. 4.

13. Gf. Hans Heinrich Schmid who usefully shows how the three programmatic terms function as synonyms ("Rechtfertigung als Schpfungsgeschehen," in Friedrich, Phlmann, andStuhlmacher, eds., Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fr Ernst Ksemann [Gttingen, Vandenhoeckund Ruprecht, 1976], p. 401).

14. On the power of gifts and gift-giving, see the shrewd and simple statement of PaulTournier, The Meaning of Gifts (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1964). On the social functionof gifts, see Marcel Mauss, The Gift (New York, Norton, 1967).


5/16


6/16

"I will be your God," which is his first characteristic speech of self-announce

ment; but he also says, "You will be my people."20

"I have called you by name.

You are mine" (Isa. 43:1). It is not that this person belonging to God existed

and then was claimed for God. Rather, the act of claiming is the act of giving

life and identity to that person. Before being called and belonging to, the person

was not. In the Bible, "person" means to belong with and belong to and belong

for.21

Covenant is thus deeply set against every notion of human autonomy.

The specific form of holding the other to himself is Torah.22

Torah is not law

in any juridical sense, but it is rather a gift of guidance and sustenance so that

the life of the partner has shape and purpose and perspective. If a modern

human issue is anomie, of existing in a vacuum without order, shape or purpose,

then the conviction that God holds his partner to himself in loyalty is an exceed

ingly important and polemical affirmation. In covenanting, the contradiction of

freedom and authority is overcome. The binding of God is precisely the freedom

of the human person, and where there is no binding, there is no freedom. In the

Old Testament, it is the Torah of Sinai which gives shape and resilience to the

liberation of Egypt. Without the shaping of Torah at Sinai, surely the liberation

would come to nothing. In the New Testament it is clear that God's sovereignclaim is in fact his graciousness; and conversely, God's graciousness is nothing

other than his sovereignty toward us. The contradiction of binding and freedom

is overcome because this binding freedom is shown to be characterized by the new

righteousness of God (Rom. 10:1-13).23

4. The covenant-making, newness-presenting, word-speaking, holding-his-own-

to-himself of God is an action toward us which redefines human life. Because God

is God, human persons are set in a new context. The new situation is one of being

addressed, after an eon of silent indifference; and the new situation is one, there

fore, of promise and claim. The new situation is one of belonging with and belonging to, after an age of being abandoned and shapeless. The new situation is

one of surprise and amazement, of unextrapolated gift, after a situation of oldness

20. See Horst Seebass, "ber den Beitrag des Alten Testaments zu einer theologischenAnthropologie," Kerygma and Dogma 22 (1976), p. 45. Throughout this discussion I havefound the paper by Seebass to be most helpful.

21. Note well the first answer in the Heidelberg Catechism:"What is your only comfort, in life and in death?That I belongbody and soul, in life and in deathnot to myself, but to my faithful

Saviour Jesus Christ. . ."The statement is clear that belonging is the only alternative to self-groundedness"not tomyself."

22. On Torah, see James A. Sanders, "Torah and Christ," Interp 29:372-90 (1975).23. The dialectical notion of binding and freedom is apparent even in such an unexpected


7/16


Interpretation

in always different configurations. There is no clearer summary of the new situation by the actions of God than that Jesus gives to John the Baptist:

. . . the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deafhear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them (Luke7:22).

The God of this covenant relation is not one who is understood as the passive

silent upholder, but he is an active agent on our behalf. Pastoral care involvesbringing persons to such a knowledge of self in the presence of God.

II

In that context of that other One, let us consider some elements of a biblicalanthropology. Notice that in considering this other One we have not spoken ofattributes but of characteristic actions. In parallel fashion, a biblical understanding of human personality must speak of characteristic actions taken toward theone who is our Ground. If we have faithfully summarized the characteristic

actions of God, then sound human psychology must ask about responding andresponsive actions appropriate to God's initiatives toward us. Thus, the groundedone responds to the One who is our Ground. I suggest these are central in biblicalfaith:

1. In response to the One who makes all things new, a faithful human actionis hope, to live in sure and certain confidence of promises, to function each daytrusting that God's promises and purposes will not fail. Hope is not somethingone does at the margins of life when our resources fail, but it is definitional forpersons in convenant with this God.241 submit that despair and its psychologically

acceptable form, depression, are in fact covert acts of atheism25

in which we canconclude nothing can happen apart from us and no one is at work but us.2. In response to the One who speaks, faithful human action is to listen2* (cf.

Deut. 6:4), to concede that we are subject to Another who legitimately addressesus by name and tells us who we are. Serious listening is, of course, yielding toanother, being at the disposal of another, letting our life be shaped by anotherwho takes initiative for us. Listening to the voice of another with seriousness is,

24. On the centrality of hope for understanding human personality, see Seebass, op. cit.,pp. 50-52; Zimmerli, Man and His Hope in the Old Testament, SB 20 2nd. S. (Naperville,Allenson, 12 n. d.) ; Wolff, Anthropology, chap. 17, and more generally, Jrgen Moltmann,Theology of Hope (New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967). See the important commentsof Wolfhart Pannenberg on the importance of hope for healing, esp. his citation of H. Plggeand A Jones (Jesus-God and Man [Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1977] pp 83-85)


8/16

then, a decision to live by grace, to let us be impacted and defined by that othervoice. There is, of course, no more sustained prophetic indictment than, "Youdid not listen." (This is especially clear in Jeremiah 5:21 ; 7:13; 11:10; 13:11 ;22:21; 25:4, 8; 29:19; 35:17; 36:25.) Not listening, always speaking, alwaysretaining initiative, always insisting on self-definition, is a second mark of atheism,for it is based on the surmise and fear that there is no one but us. And only ourvoice can prevent the terror of cosmic silence.

3. In response to the God who holds us to himself, who holds us accountable

and responsible, faithful human action involves obedient answering language.Obedient answering consists in action which may be summarized as the doing of

justice and righteousness, loyalty and graciousness. Such obedient answering is thefullness of maturing to which we are invited ( Eph. 4:13).

The maturity of which Paul writes (Eph. 4:13; Phil. 3:15) is not the maturityof selfself-actualization, self-discovery, self-assertion, self-realizationbut it isthe life lived toward this other One in gratitude and awe. The word whicharticulates this mature obedience is not "I" but "Father."27 Mature sonship anddaughterhood are finally found in the capacity to say "Father," to do his will, to

care for his other children, and to accept it as perfect freedom. It is importantthat in the two places in which Paul speaks most fervently of freedom, he speaksof the ability to say "abba" (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The saying of "father" isnot an act of subservience but of mature freedom. That same word, in its onlyother use in the New Testament, is employed by Jesus in his quintessential act ofobedient maturity ( Mark 14:36).

These would seem to me to be the primary elements of mature, covenantalpersonhoodhoping, listening, and answering. Each of these is an affirmationof being grounded in another. Each of these is a protest against self-grounded

ness, for the self-grounded person is finally (a) hopeless, (b) must always do thespeaking, and (c) hears nothing to which to make answer. Pastoral care is concerned with the issue of how persons who are hopeless, persistent speakers, andfaithless listeners can be brought to faithful covenanting. Such pastoral care isconcerned with the nurture which transforms persons to be covenanters. In thatcontext, these actions are characteristically affirmed in the Bible.

4. In the face of the covenant-making God, it is faithfulhuman action to rageand protest.

28 The idea of primal scream was known and practiced in ancient

27. See the contrast of sonship with the role of slaves and orphans, Brueggemann, In ManWe Trust (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1972), esp. p. 76.

28. On the lament psalms as sources of rage and grief, see the following: Glaus Westermann,"The Role of the Lament in the Theology of the Old Testament," Interp 28:20-38 (1974);


9/16


Interpretation

Israel. As Westermann has seen,29

the Western tradition of guilt and submissive-

ness bespeaks a readiness to take all blame for the mess.30

But not Israel ! Israel

dared to believe that sometimes protest (read "accusation against God") is more

fitting than submission. To accept blame for everything is not to take God seri

ously. Israel in her vigorous faith will take God seriously, and so there is energetic

and hostile protest. Israel speaks with such confidence because she trusts herself

utterly to this covenantal partner. Rage is a form of trust and an acknowledgment

that finally one must come to terms with this One in whom we are grounded.

Solle has seen that it is precisely rage which is the gate to hope.31

Rage is the

speech that makes other covenantal exchanges possible. People engaged in

pastoral care must decide if this One is worth addressing and must be taken with

such radical seriousness.

5. In the face of the covenant-making God, it is faithful human action to

grieve.32

It is for that reason that so many of the psalms of Israel are lament

poems. Israel was not reticent to speak about loss, hurt, betrayal, fear, threat,

anxiety. To be sure, there are not many that end there.33

Gerstenberger34

has

made the helpful distinction between lament and complaint, urging that Israel

rarely grieves in resignation, willing to settle for things as they are. Rather, Israel

complains, accuses, cajoles, urges in order to get things changed. But nonethe

less, Israel engages in no denial of loss nor any self-deception about hurt. She

faces loss and hurt fully and addresses them frontally. Israel knew that such

vigorous, even strident, grieving was an act of faithfulness. But it is crucial to

note that the laments never focus long or finally on the object of loss. The speech

may be about loss, but it is addressed to the God in whom Israel is grounded.

Israel's primal scream is addressed to someone. *4jid therefore it has a chance of

an answer.

29. "The Role of the Lament."30. The acceptance of responsibility for everything wrong leads to guilt, which in turn

immobilizes. Clearly, the power to act in some situations requires the rejection of guilt andthe accusation against the other in rage. The inability to rage leads to immobility. In writingof the immobility of the Irish, Leon Uris, Trinity, has the storyteller say: "Aye, Seamus, therewas no Brotherhood, no ability to rage, I became so broken with frustration I did what I sworewould never happen. I was driven out of Ireland. Ah, not by the British but by the apathyof our own people." More broadly on rage and apathy as antithetical, see Dorothy Solle,Suffering (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1975).

31. Op. cit.y 73. Solle shows that lament and protest are the only way from mute sufferingand isolation to the power of newness. See also the analysis of Max Scheler, Ressentiment (NewYork, Schocken Books, 1961).

32. See Brueggemann, "The Formfulness of Grief," for the resources available in the psalmsfor this aspect of pastoral care.

33 Gerstenberger "Der klagende Mensch " following Jahnow has shown how rare these


10/16

Indeed, Israel's grief is in the context of faith.35

It is never presumed that the

loss terminates the relationship, and therefore loss is not the ultimate reality.

Westermann has shown in a most remarkable way that grief in Israel is linked

always to confidence, hope, and praise.36

Such grief is not the act of an atheist,

for hopeless, resigned grief or hurt denied is indeed an act of atheism. Such hope-

filled grief as Israel practiced is in deep conflict with the perverted practice

among us of denial and self-deception.

6. Finally, in the face of the covenant-making God, praise is faithful human

action. Indeed, the chief end of human persons is "to glorify God and enjoy him

forever." Praise is not a means toward an end in the Bible. It is an end in itself.

It is the spontaneous, grateful yielding over of self to the One who is faithful

covenant partner.37

Doxology is the most faithful act of getting one's mind off

one's self and fully on to this One who is the real subject of our lives.

Abraham Heschel38

has eloquently asserted that the singing of doxology, the

practice of surrendered gratitude, is the last full measure of humanness in which

the creature of God is turned fully toward the creator who stays by the creation.

Israel practiced little introspection, not because she is "primitive" or unaware,

but because she has determined that self-knowledge and self-awareness unrelatedto the Other is not necessarily the way to health. Rather, it is to receive the gift

and to focus on the giver. Such a decision on the part of Israel, wrought in

painful experience, is evident in the structure of the psalms of lament, which

characteristically move by way of rage and grief to praise, joy, and assurance of

being heard by the covenant partner.

Thus vis--vis this awesome One who stands in solidarity with his partners, we

suggest that a proper posture is of hope/listening/ answering. We have suggested

a second triad of practices which makes the first triad possible. How more from

hopelessness, incessant self-assertion (speech), and autonomy (not answering)?The Israelite way is by grief, rage9 and praise. These practices are offered in

Israel not only to those who for the moment are self-sufficient and therefore

35. Granger Westberg has seen the linkage of faith and grief (Good Grief [Philadelphia,Fortress Press, 1962]).

36. Westermann, The Praise of God in the Psalms (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1965).See the summary claim on p. 75.

37. On the contrast of praise and thanks, see Westermann, The Praise of God, pp. 25-35.On the rich and spontaneous, holistic character of praise, Westermann asserts ". . . praise ofGod is something that cannot be learned . . ." (p. 23).

38. "The secret of spiritual living is the power to praise. Praise is the harvest of love. Praise

precedes faith. First we sing, then we believe. The fundamental issue is not faith but sensitivityand praise, being ready for faith. . . . The man of our time is losing the power of celebration. . . .Celebration is an act of expressing respect or reverence for that which one needs or honors."


11/16


Interpretation

buoyant, but also by those who are manifestly not self-sufficient and therefore

immobilized. In terms of pastoral care, it is noteworthy that this latter triad is

of clearly dramatic, liturgical, and in some way public acts. It is the faithful

doing of covenantal actions that makes covenantal life possible. Pastoral care

may be the practice of engaging persons regularly in these faithful actions as

persons fully and freely engaged in covenant.

Ill

In that context, we may observe two major implications of the covenantal

metaphor. We propose that the covenant is between these two parties : ( 1 ) the

news-bringer, word-speaker who stands by and gives a new setting for our

humanness; (2) the grounded one who is called to hope, listen, and answer, and

who may do so by the regular practice of rage, grief, and praise. The issue for

us in our humanness is how to participate in that covenant.

First, such a view of reality transposes all identity questions into vocational

questions. The notion of identity questions is based on the assumption that the

person, in and of himself/herself, has within his/her body an identity to beembraced. Identity questions are, by definition, self-focused. But we have urged

on the basis of our governing metaphor that the premise itself is wrong because

the human person is not self-grounded and therefore does not have within

himself/herself the essentials for accepting or arriving at an identity. Rather,

identity for a person is given in the call of the other One.39

It is the voice of the

initiating One who calls human persons to a destiny. Maturation is coming to

terms in free ways with that givenness of God's purpose in our lives.

This dynamic of identity is evident in the Old Testament, in God's call to the

creation to "be." It is equally evident in God's call to his first born son Israel tobe his people (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). It is clear in the New Testament that

the church has to do with the "God who calls" (Rom. 4:17; Gal. 5:13 ; II Tim.

1:9). The dynamic of humanness is in the interaction between the One who

calls and the one who is called. And the agenda between them is a calling. I sub

mit that pastoral care can usefully reclaim the idea of calling or vocation. That

idea, perhaps, has lost standing because it seemed so classical, if not medieval,

and so linked to a static view of society. Or it smacked of authoritarianism against

a consciousness bent on freedom. But we are not speaking of an occupation or a

39. That, of course, is the point of Buber's "I-Thou." Unfortunately, his discernment hasnot been appreciated, either being understood in quite romantic terms or being reduced topsychological personalism His intent is rather to protest against the notion of self-grounded


12/16

job or a profession, but of a purpose for being in the world which is related to

the purposes of God. And we are not speaking here of our mother's ambition for

us or an institutional blueprint for our lives, but of the dreams of the One in

whom we are grounded.

Because God is God, there are purposes to which we belong which are larger

than our purposes (Isa. 55:6-9). Or viewed another way, the Bible never holds

to the notion that we exist as pre-purpose persons and then may choose a purpose

in life. On the contrary, our being called into being as persons already is de

cisive for our humanness. Biblical anthropology is from the beginning missional.

Biblical faith asserts that being grounded in this other One who has purposes that

are not our purposes characterizes our existence as missional, that is, as claimed for

and defined by the One who gives us life. The metaphor of covenant thus poses

the central reality of our life in terms of vocation. Vocation means we are called

by this One who in calling us to be calls us to service. And in that service comes

freedom.

Second, a covenantal view of personhood assures that personal existence is, by

definition, conflicted. We are always in tension with our vocation, wanting it

another way or not at all. Any notion of biblical anthropology must of course

speak of sin, but we must take care that we do not let that be understood con

ventionally. Better, I believe, to recognize that God's purposes for us and God's

calling of us are in conflict with other ways we would rather live. Surely it is

clear that we would rather deny than to grieve. We would prefer to sulk than to

rage. We would rather introspect than to praise. Denying, sulking, introspecting

permit us to keep life turned in on us, to pretend we are the center of existence

and the shapers of our own destiny. Turning to the Other means we take life,

destiny, vocation as gift. We give thanks and acknowledge we are not self-suffi

cient. Such a break toward this life-giving covenant partner is a central issue inpastoral care.

But even when turned toward the other One and not turned away in resist

ance, things stay conflicted. What is promised in this covenant is not equilibrium

but faithfulness. And faithfulness, contrasted with the quiet security yearned for

by this world, is flowing, surging, and moving. The upshot of faithfulness, then,

is not certitude, but precariousnessprecariousness which requires a full reper

toire of hoping, listening, and answering to live joyously. The Bible is realistic in

knowing that life does not consist in pleasant growth to well-being, but it con

sists in painful wrenchings and surprising gifts. And over none of them do wepreside.


13/16


Interpretation

life lived in the presence of this covenanting God. Indeed, the Bible asserts that

God's own way with his people is also one of risk, vulnerability, and anger. The

precariousness of this way of understanding human reality includes at least these

factors:

1. Both parties in the covenant have dangerous freedom in the presence of the

other one. The binding between the two is one of faithful trust, not control. For

the covenant to have vitality, each party is granted freedom by the other. Quite

clearly, God claims his freedom to act as he will, nowhere more unhappily (for

Jonah) than in the narrative of Jonah. But it is also clear that the community of

faith has freedom in the face of the covenant God, freedom which must be

exercised, but which is fraught with danger. Moreover, the freedom of each must

be practiced in the presence of the other. Neither is free to engage in freedom

which does not take into account the reality of the other.

2. Covenant means living in a history where each receives being/identity/per

sonhood from the other. That is, things are really at stake in the covenant. It is

not that one goes to covenant with everything resolved. No, each comes to cove

nant with everything yet to be resolved with reference to the other one. Thingsare at stake for God. But quite clearly, this is affirmed in Israel. This is evident

in the pathos of God ( Hos. 6:4-6 ; 11:8-9 ; Jer. 31:20 ) .40

It is also evident in the

claim that God's throne is founded in Israel's praises (Ps. 22:3). The inference

is that without the praises, the throne would have no place.41

When Israel must face Yahweh, everything is at issue for Israel. The judg

ment of God is determinative for Israel's life (Ps. 103:8-10; 130:3-4). The

precariousness of such a way of life is that the freedom of and power over the

other party can never be reduced nor nullified. The other party may be trusted

but cannot be controlled. The disposition of God toward us can be counted on,but it is a conviction, not a fact. And to reduce that conviction to a proof is to

deny the other his/her personhood and, in fact, to move away from the metaphor

of covenant.

3. Covenanting means that the one who is authorized to give life is the very

One, and the only One, who can call life into question. Or said another way, only

the one to whom we are seriously committed can seriously threaten us. If we ar

rive at indifference toward this God, then perhaps it can be presumed one does

not stand where the dangers of God are asserted. But that is not an alternative

40. On the fresh decision still to be made by God, see Gerald Janzen, "Metaphor andReality in Hosea 11 " SBL 1976 Seminar Papers (Missoula Mont Scholars' Press 1976)


14/16


15/16


16/16

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Brueggemann_Covenant as Human Vocation_Int 33 (1979)

Documents

Transcript of Brueggemann_Covenant as Human Vocation_Int 33 (1979)