The 3rd century views of “salvation through Christ” !

It was the question of salvation that was at stake in the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. The Nicaea - Constantinopolitan Creed (381 A.D.) associates salvation with the incarnation - “for our salvation . . . he became man”, but these words were not themselves at the center of the controversies. What was at stake is encapsulated by Athanasius when he stated that “the Son of God became human so that we might become God”, and by Gregory Nazianzen – also known as "The Theologian" due to his influence at the Council of Constantinople - in his axiom that, “What has not been assumed has not been healed”. In other words, although the mode of our salvation was not the explicit concern of the Christological councils, it was implicit in that our salvation hinged upon the person of Christ in whom salvation was accomplished. The debates about the human and divine natures of Christ are in fact debates about the nature of our salvation. Ontological status of Christ did matter so much.

I will try to sketch a model of the process of salvation that is consistent with what was at stake in the Christological debates of the early Christian centuries. These debates and controversies were part of the process of bringing to consciousness an intuition about the nature of our salvation in Christ. Although there has been and is a legitimate plurality of theories and approaches to understanding the nature of our salvation in Christ, I believe that the implicit concerns of the Christological councils, because of their importance for Christian doctrine, should have a certain priority in assessing the value of a soteriology. In other words, the particular models of salvation proposed must address why it is important that Jesus the Christ be both fully divine and fully human.

Throughout the Church’s history we can definitely identify some basic models of salvation; however, these models do serve to describe the basic orientation of the broad spectrum of theories.

One of them is recapitulation, in which salvation is the perfection of creation. In this view creation, incarnation, and redemption are part of a single movement of God’s grace. The incarnation of the Word flows from creation through the Word and inaugurates the process whereby creation itself is exalted and enabled to share in the fullness of the divine life itself. It was an idea common to many of the church fathers that our redemption also entailed our divinization and participation in divine life. This model finds its clearest expression and development in the second century in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, Christianity’s first great post-apostolic theologian: “When [Christ] was incarnate and became a human being, he recapitulated in himself the long history of the human race, obtaining salvation for us, so that we might regain in Jesus Christ what we had lost in Adam, that is, being in the image and likeness of God.”

There are two aspects to recapitulation. The first aspect involves the restoration of what was lost, but it progresses beyond the idea of simple restitution towards the idea that redemption is none other than the fulfillment of creation itself. Irenaeus argues against the idea of the restitution of a lost perfection as this idea was foundational to the heretical Gnostic thought systems that Irenaeus was attempting to refute. For the Gnostics, the whole of the material world itself was the result of the fall from grace, the loss of perfection. Instead, Irenaeus offers us a view of creation and salvation history that fits surprisingly well with the contemporary understanding of an evolutionary universe. Consequently, Irenaeus’ approach is ontological rather than juridical and is marked by a strong anti-dualist stamp. Against the Gnostics Irenaeus would claim that we are not saved from the world, but within and with the world.

Adam’s sin was due to immaturity rather than maliciousness. Drawing on Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 3.2: “I have fed you with milk and not solid food, for you were not able to take it”, Irenaeus argues, that just as a mother may give solid food to her child, she refrains from doing so since the child is not yet able to receive it. Similarly, God could also have endowed man with perfection from the beginning, but man was as yet unable to receive it, being as yet an infant. The growth and development of humanity nourished by the Spirit and fulfilled in the Son is a growth towards the perfection of God.

Humanity came to be created and fashioned in God’s image likeness, the Father being well pleased and giving the command, the Son acting and creating, the Spirit nourishing and giving increase, and humanity making gradual progress and so advancing towards perfection, coming closer, that is to say, to the Uncreated One. . . Now it was necessary that humanity should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God confers incorruption, and incorruption brings us close to God.

The idea of recapitulation has its biblical foundation is in the Pauline epistles which describe Christ as the new Adam: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15:22). Christ is the head of the new creation that summarizes or recapitulates in him the whole of creation. His coming is the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4), the climax of human history. The central text for this approach is Ephesians 1:10, which speaks of God’s plan to sum up all things in Christ. In the theology of the Church fathers, the incarnation is the beginning and foundation of our salvation, but the resurrection is also crucial as it is as “firstborn of the dead” (Col. 1:18) that Christ restores the human race to the existence in the image and likeness of God that had been lost in Adam.

The model of recapitulation is often supplemented by the idea of the divine education of the human race through Christ. Irenaeus argues “that through imitation of his works and performance of his word we might have communion with him.” This supplement is important if recapitulation is to be more than an automatic process. After the Enlightenment, with its focus on Jesus as an ethical teacher, this supplementary theory became a distinct theory of redemption in itself, although it has its beginnings as a separate theory of salvation with in the early 12th century.

In 12th century for example we can find theory that Christ died, not out of any necessity, but in order to reveal the profound depths of God's love for humanity. It was the attitudes of men and women, their fear and ignorance that keep them from God. According to this theory, the death of Christ provides more than just a moral example. It has a transforming influence that shifts the perspective of humanity, leading us to trust and repentance.

The approach based solely upon the sacrifice of the cross is that the resurrection becomes no more than an appendix to the death of Christ and has no saving significance in itself. The early Church did consider that Christ’s death must have been salvific but they always interpreted it within the broader context of Jesus’ incarnation, life, and especially the resurrection. In doing so they offered a more holistic approach and a context that makes sense of Christ’s death in light of and in consistency with Christ’s life, mission and resurrection.

According to Saint Paul “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is pointless and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished” But Christ was raised. And just as “death came through a human being,” so “the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ”(1 Corinthians 15:17-18,.21-22).Although Paul does talk of Christ’s death in terms of atonement, his emphasis is sacramental and participatory rather than juridical. For Paul it is by sharing in Christ’s death that one dies to the power of sin with the result that one belongs to God. But of course, for Paul all of this depends in the first instance upon the resurrection “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor. 15:17.)

It is the Easter experience that is the foundation of Christian faith in the divinity of Jesus. The earliest Christological patterns in the New Testament begin with Jesus’ exaltation in the resurrection to God’s right hand where he is established by God as Savior, calling people to reconciliation with God and among themselves in justice and love. But gradually, with prayer and reflection and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the exaltation of Jesus came to be pushed back beyond the Resurrection. In Mark’s gospel Jesus is declared Son of God by a voice from heaven at his baptism and when he is acknowledged as such again by a Roman soldier at the cross. Matthew and Luke carry this step further with their infancy narratives making it clear that Jesus is Son of God from the very first moment of his human existence - which is to say that Jesus was of God from the very beginning of his life. Finally, the divinity of Christ is pushed back before his birth to his pre-existence with the Father in Colossians and especially in John’s Gospel.

Similarly, the redemption that we have received in Christ came to be associated not just with his resurrection, but with his death, and ministry and his life as a whole, even to his pre-existence to the creation of the universe itself which is the first grace given to us by God in Jesus. The death of Christ should be considered in line with the example of Christ, not simply in his life, but in the incarnation itself considered as a kenosis (self-emptying). We should recall the Christological hymn in Philippians 2: 6-11, where it is said that “he did not cling to his equality with God but emptied himself”.

In Jesus, God has not just redeemed the world but disclosed God’s own being. This should be another principle of interpretation: God’s actions are consistent with whom God is and not simply masks presented to the world. God does not simply act in a loving manner but “God is love”. It is in this way that Jesus reveals who God is. God is self-giving, self-emptying. The Father empties himself and gives all that he has to the Son, who in turn gives all back to the Father.

The image of God revealed here is not one of hierarchy and subordination, but one of mutual interdependence. The suggestion here is that the kenosis that Paul ascribes to Christ is in fact a divine characteristic. This means that the kenotic form of Jesus Christ in the paschal mystery is not new or foreign to God but is, in fact, thoroughly consistent with this eternal supra-temporal “event” of triune love. There is “a real kenosis in God that has ontological status. All this is to say that God acts in way that is totally consistent with who God is. It is truly as God that God is involved in the world.

In approaching an understanding of the nature of our salvation in Christ, early Church Fathers offer a more holistic account of both creation and salvation, seeing them as part of the whole. It has its foundation in the idea of recapitulation in which salvation is the perfection of creation. In this view creation, the incarnation, and redemption are part of a single movement of God’s grace. The first thing to note about this approach is that Salvation is a process. The idea of “salvation history” suggests as much.

The idea that salvation is a process is particular evident in the thought of Irenaeus. But if we look to the Gospels themselves, and the parables of the kingdom, we find that the coming of the reign of God is often depicted in terms of growth and process involving mustard seeds, yeast transforming the loaves, fields of wheat and weeds that should be left to grow. Salvation to the extent that it is linked to the reign of God must also be a process rather than a single event. Our salvation begins here in this world, and has indeed already begun. This means that God is not simply our destination, but also our companion on the way. The Eucharistic connotations here are deliberate, for a companion is one with whom we share our bread, whose bread we share. It is food for the journey. Through sharing in Christ, the first fruits of the new creation we our nourished in our own divinization and growth in Christ, towards God our destination.

Of course, all this talk about salvation simply begs the question: what am I saved from? Sin is the usual answer. The primary meaning of the Greek word for sin, “amartia” - is failure, or more specifically “failure to hit the mark”, or going astray. Ultimately, sin is “failure to achieve the purpose for which one is created”. Continuing the analogy of a journey, we might say that sin is to lose one’s sense of direction, or to deviate from the right path. In juridical terms: it is the transgression of a moral code. But in broader, more existential terms: it is a failure to be one’s true self. Sin is not simply an offence against God but a failure to co-operate with God in the process of salvation. Hugh Connelly argues that failure to respond, failure to strive toward right relations, and failure to be fully responsible is if the very essence of sin. This understanding underscores the inadequacy by itself of a ‘debt-language’ that places too much reliance on those models of law and obedience that tend to characterize and indeed caricature sin in a mechanical, individualistic and actuality way.

Sin, is a lack of true humanness, but above all, else a loss of relationship. To be human according to God’s Trinitarian image is to love one another after the model of the mutual love of the persons of the Trinity. Sinfulness as a lack of true humaneness is isolation, from both God and our fellow human beings. It is the absence of communion. If sin is a breakdown of relationship then our salvation is also about the restoration of relationship. We are saved by faith. But faith is not a hypothesis, or adherence to certain propositions about Christ. It is a personal relationship. It is Christ who is our salvation and savior, not his titles, although this does underscore the importance of the identity and person of Jesus. We are saved in Christ, by his incarnation, life, death and resurrection. We are not simply saved by what Christ has done although what Christ has done is an authentic expression of who Christ is and how the God of Jesus is revealed. Who Jesus is and what he has done form, like the mystery of Christ himself, an undivided harmony. The mystery of Christ is also an internal relationship. The Paschal mystery is the whole. The incarnation, baptism, transfiguration, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension are all moments of Christ’s incarnation that form a single whole. Although the tradition offers a rich variety of models and images to describe what Christ has done for us these models are not mutually exclusive.

Medieval theologians used to ponder the extravagance of the cross. Surely it was enough that God simply will our salvation or that surely the incarnation was enough. This problem only arises when the cross is separated from the rest of life and ministry. The death of Jesus can better be understood as the result of his total fidelity to his mission of proclaiming the reign of God, even in the face of death. The soteriology or theology of salvation that best respects the integrity of Jesus’ life as a whole is, I believe, a soteriology of participation.

Salvation means healing, and this healing is brought about through sharing, mutual solidarity and exchange. Christ saves us by becoming what we are and by sharing totally in our humanity, enabling us in turn to share in what he is. Through a reciprocal exchange of gifts, Christ takes our humanity and communicates to us the divine life, re-establishing that communion between Creator and creation that sin destroys. Salvation according to this model is realized above all through indwelling: “Christ in us” rather than “Christ for us”, although the two are compatible and belong together.

The New Testament is replete with examples of this approach to the nature of our salvation in Christ: We are “sharers in the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4); “Although he was rich he became poor for your sake, so that you should become rich through his poverty”. (2 Cor. 8:9); There is a reciprocal indwelling; Christ in us – “not I but Christ in me” (Gal. 2:20)

Our participation in Christ has a sacramental basis in baptism: “Since every one of you who has been baptized has been clothed in Christ”(Gal. 3:27);“So by our baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father’s glorious power, we too should begin living a new life. If we have been joined to him by dying a death like his, so we shall by a resurrection like his; realizing that our former self was crucified with him . . . But we believe that if we died with Christ we shall live with him too.”(Rom. 6: 4-10)

Our participation in Christ also has a sacramental basis in the Eucharist in that sharing in the Eucharist is sharing in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16).

The notion of mutual participation is likewise central to the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. As our High Priest, Christ has been made like us “in every respect”, and it is by virtue of this solidarity with us that He is enabled to offer a “sacrifice of atonement” for our sins (Heb. 2:11, 17 – 18; 4:15.)

Mutual sharing and indwelling is especially prominent in the gospel of John: “You know the Spirit because he abides in you and will be in you”(John 14:17); “Abide in me as I abide in you”(John 15:4); Just as Christ and the Father dwell in each other, so we are to dwell in Christ and He in us. (John 14:21-23). And in the Johannine epistles, to be saved is thus to participate in God and to be made “like him”(1 John 3:2).

This is why the Church insisted on the fullness of both divinity and humanity in Christ because it was perceived that it was the becoming human of God that makes possible the deification of humanity and human beings. God takes into God self what is ours and in exchange God gives us what is God’s own, so that we become by grace what God is by nature, being made sons and daughters in the Son. This approach is then developed throughout the writings of the Church fathers. According to Irenaeus in the 2nd century: “The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that he might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” (Against the Heresies); Athanasius in the 4th century: “For the Son of God became human so that we might become God.” (On The Incarnation, 54. 3); Gregory Nazianzen: “What has not been assumed has not been healed”. (Letter 101, to Cledonious PG 37:181C); Augustine in the 5th century: “In order to make gods of those who were merely human . . . one who was God made himself human.” (Sermon 192.1); Maximus the Confessor in the 7th Century: “We lay hold of the divine to the same degree as that to which the Logos of God, deliberately emptying himself of his own sublime glory, became truly human.” (On the Lord’s Prayer); and so on.

Participation soteriology is not only found through the New Testament but it is also at the heart of the Council of Chalcedon that affirmed both the fully divinity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ. Only if Christ is both totally divine and at the same time totally human, can Jesus Christ truly be our Savior. But just as the distinctness of the Son is not lost in the Son’s triune relationship with the Father, so our uniqueness is also preserved. Just as the life of the Trinity is mutual interdependence and distinction in unity, our individuality is not compromised but raised to its highest level. To be a person is to be in relationship.

The fulfillment of the human person lies in his or her divinization which is the proper end of Christian ethics. This divinization or the “theosis” means being conformed in our personal existence to God’s personal existence, achieving right relationship and genuine communion in every respect, at every level”. It is God who is the ultimate “end” of salvation and the fulfillment of our very identity as persons. To be saved is to be divinized, to participate in the life of God. Salvation, then, is much more than an alteration in our juridical status. Likewise, it is more than imitating Christ in moral conduct. Salvation is nothing less than the all-embracing transformation of our humanness.

Salvation is social and communal, not isolated and individualistic. We are not saved alone but as members of a single human family. Salvation is social and communal especially because of our faith in the Holy Trinity. The determining element of our humanity is the fact that we are created in the image of God, and that means the image of the Holy Trinity which is not merely personal but interpersonal. God as Trinity is not a unit but a union; not self-love but shared love. God is communion and as Trinity is mutuality, self-giving, “I and Thou”. Because God is Trinity our salvation is bound up with the salvation of my neighbor. The doctrine of the Trinity means then that I cannot be saved unless I make myself “responsible for everyone and for everything”. In our quest for divinization / “theosis” we cannot be indifferent to our fellow human beings.

We are not to set bounds on God’s saving power, but as far as we Christians are concerned the appointed means of salvation is in and through the community of the Church. This is the original context of Cyprian’s statement in the 3rd Century that there is “no salvation outside the Church”. As with all interpretation, context is important to understand what is being said. Cyprian was talking to insiders and addressing the question of schism. In other words he was concerned to safeguard the unity and communion of the Church, which was valued highly in the first Christian centuries. In effect, what Cyprian was saying was that there is “no salvation outside of communion”. It is inappropriate to take this statement outside of that context.

Salvation is also sacramental: it is founded upon baptism and the Eucharist. Baptism is the sacrament of mutual indwelling with Christ. Eucharist is the sacrament of Church prefiguring the Kingdom of God.

Salvation, or "being saved", therefore, refers to this process of being saved from death and corruption and the fate of hell. The Orthodox Church believes that its teachings and practices represent the true path to participation in the gifts of God. Yet, it should be understood that we (Orthodox) do not believe that you must be Orthodox to participate in salvation. God is merciful to all. In addition we believe that there is nothing that a person (Orthodox or non-Orthodox) can do to earn salvation. It is rather a gift from God. However, this gift of relationship has to be accepted by the believer, since God will not force salvation on humanity. Man is free to reject the gift of salvation continually offered by God. To be saved, man must work together with God in a “synergeia” whereby his entire being, including his will, effort and actions, are perfectly conformed with, and united to, the divine.

"God becomes powerless before human freedom; He cannot violate it since it flows from His own omnipotence. Certainly man was created by the will of God alone; but he cannot be deified [made Holy] by it alone. A single will for creation, but two for deification. A single will to rise up the image, but two to make the image into a likeness. The love of God for man is so great that it cannot constrain; for there is no love without respect. Divine will always will submit itself to gropings, to detours, even to revolts of human will to bring it to a free consent." (Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction) Our ultimate goal (of the Orthodox Christian) is to achieve theosis, or Union with God. This is sometimes expressed thus: "God became Man so that Man might become God." Some of the greatest saints have achieved, in this life, a measure of this process. The individual who achieves “theosis” never realizes his accomplishment, as his perfect humility keeps him blind to pride. Salvation therefore is not merely an escape from the eternal bondage of death, but an entrance to life in Christ here and now.

There were three doctrines that I would call fundamental to second and third century Christianity's system of salvation:

1. a works-based final judgment

2. Christ as a teacher of goodness and righteousness

3. Freewill

In this period the Christian belief in free will is regularly vigorously defended by writers. It is contrasted to the Greco-Roman concept of Fate (predestination), and also to the gnostic idea of Natures (unchangeable inner natures). The strength of these endorsements of the freedom of the will seem to largely derive from the universal belief that humans would be judged by God in according to their character and deeds. Several writers comment that the fact of God's judgment of us implies that it is within our own power to meet that judgment else we cannot be held accountable. (This is known in moral philosophy as the "ought implies can" argument, generally attributed to Kant).

This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church, that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition; that it has a struggle to maintain with the devil and his angels, and opposing influences, because they strive to burden it with sins; but if we live rightly and wisely, we should endeavor to shake ourselves free of a burden of that kind. From which it follows, also, that we understand ourselves not to be subject to necessity, so as to be compelled by all means, even against our will, to do either good or evil. For if we are our own masters, some influences perhaps may impel us to sin, and others help us to salvation; we are not forced, however, by any necessity either to act rightly or wrongly, which those persons think is the case who say that the courses and movements of the stars are the cause of human actions, not only of those which take place beyond the influence of the freedom of the will, but also of those which are placed within our own power. (Origen 230AD, First Principles, Preface 5)

The concept of Christ as a teacher of goodness, monotheism, morality, and righteous living who brings man to the knowledge of virtue and the knowledge of God is easily the strongest view of Christ's atoning work in this period. This conception of Christ as a teacher is universally present and in virtually every writer is the dominant model. Even in the theology of Irenaeus (fairly unique in this period for his Recapitulation (theosis) model of the atonement), the conception of Christ as Teacher is very much present in his writings and is co-dominant with Recapitulation. Emphasis is made at various points by the writers of this period on how Christ is the greatest teacher - the validity of other moral teachers is not diminished by this in their opinion, since all true moral teachers are considered inspired by the spirit that was in Christ. Clement of Alexandria in his work The Teacher (Paedagogus) attempts to demonstrate Christ's superiority to all other moral teachers through showing how he utilized every single form and type of rhetoric and moral exhortation known to Greek Rhetoricians.

Origen expresses it with a nice image: “Suppose someone ignorant and uneducated to become conscious of his defects, either through the admonition of his teacher, or simply of himself, and then to put himself in the hands of a man whom he thinks capable of leading him into education and virtue; when he thus surrenders himself, his instructor promises to take away the lack of education and to give him an education; not, however, as though the educating and the escape from the want of it in no way depend on the pupil having offered himself for treatment: he only promises to benefit his pupil because he desires to improve. Thus the Divine Word promises to take away the wickedness, which it calls the stony heart, of those who come to it, not if they are unwilling, but if they submit themselves to the Physician of the sick” (Origen230AD, First Principles, Book 3, Chapter 1)

The concept of a final judgment by works is universally presupposed during this period. It is stated as Christian doctrine by the Apologists in their presentation of Christianity to outsiders. It appears explicitly or implicitly in almost every work of this period. The fact of and belief in a final judgment according to deeds is consistently utilized for moral exhortation and to defend the doctrine of a bodily resurrection. Several Christian works from this period argue against the idea of a spirit-only resurrection on the grounds that if only the spirit rather than the body as well were rewarded or punished at the final judgment then that would be unjust since the body participated in the deeds during this life it ought to be punished or rewarded too.

The apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this. (Origen 230AD, First Principles, Preface 5)

Finally, let us note the dynamic quality of salvation or deification even in the age to come. This is far different from the static, popular notions of people playing harps and watching angels float by. For Gregory of Nyssa, we will continue to learn and grow even in the fulfilled kingdom. As we reach each successive stage of growth in grace, we will transcend ourselves and reach out for more and never exhaust the infinite mystery of God (Salvation in Christ: Perspectives of the Orthodox Church, Reverend Dr. Harry S. Pappas).

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Athanasius, On The Incarnation

[2] Gregory Nazianzen, Letter 101, to Cledonious.

[3] Galvin, John P. “ Soteriology”,. Systematic Theology, Volume 1. Francis SchüsslerFiorenza and John P. Galvin eds. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991)

[4]Irenaeus, Against Heresies

[5] Anne Hunt, The Trinity and the Paschal Mystery: A Development in Recent Catholic Theology. (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997)

[6] Hugh Connelly, Sin, (London: Continuum, 2002)

[7] William J. Hill, “Theology”, in The New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Komonchak et al. (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1990)

[8]"Life of St. Macarius the Great" in the Lives of the Saints, compiled by St. Dimitry of Rostov, January vol.

[9] Origen, Against Celsus,

[10] Theodoret of Cyrus, Haeret. Fabul. Compendium

[11]Emmanuel Levinas, Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991)

[12] Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian

[13] Catherine MowryLaCugna, God For Us. The Trinity and Christian Life, 284

[14] Difficulty 41 Translated by Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor, (London: Routledge, 1996)

[15] John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979

[16] (Salvation in Christ: Perspectives of the Orthodox Church, Reverend Dr. Harry S. Pappas).

[17]David Tracy, Blessed Rage For Order. The New Pluralism in Theology. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988)