The core of this proposition (whether I am on the right track or not) is the place of symbol. By potentially misrepresenting the true value of the atonement in order to fit the modern apologetics of positivism the church has reduced the relational dynamic of reconciliation to fundamentalism. This has caused two distinct problems for those who strive to mature in their faith:
First- In the crucifixion narrative, Christ draws a thin line between symbol and ritual. Christ honors the value of ritual while simultaneously replacing it with symbol. I am becoming increasingly convinced that the current doctrine of the church has moved that line and identifies those things that are ritualistic as symbolic. The modern church has placed value in rituals and traditions well beyond their intended place while referring to those acts as ones of symbolism, representing inner meaning of spiritual vitality and health. There is an inherent danger in doing this. When the Christian begins to express spirituality through ritualism (including ritualism expressed through perceptions), he/ she becomes dependent on those experiences to have intimacy with God. An example of this would be when a believer comes to see worship as a particular order or style of a worship service. Obviously, I am neither saying that spiritual disciplines are an ineffective means of spiritual discipleship nor am I saying that those who practice rituals lack a healthy relationship with Christ, but I am suggesting that there is an unhealthy degree of dependence on experientialism in the modern church. Experiences that promote maturity are one thing, but teaching that experiences are necessary to connect with God is very different. This is particularly significant in late modernity and early postmodernity because of the cultural value placed on experientialism. During the era of modernity the positivistic approach toward atonement was a means of defending the validity of our faith, but now in early postmodernity experientialism is being used to replace our faith. Even for those who are unaware of the postmodern influences of their faith, the church uses a positivistic approach toward understanding atonement while using a narrative approach at experiencing it. This causes many to feel that faith has become more relational, but in fact it has just put undue pressure on the experiences to justify positivism in their doctrine.
Second- There is another danger with the manipulation of the symbol/ ritual line on the other end of the spectrum: when due to the often irrational positivism of the modern church doctrine in explaining scripture, humanity becomes so cynical of the power of symbols it loses its ability to creatively and personally experience God. Symbol can be as real as the original when it comes from a place of personal meaning and significance. When God establishes the meaning of symbol in one’s life then that symbol will eternally carry an immediate connection with God. But when the church manipulates the symbol to justify ritual then it devalues the power of symbols in peoples’ lives. People become suspicious and concerned. Symbols, even ones that have been established through the centuries, can do as much for one’s spiritual development as any other discipline, but when the power of symbol has been devalued to be little more than an instrument of manipulation then a critical element of intimacy is lost.
Challenging what atonement means and who has received isn’t anything new. From fundamentalists who use a rigid form of atonement to exploit its members and guests to extreme liberals who seem to completely devalue Christ’s crucifixion by attempting to connect it to a purely political agenda, arguments surrounding atonement have been around for centuries. But the arguments tend use scripture as a text book and lack the narrative of the story of the relationship between man and God. These text book approaches of using scripture lack the dynamic relationship between man and God. Scripture is a powerful and I believe God inspired resource, but it is not a text book for spiritual maturity. However, when we begin to explore how the symbol of Christ’s love for us as told through the narratives of generations seeking deeper relationship with God found in the bible can be translated into how we take on the ministry of Christ to others then we may begin to stop worrying so much about how we can save others and rather how we can reconcile people with a god who would do anything to have intimacy with them. When we can stop counting our sins and weighing them against the ideal of perfection then we might be free to mature in our faith. And when we start viewing God as our creator who accepts our imperfections and is willing to do whatever is necessary to have a relationship with us anyway then we can celebrate that gift for what it is, the extent to which God would go to know us.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
SYMBOLIC ATONEMENT- Part 2
None of these theories, including the Satisfaction and Penal Theories which are the most accepted in the modern church, consider the narrative dynamics that existed between man and God before the ministry of Christ. I believe the 21st century has a view of truth that has the potential to add such rich depth to meaning. It requires narrative meaning. That is not to say that truth is relative, but that it is communal and dynamic. In Genesis 17 we are introduced to the covenant that frames Christ sacrifice. The covenant was actually pretty basic:
Gen. 17: 3-14
3Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4"As for me, this is my covenant with you:
You will be the father of many nations. 5No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
9Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
What is most interesting to me as I read this is that all Abraham is required to do as part of His covenant with God is that he make a symbolic gesture of his commitment toward the covenant, but the covenant itself is simply God using Abraham (a faithful follower of a God whose character is most similar the God we worship today) to increase His kingdom. There is no doubt that an Old Testament approach to a relationship with Christ is far too religious and that Old Testament approach is often based on the Old Covenant, but as one reads what the original Old Covenant is it appears that it is actually not that different than what the New Covenant brought by Christ reflects. The New Covenant allows God’s constant presence and frees us from a dutiful approach toward holiness. But the Old and New Testament are about God’s covenant, not our role. A covenant is a contract, but not the type of contract that the church often portrays it to be. It is more like a last will. The Old Covenant was God’s promise to His people where the only obligation was acceptance demonstrated through a symbolic act. The Old Covenant was flawed, yes because it developed into a religious system, but more directly because it wasn’t complete. Christ completed it through His commitment to being always present. Without the Holy Spirit available to all, man was subject to developing on his own ways to come closer to God.
Sometime later as described in Exodus 12 we see an evolution in what it means to keep the covenant of God. As Moses prepares the Israelites for the first Passover he gives clear instructions regarding a religious and symbolic act of devotion. The instructions concluded with:
24 "Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. 25When you enter the land that the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. 26And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' 27then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.' "Then the people bowed down and worshiped. 28The Israelites did just what the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron.
Man’s role in the covenant grew as the religious leaders required greater acts of righteousness to renew their devotion to God. God’s mercy allowed this evolution of what at first was a very simple covenant. Most evidently, God provides the people of Israel with ten simple instructions that can guide them in their faithfulness toward God. But the evolution continued to become more cumbersome. In Leviticus 5 we read about the instructions for sacrifice. But as the Old Testament continued (at least in the early books) one can’t help but wonder what is from the mercy of God and what is from religious leaders. Instructions become less and less about guidelines to aid followers in their devotion and more about requirements for acceptable living. Every law has a symbolic meaning that we can even glean truth from today, but every requirement also makes it more and more difficult to follow God and keep the original covenant.
When Christ came He came to fulfill the law. Paul argues that Jesus is the seed of Abraham and that followers of Christ are the true children of God. If then, it is the purpose of Christ to renew the original covenant why did he subject himself to the religious requirements of how atonement must take place as it became outlined in the Old Testament? I am not speaking of the validity of the prophesies concerning the sacrifice that Jesus would make, but the ritualistic means which were developed by Old Testament religious leaders for what must occur for a sacrifice to be acceptable. If the law had become the product of religion and not faith, why would Christ subject Himself to the requirements of man?
I am not suggesting that the crucifixion was not necessary. Nor do I deny the amazing breadth of meaning, even religious meaning, that was accomplished through the crucifixion. I am simply questioning if the reason for the violent self sacrifice of Christ is because there was truly no other way for God to reconcile Himself to man or if it was simply another example of how God is merciful toward our religious narcissism and obsession. The New Covenant was introduced before Christ’s death, but the Spirit didn’t come until after His resurrection. When Christ proclaims “It is finished” could that had been God’s final act of mercy toward accepting the religion of man?
Ultimately my question is if Christ’s submission on the cross was God’s submission to man? Was Christ’s submission a symbolic act of the lengths to which God will go to have communion with man, even if that means submitting to the religious requirements established by man? I tend to believe that the crucifixion of Christ, as real and critical for atonement as it was, was a symbolic act that represented the ushering in of a New Covenant. Christ’s entire ministry was just as critical to the New Covenant as His crucifixion and resurrection. His New Covenant isn’t that different from the original. It is as one sided today as it was with Abraham. It is about God’s desire to have communion with man and the lengths that He will go to preserve it. All that God requires now is an active commitment toward that covenant. The only difference is that with the New Covenant we are now empowered by the Holy Spirit so that we don’t have to rely on religion and tradition. And even though the New Covenant began in the Upper Room, the Holy Spirit came after the resurrection of Christ. Christ demonstrates His grace and mercy with one last act of religion (regardless of how human in nature it may be) to reconciliation God with humanity.
Pragmatically speaking, what is the significance of this proposition? I am not a theologian and have no desire to restructure denominational dogma. I am not a philosopher who desires to simply battle intellects. And I do not have an agenda that requires me to manipulate scripture to justify a personal political ideal. I am, however, an individual who desires to love God more intimately and love others more deeply. If so, then what is the purpose of deconstructing semantics?
Gen. 17: 3-14
3Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4"As for me, this is my covenant with you:
You will be the father of many nations. 5No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
9Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
What is most interesting to me as I read this is that all Abraham is required to do as part of His covenant with God is that he make a symbolic gesture of his commitment toward the covenant, but the covenant itself is simply God using Abraham (a faithful follower of a God whose character is most similar the God we worship today) to increase His kingdom. There is no doubt that an Old Testament approach to a relationship with Christ is far too religious and that Old Testament approach is often based on the Old Covenant, but as one reads what the original Old Covenant is it appears that it is actually not that different than what the New Covenant brought by Christ reflects. The New Covenant allows God’s constant presence and frees us from a dutiful approach toward holiness. But the Old and New Testament are about God’s covenant, not our role. A covenant is a contract, but not the type of contract that the church often portrays it to be. It is more like a last will. The Old Covenant was God’s promise to His people where the only obligation was acceptance demonstrated through a symbolic act. The Old Covenant was flawed, yes because it developed into a religious system, but more directly because it wasn’t complete. Christ completed it through His commitment to being always present. Without the Holy Spirit available to all, man was subject to developing on his own ways to come closer to God.
Sometime later as described in Exodus 12 we see an evolution in what it means to keep the covenant of God. As Moses prepares the Israelites for the first Passover he gives clear instructions regarding a religious and symbolic act of devotion. The instructions concluded with:
24 "Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. 25When you enter the land that the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. 26And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' 27then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.' "Then the people bowed down and worshiped. 28The Israelites did just what the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron.
Man’s role in the covenant grew as the religious leaders required greater acts of righteousness to renew their devotion to God. God’s mercy allowed this evolution of what at first was a very simple covenant. Most evidently, God provides the people of Israel with ten simple instructions that can guide them in their faithfulness toward God. But the evolution continued to become more cumbersome. In Leviticus 5 we read about the instructions for sacrifice. But as the Old Testament continued (at least in the early books) one can’t help but wonder what is from the mercy of God and what is from religious leaders. Instructions become less and less about guidelines to aid followers in their devotion and more about requirements for acceptable living. Every law has a symbolic meaning that we can even glean truth from today, but every requirement also makes it more and more difficult to follow God and keep the original covenant.
When Christ came He came to fulfill the law. Paul argues that Jesus is the seed of Abraham and that followers of Christ are the true children of God. If then, it is the purpose of Christ to renew the original covenant why did he subject himself to the religious requirements of how atonement must take place as it became outlined in the Old Testament? I am not speaking of the validity of the prophesies concerning the sacrifice that Jesus would make, but the ritualistic means which were developed by Old Testament religious leaders for what must occur for a sacrifice to be acceptable. If the law had become the product of religion and not faith, why would Christ subject Himself to the requirements of man?
I am not suggesting that the crucifixion was not necessary. Nor do I deny the amazing breadth of meaning, even religious meaning, that was accomplished through the crucifixion. I am simply questioning if the reason for the violent self sacrifice of Christ is because there was truly no other way for God to reconcile Himself to man or if it was simply another example of how God is merciful toward our religious narcissism and obsession. The New Covenant was introduced before Christ’s death, but the Spirit didn’t come until after His resurrection. When Christ proclaims “It is finished” could that had been God’s final act of mercy toward accepting the religion of man?
Ultimately my question is if Christ’s submission on the cross was God’s submission to man? Was Christ’s submission a symbolic act of the lengths to which God will go to have communion with man, even if that means submitting to the religious requirements established by man? I tend to believe that the crucifixion of Christ, as real and critical for atonement as it was, was a symbolic act that represented the ushering in of a New Covenant. Christ’s entire ministry was just as critical to the New Covenant as His crucifixion and resurrection. His New Covenant isn’t that different from the original. It is as one sided today as it was with Abraham. It is about God’s desire to have communion with man and the lengths that He will go to preserve it. All that God requires now is an active commitment toward that covenant. The only difference is that with the New Covenant we are now empowered by the Holy Spirit so that we don’t have to rely on religion and tradition. And even though the New Covenant began in the Upper Room, the Holy Spirit came after the resurrection of Christ. Christ demonstrates His grace and mercy with one last act of religion (regardless of how human in nature it may be) to reconciliation God with humanity.
Pragmatically speaking, what is the significance of this proposition? I am not a theologian and have no desire to restructure denominational dogma. I am not a philosopher who desires to simply battle intellects. And I do not have an agenda that requires me to manipulate scripture to justify a personal political ideal. I am, however, an individual who desires to love God more intimately and love others more deeply. If so, then what is the purpose of deconstructing semantics?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
SYMBOLIC ATONEMENT- Part 1
“After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.” (Friedrich Nietzche)
Based on the title it might appear as though I am about to attempt to make a case for some meta-physical approach toward the atoning ministry of Christ. That perhaps I am diminishing the sacrifice of Christ and encouraging each of you to embrace cheaper perspective of grace. Let me assure you that I am in no way proposing that Jesus was just some man or that the atonement of Christ is an illusion. However, I do want to raise questions that might challenge our understanding of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. I do this not to needlessly challenge established beliefs or because I want to rebel against established theology. I simply believe that if the Church is going to fully embrace the current philosophical and theological evolutions that it claims it is embracing and venture into naturalistic inquiry than it must allow those questions and developments to go beyond worship styles and church growth strategies. More importantly, I want to challenge belief systems that have promoted a theology of sin within my own spiritual formation that has led to a nihilistic understanding of my dependence on God: a personal theology that has been less about the restorative and redemptive work of Christ and more about my failures as a sinner. This is not to say that I see myself as any less of a sinner than I had when I was younger, but that the New Covenant redirected the emphasis on our failures to the grace of Christ and that the breadth of true salvation reached far beyond salvation from personal failures and into all areas that create separation from God. I also think that it is important to keep in mind that the mainstream, Protestant church’s belief regarding atonement was developed centuries after the resurrection. From all accounts, it appears that the earliest church didn’t have much of a theology regarding atonement and were simply grateful for it. We too should be careful not to intellectualize our relationship with God. Developing a zeal for theology and doctrine can be dangerous and can act as an easy substitute for true discipleship. However, we must also continue to use the mind that God gave us to seek Him in new and exciting ways.
Currently, the predominant atonement theory within the Protestant church is known as the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement developed by Archbishop Anselem of Canterbury in the late 11th century. The foundation of this belief is that Jesus atones for man’s sin through human sacrifice to restore honor to God. Using the Hebrew traditions of sacrifice of animals at the altar in the Jerusalem Temple, this theory argues that a price must be paid to reconcile man to God. Jesus paid that price through His voluntary sacrifice as a perfect and perpetual sacrifice. For the most part, a study of the New Testament gives credibility to this theory, but it has been accepted blindly by the church for a thousand years. This theory base has a lot of value that goes beyond simple biblical integrity (as crucial as that is). This approach allows the follower to visualize the sacrifice Christ made for us. It gives us an image which we can use to describe what Jesus accomplished. It also provides an icon (the cross) which can hold sacred value and can act as a visual and ongoing reminder of Christ’s love for us.
However, there have been criticisms raised of this theory of atonement. For example, the logic that one sin could separate man from God which requires a perfect offering should also accept that one act of goodness should permanently unite us with God. This criticism is often dealt with in the church by arguing that even the smallest sin is a permanent “blot” making us no longer pure and therefore separating us from God. Another criticism is the theory demonstrates an arrogant God that demands violence in order for reconciliation to occur. Here the church often argues that it wasn’t violence, but sacrifice that was required. A finally criticism is that the theory is that if the sacrifice of Christ covers all sin then it should cover those who don’t accept Christ as their savior. Here the church argues that it is available to everyone, everyone who accepts the gift. I believe that the church responds appropriately to these criticisms. But I believe there are better criticisms of the Satisfaction Theory: If the primary purpose of Christ going to the cross was to absolve us from religion because religion is incapable of reconciliation, then why would He use such a religious approach? And, if the point is that man is incapable of making things right between man and God, then why would He ultimately make it man’s responsibility to respond appropriately?
Alternative theories have been offered which address some these issues, but none have had the impact of the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement. The Ransom Theory proposed by Origen, a leader of the Alexandrian School in Egypt, was dominant in the early church as early as the second century. This theory suggests that a ransom was paid to Satan through the death of Christ. This theory makes God and Satan far to equal. The Moral Theory is a humanist theory which suggests that Jesus’ life and death were an example to humanity to lift ourselves up to God. The Moral Theory, therefore, devalues atonement as an act of God. The Moral Theory was proposed by Abelard, a French abbot theologian and philosopher in the 12th century. Theologians John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham promoted an atonement theory known as the Acceptance Theory which proposes that the sacrifice of Christ was an arbitrary act of God to represent God’s intention to bring atonement for sins. The theory ultimately argues for the arbitrary reconciliation God brings. This theory, which is largely metaphoric, has some value, but I believe it is missing a critical component which I will address soon. The Penal or Substitution Theory of Atonement was also proposed by Anselem and was widely held by leading theologians of the Reformation such as Martin Luther. It states that God’s mercy replaces God’s wrath with the infinite sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The theory is similar to the Satisfaction Theory. The significant difference being that the Satisfaction Theory holds God’s honor as central whereas the Penal Theory holds a debt as central. There is a debt created by the original sin that must be paid.
Based on the title it might appear as though I am about to attempt to make a case for some meta-physical approach toward the atoning ministry of Christ. That perhaps I am diminishing the sacrifice of Christ and encouraging each of you to embrace cheaper perspective of grace. Let me assure you that I am in no way proposing that Jesus was just some man or that the atonement of Christ is an illusion. However, I do want to raise questions that might challenge our understanding of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. I do this not to needlessly challenge established beliefs or because I want to rebel against established theology. I simply believe that if the Church is going to fully embrace the current philosophical and theological evolutions that it claims it is embracing and venture into naturalistic inquiry than it must allow those questions and developments to go beyond worship styles and church growth strategies. More importantly, I want to challenge belief systems that have promoted a theology of sin within my own spiritual formation that has led to a nihilistic understanding of my dependence on God: a personal theology that has been less about the restorative and redemptive work of Christ and more about my failures as a sinner. This is not to say that I see myself as any less of a sinner than I had when I was younger, but that the New Covenant redirected the emphasis on our failures to the grace of Christ and that the breadth of true salvation reached far beyond salvation from personal failures and into all areas that create separation from God. I also think that it is important to keep in mind that the mainstream, Protestant church’s belief regarding atonement was developed centuries after the resurrection. From all accounts, it appears that the earliest church didn’t have much of a theology regarding atonement and were simply grateful for it. We too should be careful not to intellectualize our relationship with God. Developing a zeal for theology and doctrine can be dangerous and can act as an easy substitute for true discipleship. However, we must also continue to use the mind that God gave us to seek Him in new and exciting ways.
Currently, the predominant atonement theory within the Protestant church is known as the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement developed by Archbishop Anselem of Canterbury in the late 11th century. The foundation of this belief is that Jesus atones for man’s sin through human sacrifice to restore honor to God. Using the Hebrew traditions of sacrifice of animals at the altar in the Jerusalem Temple, this theory argues that a price must be paid to reconcile man to God. Jesus paid that price through His voluntary sacrifice as a perfect and perpetual sacrifice. For the most part, a study of the New Testament gives credibility to this theory, but it has been accepted blindly by the church for a thousand years. This theory base has a lot of value that goes beyond simple biblical integrity (as crucial as that is). This approach allows the follower to visualize the sacrifice Christ made for us. It gives us an image which we can use to describe what Jesus accomplished. It also provides an icon (the cross) which can hold sacred value and can act as a visual and ongoing reminder of Christ’s love for us.
However, there have been criticisms raised of this theory of atonement. For example, the logic that one sin could separate man from God which requires a perfect offering should also accept that one act of goodness should permanently unite us with God. This criticism is often dealt with in the church by arguing that even the smallest sin is a permanent “blot” making us no longer pure and therefore separating us from God. Another criticism is the theory demonstrates an arrogant God that demands violence in order for reconciliation to occur. Here the church often argues that it wasn’t violence, but sacrifice that was required. A finally criticism is that the theory is that if the sacrifice of Christ covers all sin then it should cover those who don’t accept Christ as their savior. Here the church argues that it is available to everyone, everyone who accepts the gift. I believe that the church responds appropriately to these criticisms. But I believe there are better criticisms of the Satisfaction Theory: If the primary purpose of Christ going to the cross was to absolve us from religion because religion is incapable of reconciliation, then why would He use such a religious approach? And, if the point is that man is incapable of making things right between man and God, then why would He ultimately make it man’s responsibility to respond appropriately?
Alternative theories have been offered which address some these issues, but none have had the impact of the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement. The Ransom Theory proposed by Origen, a leader of the Alexandrian School in Egypt, was dominant in the early church as early as the second century. This theory suggests that a ransom was paid to Satan through the death of Christ. This theory makes God and Satan far to equal. The Moral Theory is a humanist theory which suggests that Jesus’ life and death were an example to humanity to lift ourselves up to God. The Moral Theory, therefore, devalues atonement as an act of God. The Moral Theory was proposed by Abelard, a French abbot theologian and philosopher in the 12th century. Theologians John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham promoted an atonement theory known as the Acceptance Theory which proposes that the sacrifice of Christ was an arbitrary act of God to represent God’s intention to bring atonement for sins. The theory ultimately argues for the arbitrary reconciliation God brings. This theory, which is largely metaphoric, has some value, but I believe it is missing a critical component which I will address soon. The Penal or Substitution Theory of Atonement was also proposed by Anselem and was widely held by leading theologians of the Reformation such as Martin Luther. It states that God’s mercy replaces God’s wrath with the infinite sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The theory is similar to the Satisfaction Theory. The significant difference being that the Satisfaction Theory holds God’s honor as central whereas the Penal Theory holds a debt as central. There is a debt created by the original sin that must be paid.
Monday, March 8, 2010
WHO I AM AT 36
“Not all those who wander are lost.” (J.R.R. Tolken)
This past weekend was my 36th birthday. Not a necessarily significant milestone of a birthday, but as I ended the day sitting on my back porch smoking a Rocky Patel Vintage 1999 and sipping a tall glass of Crown Royal Cask 16 and Coke with my chocolate lab laying at my feet I decided that it was essential for me to take a few minutes and reflect on my life; to consider those areas that give me joy and regret. I can say that with relative confidence that I am content with life. I am happily married to my best friend, I have two boys that provide me with constant lessons on humility and humor, I am fortunate enough to have family and friends near geographically and emotionally, I am yet months away from having my doctorate, and many more blessings that I assure you I don’t deserve. There are areas that wish were different though. I could lose about twenty pounds and be good with that. (I believe it was Mark Twain that said middle age is when your age starting showing in the middle.) Even though I “like” my job it frustrates me to consider that it wasn’t but a few years ago that I was passionate about a career path that I am sure I will never return to. The costs of higher education and a child with special needs makes getting by a monthly accomplishment. And I have a backyard that my precious little puppy has destroyed.
Each of these areas of my life, whether they be areas of celebration or frustration, are fairly easy to identify how I feel about them. The one area of my life that I continue to suffer from is the existential. This is a broad category that encompasses a typical understanding of my relationship with God, but also includes my perceptions regarding how I interact with the world, how I understand my place in the world, and how I measure my significance to the world. The narrative of this existential angst is directly linked to the primary purpose of this blog: how did my West Texan, nationalistic, capitalistic, evangelical understanding of identity collapse in such a way as to leave me unable to reconstruct my identity without it feeling volatile? Or, why do I struggle with an unstable understanding of identity if I appreciate ambiguity to the degree that I do post-deconstruction?
So I have to ask myself: who am I at 36?
After a fairly comprehensive analysis of each of my strengths and weakness, after considering each area of my life that brings me joy and pain, after acknowledging that some dreams may still be on my horizon while some dreams will probably never come true I am left with very little understanding of my new identity. From my years of a more rigid faith, the concepts of purpose and meaning where fairly clear concepts. My purpose is linked to what God had called me to for some time in the future that I carry the responsibility of seeking out in the present while meaning is how I reflect on events around me that shape who I am. PURPOSE and MEANING were possibly linked in my old mindset, but drastically different. But as I reflect on these terms as a wandering 36 year old I am convinced they are more similar than dissimilar. Not that one simply clarifies the other, but that they are essentially the same thing from two different perspectives. My purpose (as I understood it previously) is no longer relevant. The meaning of my life (using an old version of the word) is a humanistic attempt at validating my existence. This humanistic perception of reality that fed into dreams long lost has caused turmoil in my soul. As I seek to reshape my identity I realize that it is of paramount importance that I begin with allowing my purpose and the meaning of my life to be shaped by a present understanding of who God is in me right now. Perhaps I will elaborate on what I mean by that at some other point, but for now I will simply answer the question: who am I at 36? I don’t know and for now that is okay.
This past weekend was my 36th birthday. Not a necessarily significant milestone of a birthday, but as I ended the day sitting on my back porch smoking a Rocky Patel Vintage 1999 and sipping a tall glass of Crown Royal Cask 16 and Coke with my chocolate lab laying at my feet I decided that it was essential for me to take a few minutes and reflect on my life; to consider those areas that give me joy and regret. I can say that with relative confidence that I am content with life. I am happily married to my best friend, I have two boys that provide me with constant lessons on humility and humor, I am fortunate enough to have family and friends near geographically and emotionally, I am yet months away from having my doctorate, and many more blessings that I assure you I don’t deserve. There are areas that wish were different though. I could lose about twenty pounds and be good with that. (I believe it was Mark Twain that said middle age is when your age starting showing in the middle.) Even though I “like” my job it frustrates me to consider that it wasn’t but a few years ago that I was passionate about a career path that I am sure I will never return to. The costs of higher education and a child with special needs makes getting by a monthly accomplishment. And I have a backyard that my precious little puppy has destroyed.
Each of these areas of my life, whether they be areas of celebration or frustration, are fairly easy to identify how I feel about them. The one area of my life that I continue to suffer from is the existential. This is a broad category that encompasses a typical understanding of my relationship with God, but also includes my perceptions regarding how I interact with the world, how I understand my place in the world, and how I measure my significance to the world. The narrative of this existential angst is directly linked to the primary purpose of this blog: how did my West Texan, nationalistic, capitalistic, evangelical understanding of identity collapse in such a way as to leave me unable to reconstruct my identity without it feeling volatile? Or, why do I struggle with an unstable understanding of identity if I appreciate ambiguity to the degree that I do post-deconstruction?
So I have to ask myself: who am I at 36?
After a fairly comprehensive analysis of each of my strengths and weakness, after considering each area of my life that brings me joy and pain, after acknowledging that some dreams may still be on my horizon while some dreams will probably never come true I am left with very little understanding of my new identity. From my years of a more rigid faith, the concepts of purpose and meaning where fairly clear concepts. My purpose is linked to what God had called me to for some time in the future that I carry the responsibility of seeking out in the present while meaning is how I reflect on events around me that shape who I am. PURPOSE and MEANING were possibly linked in my old mindset, but drastically different. But as I reflect on these terms as a wandering 36 year old I am convinced they are more similar than dissimilar. Not that one simply clarifies the other, but that they are essentially the same thing from two different perspectives. My purpose (as I understood it previously) is no longer relevant. The meaning of my life (using an old version of the word) is a humanistic attempt at validating my existence. This humanistic perception of reality that fed into dreams long lost has caused turmoil in my soul. As I seek to reshape my identity I realize that it is of paramount importance that I begin with allowing my purpose and the meaning of my life to be shaped by a present understanding of who God is in me right now. Perhaps I will elaborate on what I mean by that at some other point, but for now I will simply answer the question: who am I at 36? I don’t know and for now that is okay.
Monday, March 1, 2010
THE ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY- Part 3
Instructions for a Healthy Community
By this point it should be evident the Book of Hebrews has played a significant role in my own emerging. The final chapter of Hebrews gives a few instructions for community. I want to end this blog by quickly exploring what those instructions are.
1. Keep on loving each other as brothers- Hebrews 13:1
The author begins with what should be obvious but is often substituted with a pale substitute. The author reminds the reader to let love be central. A healthy community is founded on love as an action and connection toward one another. People in a community minister freely to others and freely receive ministry from others. This is, like much of what I have written, is as much about learning to love one another as anything else. Practicing true community is the closest connection to intimacy with Christ we can have in this life. A healthy community needs to remain relatively small or else people become nothing more than, at best, active members.
2. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it- Hebrews 13:2
The second instruction for a healthy community is to show hospitality to strangers. And just because a healthy community isn’t trying to grow for the sake of growing, a healthy community doesn’t isolate itself. A community needs to remain open to how God wants to use it and develop it. But hospitality doesn’t always imply inviting others to be a part of the community. I always found it amusing when a church prided itself on being a friendly and welcoming church. Big deal. Of course the institution promotes being welcoming to visitors. That is the best way to grow the institution. The instruction for a healthy community isn’t to be friendly and welcoming (even though we should all continue to do those things). The instruction is to offer ministry to others. That simply means we don’t formulate our hospitality around how the visitor might benefit us, but to give ministry freely and without question. I would like to make it clear though I am not implying that when members of a church are welcoming to visitors it is wrong. I believe that, for the most part, this is the work of God in peoples’ lives that drives them to offer hospitality. I am, however, critiquing how the institution exploits the work that God is doing in peoples’ lives as a way to grow the institution.
3. Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering- Hebrews 13:3
The third instruction is to support those in the community that are suffering. As with the previous instruction, there is a significant difference between how God is working in members of a church’s lives to offer ministry to others and how the church misuses this work of God for its own purposes. But also like the previous instruction, the greatest danger is how the goals and influence of the institution limit the ability of the people in the institution to offer ministry to the extent that God wants. One of the greatest reasons to get involved in a church is because the church reached out to you when you needed love and acceptance. There is no doubt that the church does this. But a community reaches out with all that it is. It is what happens when a member of a Sunday school class that has met for 20 years cares for one another or what can be seen in a small town church with a weekly attendance of 200 people. It is what happens when people share each other’s lives. The problem is, again, that institutionalism (institutionalism refers to no person but to the philosophical influence that becomes part of church leaders’ lives) promotes caring for others to the extent of meeting its own goals. Beyond that, the institution is unable to give much more.
4. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”Hebrews 13:5
The fourth instruction is personal integrity for the sake of community. Within the institution, personal integrity is only encouraged as a bylaw for membership or to maintain the integrity of the institution. Because peoples’ lives are connected only at the institutional level, personal integrity is only important when there is overlap. Within a healthy community, where peoples’ lives are intimately connected, personal integrity is the responsibility of the community. We have the freedom to call out sin, challenge dysfunctional behaviors, and praise areas of victory. For my community, despite how difficult it might be, I have given the community the right to call out anything in my life that interferes with healthy spiritual development. Of course this done with love and respect, but I understand that because God brought us together for community God desires to use anyone of them however He sees fit.
5. Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith- Hebrews 13:7
The next instruction is to support leadership and those who give ministry. I have periodically been critical of professional ministers in institutional churches. But here is where I will defend them. Professional ministry is lonely and exhausting. The greatest corruption of professional ministers is the result of a lack of trust and support of the congregation. The leaders in a healthy community are those who are practicing their gifts. Position doesn’t imply leadership, only gifts associated with leadership. Leadership might and probably should shift depending on the situation. Certain members of a community might have gifts which are more consistently sought by the group, such as counselor, and that individual may play more of a consistent role of leadership within the group, but leadership is fluid depending solely on how God moves the group.
6. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them. Hebrews 13:9
What I have been writing may be considered strange teachings to some. This verse is referring to foreign and perverse forms of Christianity that were infiltrating the Christian community that were fundamentally different than Christianity while still taking the form of faith. The author instructs the community to focus on the grace of God above all else. The centrality of the message to the church is to focus on Christ.
7. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.- Hebrews 13:16
The pinnacle of the community experience for Jesus and the twelve took place after years of shared experiences, in fighting and conflict, and many evolutions. The upper room was the culmination of how Christ had worked both individually within the lives of the various twelve and how Christ worked within the shared experience of the whole. There were frameworks established through previous Rabbi followings, but as Christ reaches out to them as friends, the group became unique and distinctive. Community will likely continue to be difficult regardless of the growing awareness of the need for it. But as members of the Body seek out relationships and are open to the relationships God provides, community will emerge, community that is rooted in trust, intimacy, and a shared pilgrimage. Ironically, the key for church leaders in developing community is to wait. In a culture that values “emerging” as an act of human will, the community experienced by Jesus and His twelve emerged on its own as it was open to the leading of the Holy Spirit, free of personal and corporate expectations, and allowed the time to become what Christ desired it to become. The twelve showed up with a shared vision, mission, and purpose, but ultimately it was simply the commitment to show up that prepared them for the trials of Passion.
By this point it should be evident the Book of Hebrews has played a significant role in my own emerging. The final chapter of Hebrews gives a few instructions for community. I want to end this blog by quickly exploring what those instructions are.
1. Keep on loving each other as brothers- Hebrews 13:1
The author begins with what should be obvious but is often substituted with a pale substitute. The author reminds the reader to let love be central. A healthy community is founded on love as an action and connection toward one another. People in a community minister freely to others and freely receive ministry from others. This is, like much of what I have written, is as much about learning to love one another as anything else. Practicing true community is the closest connection to intimacy with Christ we can have in this life. A healthy community needs to remain relatively small or else people become nothing more than, at best, active members.
2. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it- Hebrews 13:2
The second instruction for a healthy community is to show hospitality to strangers. And just because a healthy community isn’t trying to grow for the sake of growing, a healthy community doesn’t isolate itself. A community needs to remain open to how God wants to use it and develop it. But hospitality doesn’t always imply inviting others to be a part of the community. I always found it amusing when a church prided itself on being a friendly and welcoming church. Big deal. Of course the institution promotes being welcoming to visitors. That is the best way to grow the institution. The instruction for a healthy community isn’t to be friendly and welcoming (even though we should all continue to do those things). The instruction is to offer ministry to others. That simply means we don’t formulate our hospitality around how the visitor might benefit us, but to give ministry freely and without question. I would like to make it clear though I am not implying that when members of a church are welcoming to visitors it is wrong. I believe that, for the most part, this is the work of God in peoples’ lives that drives them to offer hospitality. I am, however, critiquing how the institution exploits the work that God is doing in peoples’ lives as a way to grow the institution.
3. Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering- Hebrews 13:3
The third instruction is to support those in the community that are suffering. As with the previous instruction, there is a significant difference between how God is working in members of a church’s lives to offer ministry to others and how the church misuses this work of God for its own purposes. But also like the previous instruction, the greatest danger is how the goals and influence of the institution limit the ability of the people in the institution to offer ministry to the extent that God wants. One of the greatest reasons to get involved in a church is because the church reached out to you when you needed love and acceptance. There is no doubt that the church does this. But a community reaches out with all that it is. It is what happens when a member of a Sunday school class that has met for 20 years cares for one another or what can be seen in a small town church with a weekly attendance of 200 people. It is what happens when people share each other’s lives. The problem is, again, that institutionalism (institutionalism refers to no person but to the philosophical influence that becomes part of church leaders’ lives) promotes caring for others to the extent of meeting its own goals. Beyond that, the institution is unable to give much more.
4. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”Hebrews 13:5
The fourth instruction is personal integrity for the sake of community. Within the institution, personal integrity is only encouraged as a bylaw for membership or to maintain the integrity of the institution. Because peoples’ lives are connected only at the institutional level, personal integrity is only important when there is overlap. Within a healthy community, where peoples’ lives are intimately connected, personal integrity is the responsibility of the community. We have the freedom to call out sin, challenge dysfunctional behaviors, and praise areas of victory. For my community, despite how difficult it might be, I have given the community the right to call out anything in my life that interferes with healthy spiritual development. Of course this done with love and respect, but I understand that because God brought us together for community God desires to use anyone of them however He sees fit.
5. Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith- Hebrews 13:7
The next instruction is to support leadership and those who give ministry. I have periodically been critical of professional ministers in institutional churches. But here is where I will defend them. Professional ministry is lonely and exhausting. The greatest corruption of professional ministers is the result of a lack of trust and support of the congregation. The leaders in a healthy community are those who are practicing their gifts. Position doesn’t imply leadership, only gifts associated with leadership. Leadership might and probably should shift depending on the situation. Certain members of a community might have gifts which are more consistently sought by the group, such as counselor, and that individual may play more of a consistent role of leadership within the group, but leadership is fluid depending solely on how God moves the group.
6. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them. Hebrews 13:9
What I have been writing may be considered strange teachings to some. This verse is referring to foreign and perverse forms of Christianity that were infiltrating the Christian community that were fundamentally different than Christianity while still taking the form of faith. The author instructs the community to focus on the grace of God above all else. The centrality of the message to the church is to focus on Christ.
7. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.- Hebrews 13:16
The pinnacle of the community experience for Jesus and the twelve took place after years of shared experiences, in fighting and conflict, and many evolutions. The upper room was the culmination of how Christ had worked both individually within the lives of the various twelve and how Christ worked within the shared experience of the whole. There were frameworks established through previous Rabbi followings, but as Christ reaches out to them as friends, the group became unique and distinctive. Community will likely continue to be difficult regardless of the growing awareness of the need for it. But as members of the Body seek out relationships and are open to the relationships God provides, community will emerge, community that is rooted in trust, intimacy, and a shared pilgrimage. Ironically, the key for church leaders in developing community is to wait. In a culture that values “emerging” as an act of human will, the community experienced by Jesus and His twelve emerged on its own as it was open to the leading of the Holy Spirit, free of personal and corporate expectations, and allowed the time to become what Christ desired it to become. The twelve showed up with a shared vision, mission, and purpose, but ultimately it was simply the commitment to show up that prepared them for the trials of Passion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)