In my last post, I said the premise upon which Jesus based his ministry was forgiveness. Forgiveness seems easy enough, but it isn't. It's counterintuitive to human nature. It makes us feel uncomfortable both to forgive and at times to be forgiven. Our animalistic tendency is to get even and settle the score. An eye for an eye still holds weight and even in Christianized cultures forgiveness is generally contingent upon doing time, doing penance, being repentant, and admitting guilt.
There are people in every age and some very notable cases today who have found it in their hearts to forgive those who have caused them great pain and loss as the only way to move forward. I am always amazed and humbled by their stories. Many of them are followers of Jesus and/ or have a deep spiritual understanding or have a deep human understanding of human frailty and how precious life is.
Jesus' approach to bringing forgiveness forward is unique and persistent. Jesus does not talk about forgiveness directly, unless in reference to prayer (ex. Mark 11:25). Forgiveness is a noticeable subtext in almost all of Jesus' teachings regarding interpersonal relationships with our fellow humans. In application, Jesus' approach is subtle and employs a somewhat backdoor approach to getting the message across. I think Jesus understood our animalistic tendencies very well, knew that we struggle mightily with being forgiving and in seeking forgiveness. Jesus taught by example more than anything else, and it would be worth the time here to look at a couple of examples.
THE PARALYTIC MAN
In Mark 2 is the story of the paralytic man. This miracle story is unique in that the miracle of Jesus healing the paralytic is basically and afterthought in the story. In Mark's version Jesus comes home to Capernaum and a large crowd gathers in his home. While he is preaching, a group of men bring a friend or relative of theirs to be healed by Jesus, but they can't get to Jesus because of the crowd, so they climb on the roof and open hole to let the man down on a mat. When Jesus sees this, he expresses amazement at the faith of these people and says to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven."
Why Jesus says this is, I believe, because of the link made between illness and sinfulness in Jesus' time. The paralytic and those who cared for him must have thought he or someone in his family had sinned which caused his condition. This was a quite common assumption and connection made by the people of Jesus' day. I get the feeling, Jesus did not place credence in that thinking but understood that this man was suffering from more than paralysis of his body. He was suffering in his soul and mind as well.
What is interesting is that the religious leaders who were in Jesus' house took issue with his pronouncement of forgiveness. They informed Jesus that he had stepped out of line, that only God could forgive sins. [Some might say that's the whole point of the story - Jesus is God, but I'm not going there.] Jesus doesn't argue their contention directly, but simply poses a question of whether it is easier to say to someone that his sins are forgiven or to tell someone, such as the paralytic, to get up and walk. Without waiting for a reply Jesus informed them that "to show the son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth" he tells the paralytic to get up, take his mat and go home, which the paralytic does.
The point Jesus made, but which I think might have been lost on his audience at the time, is that it is actually harder for us to forgive. I left the phrase "son of man" in small caps because I think there is too much read into Jesus' use of the phrase at times. In this instance, Jesus' use of the term seems generalized, meaning anyone can forgive sins. Jesus' basic message about forgiveness is when we are forgiving, God is forgiving. This is Jesus' back door approach in prompting us to be more compassionate and kind.
THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN
In John 8 there is a story that some translations have reduced to an italicized footnote or have noted that most scholars do not believe the story is original to Gospel of John, that it was added later. Given that the Gospel of John is so highly editorialized and theologized, I'm surprised they bothered. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether it was an addition or whether the story actually happened. It is one of the most meaningful stories about Jesus in the Gospels, and if questionable as to it authenticity, it is certainly well crafted and seems to capture the essence of Jesus' approach.
The story begins with a woman who is caught in the act of adultery. The woman's accusers know Jesus is in town so they bring the woman to Jesus, and in the typical editorialized manner of the Gospel of John, the story goes that they did this to test Jesus, to see what he would do with someone "caught in the act." They know that Jesus knows the punishment for adultery in law is that an adulterous person should be stoned to death, but they're curious on whether Jesus will go soft on her.
So they bring the woman to Jesus and point out that she was caught in the act and remind Jesus of the law and what should be done to her. It is at this point that I know some are thinking, "Well if they caught her in the act where is her partner in crime?" Good question, but I think we tend to overlook the fact that women were treated more harshly in such circumstances than men back then (not that much has changed today). We don't know what happened to the man. He might have received his comeuppance or the men in the group might have looked the other way. It's hard to tell. The point of this story is that here is a woman (perhaps suspected of prostitution and, in this male dominated society of the time, considered a throw-away) caught in the deed, a slam-dunk case that shouldn't require much thought.
When they bring her to Jesus, his response is silence. He doesn't look at the woman and he doesn't seem to pay attention to her accusers. When her accusers keep pressing Jesus, asking him what he thinks they should do, Jesus acts even more bored and starts doodling in the sand. His actions, his body language saying, "Why are you bothering me with this. Of course, I know the law and I don't doubt this woman is guilty. Go away."
His lack of verbal response throws them off guard. When they press him harder Jesus finally stands up and instead of saying anything about the law or about the woman and her deeds, he simply says, "If anyone of you is without sin let him be the first to cast a stone," and then goes back to doodling in the sand.
Jesus levels the playing field by placing the woman's accusers in a quandary about their own sense of personal wrong-doing. One good thing that can be said about the men who brought this woman to Jesus is that they were an honest lot. The story goes on to say that starting with oldest men to the youngest they each dropped the stones they had in their hands and walked away.
When they are gone, Jesus finally stands and looks at the woman and asks her where her accusers are and if there is no one to accuse her, the women replies, "No one." Jesus tell the woman that he doesn't accuse her either and to go and change her ways. The woman is redeemed and reclaimed. She is allowed to be who she really is, a child of God.
Forgiveness is not easy; especially, when the wrong done is obvious and religion is there to confuse us. Forgiveness can be a messy business and can leave one feeling disorientated as to what direction to take. Had this woman pleaded for her life, these men would have felt obligated to take her life because, at that point, it wasn't about her it was about their religious beliefs. It was about following the letter of the law.
When Jesus connected them to the situation by indirectly pointing out everyone has done things we can be accused of, have stones thrown in our direction, that they walked off. I'm sure they felt confused and conflicted over the whole situation as they were walking away, wondering if they did the right thing and fearing that, given the quandary Jesus placed them in, they could be accused of blasphemy or hypocrisy. I think we can all relate at some level to their feelings. As a whole we have not found a good way to address wrong doing without punishment or retaliation.
PARABLES OF FORGIVENESS
Jesus presents forgiveness in various ways in his use of parables. I'm not going to delve into all of them, but I will list a few so that you can read them on your own. Again Jesus gets at the importance of forgiveness as the way to redemption in straightforward and sometimes backdoor ways.
In the Gospel of Matthew:
The Lost Sheep: Matt. 18:10-15 - forgiveness as valuing the importance of the individual
The Unmerciful Servant: Matt. 18:23-35 - Jesus' back door approach at illustrating
the importance of being forgiving as a
means to God's forgiveness
In Luke we have several important forgiveness based parables:
The Good Samaritan: Luke 10:30-37 - forgiveness in engaged compassion for all
The Lost Sheep: Luke 15: 1-7 - forgiveness in valuing the importance of the individual
The Lost Coin: Luke 15: 8-10 - forgiveness in the persistent pursuit of redemption
The Prodigal Son: Luke 15: 1-13 - forgiveness as a way of being (the father's abundant love)
The Shrew Manager: Luke 16: 1-13 - forgiveness as paying it forward and God's forgiving
response
The foundation of forgiveness is a loving heart. One cannot forgive without love and one cannot love without having a forgiving heart. For example, in the story of the Prodigal Son the son repents of his actions and returns home because he knows his father is forgiving. He knows he is not worthy. He knows he will be okay just to be a servant. What he doesn't know is just how deeply forgiving, how deeply loving his father actually is. This is God's way and it needs to be reflected in how we present God to the world.
One of the frustrations I have with liturgical worship is its stress on confession as necessary for absolution or forgiveness. This is not Jesus' approach as illustrated above. If we were to take Mark 11:25 more seriously, instead of having a generalized Confession of Sins, we'd have a generalized "Forgiveness of Sins" at the start of the service in which all present forgive the wrongs done to them to point out that if we're going to expect anything from God we must forgive each other: We must forgive the wrongs done to us. We must forgive the world.
I think liturgical churches have it wrong. In fact, most every church has no effective of means of practicing forgiveness apart from confession or an admission of wrongdoing. Don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against confession if one feels compelled to so, but Jesus' teaching and practice was to forgive first as the means of opening the door to redemption and life-giving change.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
INTERLUDE for LENT
It's been some time that I posted an Interlude. Today is Ash Wednesday and it reminded me of poem I wrote some time ago about Lent. As many of you know, the word "lent" means spring. This poem was inspired by a thunder snow storm, that may have occurred on Ash Wednesday in 2009, but I'm not sure about the exact date of the storm. What I do remember is that, for me, Lent started with a clap of thunder. Here's the poem:
* * * * * * * *
O Thunderous Lent
O thunderous Lent that awakens Earth from its winter-sleep,
That dissolves the pall of sleet and snow in foggy mists and pattering rains
That makes the ground fragrant before leaf and bud appear,
That fans chilled air to warmth by the winged beat of returning bird, and
Marks the end of death and Life's return;
O thunderous Lent, awaken the human soul from its wintry slumber
Dissolve the pall of its certainty within the mists of Mystery and the waters of Truth;
Arouse its senses with the fragrance of life yet to be seen;
Warm it with the winged beat of a loving heart, and
Mark it for resurrection, to Life returned.
Norman Wright
March 12, 2009
* * * * * * * *
Up next will be a post on forgiveness as part of my discussion on Redemption Theology.
Until then, stay faithful.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
REDEMPTION
As I mentioned in my previous posts, I do not consider redemption synonymous with salvation. Although I suspect there will be a number of theological cross-overs, I see redemption based theology significantly different. What I am offering here is an introduction to this theological perspective. A fuller explanation will evolve in future posts.
JUDAISM - THE WORLD IS GOOD
Redemptive theology is rooted in Judaism; in God consistently bringing his people, the people of Israel, back to the promised land, back to their origins, back into relationship with him. This notion of redemption as returning is easily applicable to the Christian experience. Applied to Christianity, redemptive theology, as in Judaism, does not see the world as something to reject but something to embrace as God's creation; to embrace its beauty, goodness, and potential along with its brokenness. As such, redemptive theology sees the ministry and teachings of Jesus as his attempt to bring the people of his day back to the their roots as God's people; to bring them back to the prophetic vision of Israel as a light to a good world that has lost its way.
LIFE WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN
Redemptive theology in Christianity, therefore, does not work from the premise of original sin. The need for redemption is based on the realization that humans tend to go off track and lose sight of who we are and what our purpose in being is. We have a tendency to see ourselves and the activities we're involved in throughout our daily lives as "all there is" and lose sight that, in all of what is, we are connected to each other, connected to the world around us, and connected to all creation as part of something greater than the here and now.
This distraction is natural and to some degree necessary. We could not function on a day to day basis without paying attention to ourselves and to what is currently happening in our lives. The reality is these things matter very much to us and they shape how we see ourselves and the world around us. If we didn't care, we would open ourselves to danger in the form of fatalism. The fact is the vast majority of us care so much, at times, that our concerns can take on the form of fear leading us to become self-isolating and to lose sight of the other; to lose sight of how our thoughts and actions can lead to the very things we worry and fear most about in our lives.
Redemptive theology takes this into account. In fact, a redemptive perspective calls us to be aware; to pay attention, to be mindful and involved precisely because what affects me affects those around me; affects the world in which I live. And what affects me most, is my perspective, my thoughts and interpretations of the events that take place in my life. A redemptive perspective imbues me with a sense of responsibility, not for the wrongs or problems that occur, but rather it imbues me with a responsibility to help alleviate them.
BEING AN INDIVIDUAL COUNTS
In my understanding of redemptive theology, the individual counts. While being able to see the bigger picture is important, one must realize that the bigger picture is pixelated, made of individual pieces, things and people. Jesus addressed the bigger picture by paying attention to the details, to the individual. Jesus once said, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Luke 9:23)
Think about what Jesus is saying. In order to deny yourself, you have to know who you are. Think about who you are; who you really are. Do you know that person? Most of us don't. Maybe none of us do. What I see in Jesus' teaching is that he is telling us to put aside one's unrealistic aspirations in order to see one's self for who one truly is, to be one's true self. After all, the only cross we bear each and every day is "ME".
Finding who one is can be a life long journey. As I age, I have come to see myself differently along the way. I am coming to see some things as constant and other things as transient. I'm getting better at accepting and appreciating the nuanced me that I am. Getting to know myself has allowed me to see there is more to me than me. I find this liberating and redemptive. As a result, I find myself far more appreciative of all life.
Finding myself started with the realization that the things I am attracted to and desire do not represent who I am as much as they represent who I want to be or who I think I should be or who I think others think I should be. Once I became aware of this process, I realized I am unique just as I am and that I'm not alone in my uniqueness. I am surrounded by a world of uniqueness, in people and in things.
For example, I'm an introvert and I like solitude. Much to my wife's and my daughters' frustration, I am not fond of travel. I have to admit that at times, especially in the past, it bothered me that I am not more outgoing, more gregarious and wanting what every "normal" person seems to want, to travel, to see the world and meet new people. I find myself feeling guilty that I don't feel the way others do, but I've come to learn that I can travel (because I love my wife and daughters) even if its not my favorite thing to do. Once I'm some place, I can enjoy being there with them, seeing the world and meeting new people, but I always prefer home over every other place.
I like people as individuals, rather than crowds. I enjoy music and the theater, but I prefer listening to music at home. Ironically, I prefer going to a live theatrical production to see a play or a musical as opposed to seeing a movie or watching it on television because the "personal" experience of live theater can only happen on a live stage where I feel more involved and connected even if I'm sitting in the last row of crowded theater on Broadway. Ironically, while I don't like being in a crowd I enjoy teaching and speaking to large groups, but I like to visit and have conversations with only a few people at a time, and only periodically.
I like solitude. I like silence. I don't feel alone or bored, hardly ever. I have come to be patient with myself, to observe myself and enjoy the smorgasbord of my thoughts. I have come to love who I am and love that I am part of the whole of creation that I can view in solitude and listen to in silence.
THE IMPERATIVE OF LOVING ONE'S SELF
Jesus said, "Love you neighbors as yourself." (Mark 12:31) The first step in facilitating redemption is staying grounded in the goodness of creation and seeing one's self as a child of God as Jesus did, or, if not of a theistic bend, to see one's self as having emerged from and being part of a good and greater universe.
One might ask what this has to do with redemptive theology? Once one is able to see all life and one's self as intrinsically good, one is enabled to view that which is bad, evil, and ill not with despair but with understanding and a desire to solve our mutual problems.
We live in world where we are exposed to evil on daily basis and on a global scale. For better or worse, we know in real time the problems taking place throughout the world. We also know that what we hear and see is only the tip of the iceberg; that if this or that event is making the news how much other tragedy isn't. There is a limit to what can be reported, a limit to what can be addressed at any given moment and, knowing that, can lead to a numbing sensation about life in general.
The good (and there is a lot of good in the world ) can be easily overshadowed by the terror and devastation we see. This can be so overwhelming that it is easy to succumb to a fatalism which says nothing can be done, nothing will be done, and all attempts at doing something will surely fail; that evil and tragedy must always be.
Perhaps. But even if that were so (and I do not believe it has to be so) I have a choice on how to react to these things. I believe we all have a choice because most of what happens, happens because of us, because of people. Even in the face of evil and tragedy, life is good and its goodness is worth redeeming every moment of every day; in spite of all the ugliness it comes clothed in.
REDEMPTION BEGINS WITH FORGIVENESS
It's at times such as the times we currently live in that I think of Jesus. I think of what he must have faced on a daily basis living in Roman occupied Palestine with its many different voices and different groups in conflict with each other over how to live with or remedy their situation. Jesus could have done what so many tried before him; to rally some followers into a militant group in order to effect change by rooting out the evildoers in their midst. I believe Jesus understood how pointless those efforts were.
Instead Jesus, like his contemporary, John the Baptizer attempted to affect change one individual at a time, with one very important difference. John's approach to bringing people back, to redeeming them, was to preach repentance and offer baptism as sign and symbol of their commitment to return to the basic goodness of life and God. The problem with this approach is that it requires one seeing a need to do so. Jesus took a different approach. Instead of making repentance the starting point for change, Jesus started with love in action, love in the form of bestowing forgiveness on those he met as the primary approach upon which change and redemption occurred.
Until next time, stay faithful.
JUDAISM - THE WORLD IS GOOD
Redemptive theology is rooted in Judaism; in God consistently bringing his people, the people of Israel, back to the promised land, back to their origins, back into relationship with him. This notion of redemption as returning is easily applicable to the Christian experience. Applied to Christianity, redemptive theology, as in Judaism, does not see the world as something to reject but something to embrace as God's creation; to embrace its beauty, goodness, and potential along with its brokenness. As such, redemptive theology sees the ministry and teachings of Jesus as his attempt to bring the people of his day back to the their roots as God's people; to bring them back to the prophetic vision of Israel as a light to a good world that has lost its way.
LIFE WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN
Redemptive theology in Christianity, therefore, does not work from the premise of original sin. The need for redemption is based on the realization that humans tend to go off track and lose sight of who we are and what our purpose in being is. We have a tendency to see ourselves and the activities we're involved in throughout our daily lives as "all there is" and lose sight that, in all of what is, we are connected to each other, connected to the world around us, and connected to all creation as part of something greater than the here and now.
This distraction is natural and to some degree necessary. We could not function on a day to day basis without paying attention to ourselves and to what is currently happening in our lives. The reality is these things matter very much to us and they shape how we see ourselves and the world around us. If we didn't care, we would open ourselves to danger in the form of fatalism. The fact is the vast majority of us care so much, at times, that our concerns can take on the form of fear leading us to become self-isolating and to lose sight of the other; to lose sight of how our thoughts and actions can lead to the very things we worry and fear most about in our lives.
Redemptive theology takes this into account. In fact, a redemptive perspective calls us to be aware; to pay attention, to be mindful and involved precisely because what affects me affects those around me; affects the world in which I live. And what affects me most, is my perspective, my thoughts and interpretations of the events that take place in my life. A redemptive perspective imbues me with a sense of responsibility, not for the wrongs or problems that occur, but rather it imbues me with a responsibility to help alleviate them.
BEING AN INDIVIDUAL COUNTS
In my understanding of redemptive theology, the individual counts. While being able to see the bigger picture is important, one must realize that the bigger picture is pixelated, made of individual pieces, things and people. Jesus addressed the bigger picture by paying attention to the details, to the individual. Jesus once said, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Luke 9:23)
Think about what Jesus is saying. In order to deny yourself, you have to know who you are. Think about who you are; who you really are. Do you know that person? Most of us don't. Maybe none of us do. What I see in Jesus' teaching is that he is telling us to put aside one's unrealistic aspirations in order to see one's self for who one truly is, to be one's true self. After all, the only cross we bear each and every day is "ME".
Finding who one is can be a life long journey. As I age, I have come to see myself differently along the way. I am coming to see some things as constant and other things as transient. I'm getting better at accepting and appreciating the nuanced me that I am. Getting to know myself has allowed me to see there is more to me than me. I find this liberating and redemptive. As a result, I find myself far more appreciative of all life.
Finding myself started with the realization that the things I am attracted to and desire do not represent who I am as much as they represent who I want to be or who I think I should be or who I think others think I should be. Once I became aware of this process, I realized I am unique just as I am and that I'm not alone in my uniqueness. I am surrounded by a world of uniqueness, in people and in things.
For example, I'm an introvert and I like solitude. Much to my wife's and my daughters' frustration, I am not fond of travel. I have to admit that at times, especially in the past, it bothered me that I am not more outgoing, more gregarious and wanting what every "normal" person seems to want, to travel, to see the world and meet new people. I find myself feeling guilty that I don't feel the way others do, but I've come to learn that I can travel (because I love my wife and daughters) even if its not my favorite thing to do. Once I'm some place, I can enjoy being there with them, seeing the world and meeting new people, but I always prefer home over every other place.
I like people as individuals, rather than crowds. I enjoy music and the theater, but I prefer listening to music at home. Ironically, I prefer going to a live theatrical production to see a play or a musical as opposed to seeing a movie or watching it on television because the "personal" experience of live theater can only happen on a live stage where I feel more involved and connected even if I'm sitting in the last row of crowded theater on Broadway. Ironically, while I don't like being in a crowd I enjoy teaching and speaking to large groups, but I like to visit and have conversations with only a few people at a time, and only periodically.
I like solitude. I like silence. I don't feel alone or bored, hardly ever. I have come to be patient with myself, to observe myself and enjoy the smorgasbord of my thoughts. I have come to love who I am and love that I am part of the whole of creation that I can view in solitude and listen to in silence.
THE IMPERATIVE OF LOVING ONE'S SELF
Jesus said, "Love you neighbors as yourself." (Mark 12:31) The first step in facilitating redemption is staying grounded in the goodness of creation and seeing one's self as a child of God as Jesus did, or, if not of a theistic bend, to see one's self as having emerged from and being part of a good and greater universe.
One might ask what this has to do with redemptive theology? Once one is able to see all life and one's self as intrinsically good, one is enabled to view that which is bad, evil, and ill not with despair but with understanding and a desire to solve our mutual problems.
We live in world where we are exposed to evil on daily basis and on a global scale. For better or worse, we know in real time the problems taking place throughout the world. We also know that what we hear and see is only the tip of the iceberg; that if this or that event is making the news how much other tragedy isn't. There is a limit to what can be reported, a limit to what can be addressed at any given moment and, knowing that, can lead to a numbing sensation about life in general.
The good (and there is a lot of good in the world ) can be easily overshadowed by the terror and devastation we see. This can be so overwhelming that it is easy to succumb to a fatalism which says nothing can be done, nothing will be done, and all attempts at doing something will surely fail; that evil and tragedy must always be.
Perhaps. But even if that were so (and I do not believe it has to be so) I have a choice on how to react to these things. I believe we all have a choice because most of what happens, happens because of us, because of people. Even in the face of evil and tragedy, life is good and its goodness is worth redeeming every moment of every day; in spite of all the ugliness it comes clothed in.
REDEMPTION BEGINS WITH FORGIVENESS
It's at times such as the times we currently live in that I think of Jesus. I think of what he must have faced on a daily basis living in Roman occupied Palestine with its many different voices and different groups in conflict with each other over how to live with or remedy their situation. Jesus could have done what so many tried before him; to rally some followers into a militant group in order to effect change by rooting out the evildoers in their midst. I believe Jesus understood how pointless those efforts were.
Instead Jesus, like his contemporary, John the Baptizer attempted to affect change one individual at a time, with one very important difference. John's approach to bringing people back, to redeeming them, was to preach repentance and offer baptism as sign and symbol of their commitment to return to the basic goodness of life and God. The problem with this approach is that it requires one seeing a need to do so. Jesus took a different approach. Instead of making repentance the starting point for change, Jesus started with love in action, love in the form of bestowing forgiveness on those he met as the primary approach upon which change and redemption occurred.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
SALVATION
As noted in my previous post, I made a distinction between salvation and redemption based theology. In this post I am going to reflect on salvation theology and why I believe it to be problematic. Since this is a post, I'm not going to go into an exegetical foray pointing out where scripture backs what I'm about to say Rather I'm going to rely on personal observation to raise some questions.
The basic problem I see with salvation-based theology is that it fosters a sense of helplessness and hopelessness about human ability while offering a false sense of security; in that, our helplessness and hopelessness is an impermanent condition if we believe correctly, or to but it in Pauline terms, we are justified through faith in Christ Jesus. Salvation theology theoretically attempts to free people to live more loving and compassionate lives, but at the same times devaluates life in this world as being futile in any attempt to better ourselves on our own and defers all goodness to God's grace and better things to come in the hereafter. This devaluation of life in the here and now is, in my opinion, the most dangerous aspect of salvation theology in Christianity or any other religion. It backed many an executioner's statement, "And may God have mercy on your soul" as the blade dropped or the noose tightened. The "other" person's life is easily committed to the care and judgment of God if things don't go our way. So many wars, so many atrocities, have resulted in the name and in the cause of salvation.
In Christianity, salvation theology is premised on the ideological belief that Jesus died for our sins (i.e. the sins of the world) in order to save us (save the world) from eternal damnation. This theology is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures' creation myth of Adam and Eve's "fall" from a state of grace to sin. The apostle Paul, who I consider the founder of salvation-based Christianity; ergo Christianity, references this connection by pointing out that through one man (Adam) sin entered the world and through the new Adam (Christ) sin has been defeated and a new order of creation has been established. Augustine later establishes the doctrine of "original sin by which he ensured in perpetuity the futility of human endeavor to do anything right of one's own will and salvation as the mainstay of Christian theology. I need to point out, that not all Christians at the time of these gentlemen would have agreed with them. Many didn't, but they are the ones whose theologies we are dealing with for the past 1800 to 2000 years and still today.
Nobody since the time Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire in 381CE has really argued this doctrine. It has been somewhat sided-stepped by many progressive theologians of lets say the past 100 years, but never taken on as something to seriously reconsider.
As iron-clad as this salvation based theology seems to be, upon closer inspection it appears fabricated on rather speculative premises that, had they been developed today, would raise serious questions. This theology arises, as most theologies do, from the experiences of the people who formulated them. Paul and Augustine are prime examples of this. Both were of a philosophical bent. For both, the world was falling apart - "sin" was rampant as experienced in their own lives and in the lives of others around them. Both were prone to extend and project their own sense of futility against the forces of evil onto the rest of humanity, and for most part, people could readily relate to their experiences. Both saw the world as innately flawed and sinful and couldn't see a way around it unless by divine intervention in the form of salvation.
As the Roman Empire collapsed and the long cold freeze of the Dark Ages descended on Europe, the notion that life was short and brutal was etched into the psyche of the people and the Church for centuries to come. Death was all around, in the form of plagues, wars, and famine. The sense that life was good was in many ways a treacherous, if not delusional path that could result in accusations of heresy or even witchcraft. For most, life was not good. While death was feared, living in misery was also feared and the fear didn't end there. The afterlife was equally treacherous. Few thought themselves worthy of salvation even if they believed in Jesus as savior. Most were illiterate and lived by hook and by crook, as it were. Survival in this life often risked damnation in the next. The choices were few and bleak.
The only ones who rose above this fray were the nobles and clergy who were seemingly blessed with plentitude in this life and most likely would enjoy the same in the next; even though, many a cathedral window and portico showed kings and bishops being dragged to hell because of their corruption. I sometimes think this was depicted to appease the poor's sense of injustice at being poor more than it was to deter injustice by the clergy and noble classes. In effect, the poor most likely thought, "If those guys are going to hell, what chance do I have?" The peasantry, for the most part, didn't see themselves as having a chance. It is in such soil that salvation theology took root and evolved. Even as conditions improved in Europe, the notion that the world was going to hell in a hand-basket was a firmly established meme in Western culture.
Jesus, on the other hand, didn't see life that way. In the midst of living in Roman-occupied Palestine, Jesus embraced this life as valuable. He said very little about an afterlife. His teachings (even those dealing with an afterlife) are geared to living a better life now; that is, enjoying life by treating others as we would like ourselves to be treated. Jesus was no stranger to the sufferings of others, nor to his own. Jesus met life with gratitude and compassion. I will speak more about this in future posts. My point in saying this is to illustrate how Jesus becomes separated out from the rest of humanity as being the "exception" to the effects of this life as opposed to being the model for the life well-lived by those who promulgated salvation theology.
LOOKING BACK
Christianity's salvation-based theology contains two perspectives - a theology that looks back and a theology that looks forward. The present accounts for very little in salvation theology. Where we are is a result of a human condition before our time. Where we are going is in God's hands. These approaches were developed simultaneously as a way to talk about Jesus within the context of salvation theology. In order to look forward, the earliest Christians, who were mostly Jews, had to look back and re-interpret their own Hebrew scriptures to make sense of their emerging salvation theology.
JESUS AS THE EXCEPTION
As much as Jesus is purported to be central to Christianity, Jesus posed a problem with regard to what to make of him. Central to salvation theology is Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Without the combination of these two events, salvation theology disappears. During his life (if we are to take the Gospel accounts as having a historical base) Jesus was considered the son of Joseph and Mary. He had brothers and sisters. He was from Galilee and for all intents and purposes was devout Jew with a following who saw in his teachings a better way to understand and live life.
One can garner from the Gospels that Jesus' disciples and followers had some hope that he would be the Messiah, the one to lead them out from under the tyranny of Roman rule. They were obviously enamored by his teachings and the way he treated those who were often rejected by religious elite and who took the religious elite to task. Jesus was a compassionate radical, but a radical nevertheless. He challenged the religious authorities of his time for their complacency regarding the conditions of the poor and their complicity in creating the situations that caused or made them worse. It is clear that Jesus was attempting to change the religious landscape of Judaism by bringing it back to its prophetic foundations of doing justice and walking humbly with their God. This notion was probably less exciting to some of his followers, who were looking for a more militant messiah, but his preaching on compassion and turning things around became an unbearable irritant to the temple authorities who appear to have had little time for such pious platitudes, being preoccupied in maintaining temple worship, their prestige, and their necks within an ever-volatile environment.
When Jesus is executed for his efforts, at the prompting of the temple's hierarchy, his followers refused to let his mission and message die. They quickly formed an alternate Jewish community within Jerusalem, headed by Jesus' biological brother, James. Whether or not Jesus was physically raised from the dead, one thing is certain; Jesus followers were making sure that the temple authorities were unable to stop Jesus' mission. For them and for those who joined them, one thing became a certainty, Jesus lives. Jesus becomes the exception to very laws of nature and there is no authority on or beneath the earth that can touch him.
From asserting Jesus' resurrection, things are read back into Jesus' life that weren't apparent before his crucifixion. All of a sudden, it becomes clear that Jesus was and is the Messiah, but not like the one they were originally looking for. He is far greater than what they originally were looking for. So what kind of Messiah is he? In the process of discovering who Jesus is, his message (as dear as it is to his followers) starts taking a back seat to the theology that was being developed about Jesus.
JESUS AS THE SUPREME SACRIFICE
For the earliest Christians, the death of Jesus is seen as a sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus (no matter what he may have seemed prior to his crucifixion) becomes the spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
The temple authorities may have killed Jesus, but in so doing they killed the need for the temple sacrifice and the temple economy. Sacrifice was very much a part of religious life in the ancient world and Christianity picks up on this as being the purpose of Jesus' existence. If this good and righteous teacher was the Messiah and he was killed for no valid human reason, there must have been a divine one, a divine purpose. The answer resides in Jesus being a sacrificial victim to atone for the wages caused by sin, not just for God's people, Israel, but (eventually) for the world. In this sense Jesus' sacrifice surpasses any sacrifice offered in the temple or any other temple for any other god. For all practical purposes sacrifice is rendered useless and all that is necessary for salvation, to atone for one's sins, is to believe that Jesus died for one's sins.
This of course leads to another problem. If Jesus is the spotless Lamb of God, the sinless victim who atones for everyone's sins, how did he become so?
JESUS AS THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD
Judaism contains within it the idea of someone being a son of God. Kings were considered such and the Messiah would also be considered a son of God, but the notion of God having begotten a Son of his own was foreign. Jesus becomes that because there is no known way for Jesus to be sinless unless he is divine. In fact, Mary, his mother, was also considered to have been immaculately conceived to further bolster Jesus being sinless.
The concept of a human and divine origin was nothing new in the ancient world. Almost all other ancient religions had such stories. The point being that while not exactly immortal, mortals who had a divine parent possessed divine qualities and even though they could die, they often became translated into full divinity or demi-divinity after death. Salvation theology follows this pattern, but differentiates it from other ancient religious notions by premising it on vague Hebrew Scriptures which lent themselves to such interpretations.
LOOKING FORWARD
One thing becomes quickly apparent to the emerging church. If Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, the spotless sacrifice who died for the sins of the world, the world was pretty much the same sinful place it was before all this happened. The mission of Jesus therefore shifts from returning Judaism to its prophetic roots to spreading the gospel; to grant assurance of and prepare people for the life to come in the new heaven and earth that Jesus will establish when he returns.
Christianity maintained the apocalyptic vision of Judaism of the time and expanded it. The messianic hopefulness found in Judaism is retained in Christianity. In fact, Christianity mimics Judaism in many ways in regard to feasts and customs. The image of Jesus becomes more closely linked to two Jewish icons, Moses and Elijah. A sense of triumphalism emerges with salvation theology. Sin, death, and the devil are vanquished. Although, salvation theology is filled with talk about grace; as in, there is nothing we can do on our own to affect our salvation, it begins to acquire a lot of "ifs, ands, and buts" in the process. Belief in the Lord Jesus is paramount, but as time progresses belief consists of believing the right things about Jesus rather than in what Jesus actually taught.
As time goes on and Jesus does not return, theology becomes increasingly apocalyptic, about the hereafter, about a new age, new heaven and new Earth. In all of that Jesus becomes more remote by becoming equal with God. Salvation also becomes increasingly conditional. Right belief becomes paramount as Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. As the Gospel spreads and the Christianity expands, the world remains pretty much as it always has. Wars, plagues, famine and corruption remain rampant. Radicalized violence broke out between Christians considered to be orthodox and non-orthodox. Christians persecuted "other" Christians and non-Christians with a furor that is still etched in the ruins of ancient Greece and Rome. In short, salvation theology did and does little to remedy the ills Jesus was attempting to address in Palestine, much less, in the world at large.
Over time and looking ahead, salvation theology remains largely a theology of the hereafter. Inadvertently, I feel, this has led to turning a blind eye to the conditions that have confronted the world. Any positive changes that have happened; for example, in western culture such as the abolition of slavery and the advancement in women's rights do not appear directly linked to salvation theology. In fact, churches with a strong creedal attachment to salvation frequently argued against abolition and women's suffrage. If these changes have a link to Christianity it is because the message of reform in Jesus's teaching began to emerge in social consciousness, particularly and ironically to some degree, as response to the Enlightenment which put little credence in theology. In fact, the Enlightenment, for all of its criticism of religion, awakened Christianity to the message of Jesus as opposed to the theological messages about Jesus (doctrine and dogma).
Salvation theology is complex and to some degree has been given a less dominant theological stance in the modern church. It has undergone some re-visioning, but it is unclear what the effects of that re-visioning has had, if any. As mentioned above, within salvation theology there runs a deep strain of fatalism. Some Christians believe that people are predestined for salvation, while others are not. But don't worry, it's all in God's hands. Even in Christian denominations that espouse a more eclectic view of salvation, there remains a sense that everything is in God's hands and there is little we can do to save the world in which we live. Many progressive theologians appear loathe to discuss these aspects of salvation theology, with some valid reasoning. To do so effectively would mean to bring into question the very premises upon which it is built and few, if any, appear willing to takes this on while maintaining they are essentially Christian.
For example, the problem of the resurrection (and it does pose a problem) is that it is hard to explain as having a purpose. Paul famously quips that if Christ is not raised our faith is in vain. What faith is he talking about; faith in what Jesus taught, or faith in what is taught about Jesus? His question raises other questions. Is Jesus dying and being raised from the dead all there is to Jesus? What of Jesus' teachings? Paul hardly mentions them, if at all, in his letters.
As the appeal of an actual physical/bodily resurrection of Jesus becomes more of an untenable position to maintain, some theologians are quick to point out the resurrection is not resuscitation but then fail to explain what that means. The difficult question Christianity must come to grips with is whether the resurrection story has any meaning or purpose. If so, what is it, and if not, what are we to make of it? That Jesus died as a result of crucifixion is very likely. That his death was a sacrifice is less tenable and raises some perplexing theological questions.
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
The Gospels depict Jesus as physically resurrected from death, but in my estimation they fall short in proving it. Perhaps that was not their intent. The intent in relaying this story, if any, seems open-ended for interpretation. The Gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection all agree on one essential detail; that whoever is shown as going to Jesus' tomb finds it empty; thereafter, the accounts vary.
In one, his disciples didn't recognize him as he was walking and talking to them. In others, Jesus appears and disappears through closed doors. Even Thomas who was invited to touch Jesus' wounds, didn't actually touch Jesus. Nowhere in the Gospel of John does it say, "And Thomas thrust his hand in the wounds of Jesus." It stops short of that. In fact, all the Gospels stop short of offering any tangible evidence of a physical resurrection.
That people "saw" Jesus and experienced Jesus cooking and eating doesn't prove anything, apart from their making a claim that they walked, talked, and ate with him. As to the Gospels giving the resurrection a purpose or a particular meaning, they are silent on the topic. There are no quotes by Jesus after the event explaining the meaning of his resurrection. The Gospels basically end with it.
In fact, if the canon of the New Testament only consisted of the four Gospels, one would have to conclude Jesus is still physically alive on this planet. [Note: Mark and Luke have a verse at the end explaining the at Jesus was taken up to heaven. They strike me more of an after thought or footnote attempting to explain why Jesus is no longer present. Matthew and John say nothing.] They do not include any explanation why Jesus is no longer physically present as human being walking, talking and eating with us now.
It is in the Book of Acts that the one and only Ascension story is recorded. Nowhere else is it mentioned, which leaves one wondering if there was a need to find a way to explain the fact that Jesus was no longer here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating some sort of conspiracy theory on the part of Jesus' disciples, just pointing out what seems obvious. If there are four Gospels mentioning Jesus' resurrection, why is the Ascension of Jesus mentioned in only one place, outside of the Gospels?
As to the Resurrection having a meaning, observation could demonstrate that belief in the resurrection offers many people some comfort and hope that there is more to life than this life. As far as saying that believing in it demonstrates faith in Jesus saving us from sin, death and the devil, I would have to conclude that, based on observation, it doesn't do that. If the intent was to prove that Jesus is God, then why did God have to raise him up? Of course, Christians of an orthodox bent (which most Christians are) could provide answers to all of these objections in the form of salvation-based theology and doctrine about Jesus, but they cannot provide answers based on direct evidence or recorded comments by Jesus as the resurrection having a particular meaning.
The fact is Jesus isn't here to tell us and didn't demonstrate to the Temple and Roman authorities at the time of his resurrection that he was physically alive after they had crucified him. When Jesus cured lepers he sent them to the authorities to show that they were clean. It seems odd that he should avoid them upon being raised from the dead. Sticking around and showing himself at the Temple in order to become part of the historical record (Romans were good at keeping records) would have been helpful and would have changed the course of human history right then and there, but those things didn't happen and beg the question if the accounts of the resurrection happened at all.
So what Christians are left with, in my opinion, is a dilemma regarding the resurrection stories found in the Gospels. One can conclude (as many, perhaps most Christians do) that the physical resurrection of Jesus is to be believed as fact upon which one's salvation is dependent, or one can conclude that the resurrection cannot be apprehended in a factual way but its occurrence is nevertheless factual and apprehended only through faith as necessary for one's salvation, or one can conclude that it is not a fact but a spiritual metaphor pointing to deeper and intuitive understanding of being, independent of the need for a salvation theology. There are probably other ways of looking at the resurrection, but these will suffice for now.
THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS
As to the crucifixion of Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world, one can understand how the early followers of Jesus could view Jesus' cruel death as some form of sacrifice. As mentioned in my previous post, the idea of sacrifice was commonplace in ancient religions.
There are two basic views of sacrifice in the ancient world - sacrifice as appeasement and sacrifice as atonement. Most ancient ritual sacrifices probably held a little of both views with an emphasis on one or the other view.
The sacrifice of appeasement was largely preventive. You wanted to keep the gods happy in order to keep yourself happy. You did things to ensure good crops or favorable outcome to an adventure of some sort. In other words, you paid up front.
The sacrifice of atonement was largely retributive or payment after the fact. It sometimes was associated with thank offerings for having received good crops or a good outcome, but more often it was about paying for the bad things you did in order to keep from exposing the community or the nation to the fact that you messed up and was the cause of things not going well for everyone. It's akin to appeasement, but after the fact of something occurring.
Sacrifice in Judaism contains this strong sense of atonement and the practice of it could be inequitable at times. Those who had more could pay for more, in essence, could sin more, and those who didn't have much, worried they couldn't cover the debt incurred through sin. The prophetic voices in Israel addressed this sense inequity and so did Jesus. Remember the story of the widow's mite?
Being rooted in Judaism the crucifixion of Jesus, according to salvation theology, is portrayed as an act of atonement, paying for the price for the sins of the world; past, present, and future. The problem with this approach is that Judaism abhorred human sacrifice. There was no place for it. God frequently showed displeasure with any form of ritual animal sacrifice in the Hebrew Scriptures.
God is known in those scriptures to have said he was fed up with burnt offerings and was more concerned with contrition rather than receiving a retributive sacrifice. Although the Temple in Jerusalem was very active in Jesus' time, it was for the most part a symbol of national and religious identity for Jews throughout the world. Judaism, out of necessity had a robust synagogue-based religious life that could and eventually did exist without the temple. The template for ritual atonement I believe was weak and antiquated even as the idea of the crucifixion was considered the ultimate sacrifice.
Christianity had to reinterpret long held understandings of God and sacrifice. For example, the angel stopping Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac was long understood as an abolition and prohibition against human sacrifice in Judaism. Christianity reinterpreted the angel stopping Abraham from sacrificing Isaac as a prophetic event which pointed to Jesus, as God's only begotten Son, becoming the spotless lamb who would remove the debt of sin for the whole human species.
In my opinion, the early Christians seemed to latch on to an explanation of the crucifixion as a sacrifice without thinking it through. As a result the event became "mystified." At the surface, one would have to ask who was Jesus being sacrificed to? God? The answer would have to be yes, which would then have to lead to the question, why? Is there something about sin beyond God's control; to the extent it was not God who Jesus was sacrificed to but some other source; some other power? You can see how convoluted and speculative this line of questioning can be. I could go on for a long time with this line of questioning without finding an answer.
What I would suggest is that in a world where sacrifices were common place there was great appeal to the notion that an ultimate sacrifice was available that ended the necessity of ritual sacrifice as appeasement or atonement. I suspect it was one of the main attractions to Christianity. No longer needing to make sacrifices, which could be expensive, saved people in any number of ways.
As I mentioned early, it doesn't make sense that the earliest Jewish followers would have seen Jesus' crucifixion as a sacrifice as they would have seen it as total affront to God, a wrongful death of an innocent man, another prophet being murdered, the Messiah being slain by the very people he was trying to deliver. It is not clear that the earliest followers of Jesus, the one's who formed the church in Jerusalem, had a salvation theology based on Jesus being sacrificed for the sins of the world. That theology appears to originate with Paul who was, in many ways, a Hellenized Jew and perhaps more influenced by Hellenistic thought than he portrays.
Pre-Pauline Christians called themselves The Way and the church in Jerusalem seemed to hold the teachings of Jesus in high regard, given their communal life style, rather than taking time to develop teachings about Jesus. They also seemed to have retained a sense of Temple worship. So it is unlikely they would have seen Jesus as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. What they might have concluded is that when Jesus forgave those who crucified him, God did also or that only Jesus did. The crucifixion was not a sacrificial act. It was a crime. It did not pay for anything. Jesus simply forgave those involved in putting him to death. It was an act of pure grace on the part of Jesus for those who brought about his execution. That, in itself, provided a powerful template for how Jesus followers should have reacted to his death.
In the Acts of the Apostles, however, one gets a sense that Jesus' disciples were less forgiving than Jesus and were willing to place a guilt trip on the their fellow Jews, In a speech attributed to Peter addressing a crowd during Pentecost, Peters comments, "Jesus.. who you... put to death... ." This statement would resonate throughout the Western history as a premise for Jewish persecutions. Again, another example of how salvation theology is prone to radicalization.
A PARTING COMMENT
Salvation theology is deeply rooted in the crucifixion and resurrection stories about Jesus. While I am not trying to dissuade anyone from their personal beliefs in salvation theology, I am interested in questioning it and looking at alternatives to what seems, for all practical purposes, a theological nightmare; one that requires unreasoned and baseless belief in unproven and untenable premises. While I consider the "factuality" of the physical resurrection of Jesus and the crucifixion of Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world highly speculative, at best, what I will offer will be blatantly speculative on my part.
The fact is nobody can know for sure what exactly motivated Jesus to be a teacher and preacher within the framework of Judaism. Personally, I am convinced that it was not to establish a new religion or to bring about a salvation-based theology. Being true to my agnosticism, I admit that I don't know.
I do not see a need for God to out-perform what God is already doing; creating the universe as I write. Faith, for me, is not based on having to believe in the extraordinarily miraculous. Don't get me wrong, I believe in miracles (the concept exists and for me the experience exists). It is just that I do not base my faith on the extraordinarily miraculous. Life is miraculous in its own right, and if one cannot see the uniqueness in one's being and in the life one is surrounded by, it is doubtful that one will be able to find it elsewhere. God has no need for unreasoned beliefs.
Next week I will begin exploring an alternative to salvation-based theology.
Until then, stay faithful.
The basic problem I see with salvation-based theology is that it fosters a sense of helplessness and hopelessness about human ability while offering a false sense of security; in that, our helplessness and hopelessness is an impermanent condition if we believe correctly, or to but it in Pauline terms, we are justified through faith in Christ Jesus. Salvation theology theoretically attempts to free people to live more loving and compassionate lives, but at the same times devaluates life in this world as being futile in any attempt to better ourselves on our own and defers all goodness to God's grace and better things to come in the hereafter. This devaluation of life in the here and now is, in my opinion, the most dangerous aspect of salvation theology in Christianity or any other religion. It backed many an executioner's statement, "And may God have mercy on your soul" as the blade dropped or the noose tightened. The "other" person's life is easily committed to the care and judgment of God if things don't go our way. So many wars, so many atrocities, have resulted in the name and in the cause of salvation.
In Christianity, salvation theology is premised on the ideological belief that Jesus died for our sins (i.e. the sins of the world) in order to save us (save the world) from eternal damnation. This theology is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures' creation myth of Adam and Eve's "fall" from a state of grace to sin. The apostle Paul, who I consider the founder of salvation-based Christianity; ergo Christianity, references this connection by pointing out that through one man (Adam) sin entered the world and through the new Adam (Christ) sin has been defeated and a new order of creation has been established. Augustine later establishes the doctrine of "original sin by which he ensured in perpetuity the futility of human endeavor to do anything right of one's own will and salvation as the mainstay of Christian theology. I need to point out, that not all Christians at the time of these gentlemen would have agreed with them. Many didn't, but they are the ones whose theologies we are dealing with for the past 1800 to 2000 years and still today.
Nobody since the time Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire in 381CE has really argued this doctrine. It has been somewhat sided-stepped by many progressive theologians of lets say the past 100 years, but never taken on as something to seriously reconsider.
As iron-clad as this salvation based theology seems to be, upon closer inspection it appears fabricated on rather speculative premises that, had they been developed today, would raise serious questions. This theology arises, as most theologies do, from the experiences of the people who formulated them. Paul and Augustine are prime examples of this. Both were of a philosophical bent. For both, the world was falling apart - "sin" was rampant as experienced in their own lives and in the lives of others around them. Both were prone to extend and project their own sense of futility against the forces of evil onto the rest of humanity, and for most part, people could readily relate to their experiences. Both saw the world as innately flawed and sinful and couldn't see a way around it unless by divine intervention in the form of salvation.
As the Roman Empire collapsed and the long cold freeze of the Dark Ages descended on Europe, the notion that life was short and brutal was etched into the psyche of the people and the Church for centuries to come. Death was all around, in the form of plagues, wars, and famine. The sense that life was good was in many ways a treacherous, if not delusional path that could result in accusations of heresy or even witchcraft. For most, life was not good. While death was feared, living in misery was also feared and the fear didn't end there. The afterlife was equally treacherous. Few thought themselves worthy of salvation even if they believed in Jesus as savior. Most were illiterate and lived by hook and by crook, as it were. Survival in this life often risked damnation in the next. The choices were few and bleak.
The only ones who rose above this fray were the nobles and clergy who were seemingly blessed with plentitude in this life and most likely would enjoy the same in the next; even though, many a cathedral window and portico showed kings and bishops being dragged to hell because of their corruption. I sometimes think this was depicted to appease the poor's sense of injustice at being poor more than it was to deter injustice by the clergy and noble classes. In effect, the poor most likely thought, "If those guys are going to hell, what chance do I have?" The peasantry, for the most part, didn't see themselves as having a chance. It is in such soil that salvation theology took root and evolved. Even as conditions improved in Europe, the notion that the world was going to hell in a hand-basket was a firmly established meme in Western culture.
Jesus, on the other hand, didn't see life that way. In the midst of living in Roman-occupied Palestine, Jesus embraced this life as valuable. He said very little about an afterlife. His teachings (even those dealing with an afterlife) are geared to living a better life now; that is, enjoying life by treating others as we would like ourselves to be treated. Jesus was no stranger to the sufferings of others, nor to his own. Jesus met life with gratitude and compassion. I will speak more about this in future posts. My point in saying this is to illustrate how Jesus becomes separated out from the rest of humanity as being the "exception" to the effects of this life as opposed to being the model for the life well-lived by those who promulgated salvation theology.
LOOKING BACK
Christianity's salvation-based theology contains two perspectives - a theology that looks back and a theology that looks forward. The present accounts for very little in salvation theology. Where we are is a result of a human condition before our time. Where we are going is in God's hands. These approaches were developed simultaneously as a way to talk about Jesus within the context of salvation theology. In order to look forward, the earliest Christians, who were mostly Jews, had to look back and re-interpret their own Hebrew scriptures to make sense of their emerging salvation theology.
JESUS AS THE EXCEPTION
As much as Jesus is purported to be central to Christianity, Jesus posed a problem with regard to what to make of him. Central to salvation theology is Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Without the combination of these two events, salvation theology disappears. During his life (if we are to take the Gospel accounts as having a historical base) Jesus was considered the son of Joseph and Mary. He had brothers and sisters. He was from Galilee and for all intents and purposes was devout Jew with a following who saw in his teachings a better way to understand and live life.
One can garner from the Gospels that Jesus' disciples and followers had some hope that he would be the Messiah, the one to lead them out from under the tyranny of Roman rule. They were obviously enamored by his teachings and the way he treated those who were often rejected by religious elite and who took the religious elite to task. Jesus was a compassionate radical, but a radical nevertheless. He challenged the religious authorities of his time for their complacency regarding the conditions of the poor and their complicity in creating the situations that caused or made them worse. It is clear that Jesus was attempting to change the religious landscape of Judaism by bringing it back to its prophetic foundations of doing justice and walking humbly with their God. This notion was probably less exciting to some of his followers, who were looking for a more militant messiah, but his preaching on compassion and turning things around became an unbearable irritant to the temple authorities who appear to have had little time for such pious platitudes, being preoccupied in maintaining temple worship, their prestige, and their necks within an ever-volatile environment.
When Jesus is executed for his efforts, at the prompting of the temple's hierarchy, his followers refused to let his mission and message die. They quickly formed an alternate Jewish community within Jerusalem, headed by Jesus' biological brother, James. Whether or not Jesus was physically raised from the dead, one thing is certain; Jesus followers were making sure that the temple authorities were unable to stop Jesus' mission. For them and for those who joined them, one thing became a certainty, Jesus lives. Jesus becomes the exception to very laws of nature and there is no authority on or beneath the earth that can touch him.
From asserting Jesus' resurrection, things are read back into Jesus' life that weren't apparent before his crucifixion. All of a sudden, it becomes clear that Jesus was and is the Messiah, but not like the one they were originally looking for. He is far greater than what they originally were looking for. So what kind of Messiah is he? In the process of discovering who Jesus is, his message (as dear as it is to his followers) starts taking a back seat to the theology that was being developed about Jesus.
JESUS AS THE SUPREME SACRIFICE
For the earliest Christians, the death of Jesus is seen as a sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus (no matter what he may have seemed prior to his crucifixion) becomes the spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
The temple authorities may have killed Jesus, but in so doing they killed the need for the temple sacrifice and the temple economy. Sacrifice was very much a part of religious life in the ancient world and Christianity picks up on this as being the purpose of Jesus' existence. If this good and righteous teacher was the Messiah and he was killed for no valid human reason, there must have been a divine one, a divine purpose. The answer resides in Jesus being a sacrificial victim to atone for the wages caused by sin, not just for God's people, Israel, but (eventually) for the world. In this sense Jesus' sacrifice surpasses any sacrifice offered in the temple or any other temple for any other god. For all practical purposes sacrifice is rendered useless and all that is necessary for salvation, to atone for one's sins, is to believe that Jesus died for one's sins.
This of course leads to another problem. If Jesus is the spotless Lamb of God, the sinless victim who atones for everyone's sins, how did he become so?
JESUS AS THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD
Judaism contains within it the idea of someone being a son of God. Kings were considered such and the Messiah would also be considered a son of God, but the notion of God having begotten a Son of his own was foreign. Jesus becomes that because there is no known way for Jesus to be sinless unless he is divine. In fact, Mary, his mother, was also considered to have been immaculately conceived to further bolster Jesus being sinless.
The concept of a human and divine origin was nothing new in the ancient world. Almost all other ancient religions had such stories. The point being that while not exactly immortal, mortals who had a divine parent possessed divine qualities and even though they could die, they often became translated into full divinity or demi-divinity after death. Salvation theology follows this pattern, but differentiates it from other ancient religious notions by premising it on vague Hebrew Scriptures which lent themselves to such interpretations.
LOOKING FORWARD
One thing becomes quickly apparent to the emerging church. If Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, the spotless sacrifice who died for the sins of the world, the world was pretty much the same sinful place it was before all this happened. The mission of Jesus therefore shifts from returning Judaism to its prophetic roots to spreading the gospel; to grant assurance of and prepare people for the life to come in the new heaven and earth that Jesus will establish when he returns.
Christianity maintained the apocalyptic vision of Judaism of the time and expanded it. The messianic hopefulness found in Judaism is retained in Christianity. In fact, Christianity mimics Judaism in many ways in regard to feasts and customs. The image of Jesus becomes more closely linked to two Jewish icons, Moses and Elijah. A sense of triumphalism emerges with salvation theology. Sin, death, and the devil are vanquished. Although, salvation theology is filled with talk about grace; as in, there is nothing we can do on our own to affect our salvation, it begins to acquire a lot of "ifs, ands, and buts" in the process. Belief in the Lord Jesus is paramount, but as time progresses belief consists of believing the right things about Jesus rather than in what Jesus actually taught.
As time goes on and Jesus does not return, theology becomes increasingly apocalyptic, about the hereafter, about a new age, new heaven and new Earth. In all of that Jesus becomes more remote by becoming equal with God. Salvation also becomes increasingly conditional. Right belief becomes paramount as Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. As the Gospel spreads and the Christianity expands, the world remains pretty much as it always has. Wars, plagues, famine and corruption remain rampant. Radicalized violence broke out between Christians considered to be orthodox and non-orthodox. Christians persecuted "other" Christians and non-Christians with a furor that is still etched in the ruins of ancient Greece and Rome. In short, salvation theology did and does little to remedy the ills Jesus was attempting to address in Palestine, much less, in the world at large.
Over time and looking ahead, salvation theology remains largely a theology of the hereafter. Inadvertently, I feel, this has led to turning a blind eye to the conditions that have confronted the world. Any positive changes that have happened; for example, in western culture such as the abolition of slavery and the advancement in women's rights do not appear directly linked to salvation theology. In fact, churches with a strong creedal attachment to salvation frequently argued against abolition and women's suffrage. If these changes have a link to Christianity it is because the message of reform in Jesus's teaching began to emerge in social consciousness, particularly and ironically to some degree, as response to the Enlightenment which put little credence in theology. In fact, the Enlightenment, for all of its criticism of religion, awakened Christianity to the message of Jesus as opposed to the theological messages about Jesus (doctrine and dogma).
Salvation theology is complex and to some degree has been given a less dominant theological stance in the modern church. It has undergone some re-visioning, but it is unclear what the effects of that re-visioning has had, if any. As mentioned above, within salvation theology there runs a deep strain of fatalism. Some Christians believe that people are predestined for salvation, while others are not. But don't worry, it's all in God's hands. Even in Christian denominations that espouse a more eclectic view of salvation, there remains a sense that everything is in God's hands and there is little we can do to save the world in which we live. Many progressive theologians appear loathe to discuss these aspects of salvation theology, with some valid reasoning. To do so effectively would mean to bring into question the very premises upon which it is built and few, if any, appear willing to takes this on while maintaining they are essentially Christian.
For example, the problem of the resurrection (and it does pose a problem) is that it is hard to explain as having a purpose. Paul famously quips that if Christ is not raised our faith is in vain. What faith is he talking about; faith in what Jesus taught, or faith in what is taught about Jesus? His question raises other questions. Is Jesus dying and being raised from the dead all there is to Jesus? What of Jesus' teachings? Paul hardly mentions them, if at all, in his letters.
As the appeal of an actual physical/bodily resurrection of Jesus becomes more of an untenable position to maintain, some theologians are quick to point out the resurrection is not resuscitation but then fail to explain what that means. The difficult question Christianity must come to grips with is whether the resurrection story has any meaning or purpose. If so, what is it, and if not, what are we to make of it? That Jesus died as a result of crucifixion is very likely. That his death was a sacrifice is less tenable and raises some perplexing theological questions.
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
The Gospels depict Jesus as physically resurrected from death, but in my estimation they fall short in proving it. Perhaps that was not their intent. The intent in relaying this story, if any, seems open-ended for interpretation. The Gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection all agree on one essential detail; that whoever is shown as going to Jesus' tomb finds it empty; thereafter, the accounts vary.
In one, his disciples didn't recognize him as he was walking and talking to them. In others, Jesus appears and disappears through closed doors. Even Thomas who was invited to touch Jesus' wounds, didn't actually touch Jesus. Nowhere in the Gospel of John does it say, "And Thomas thrust his hand in the wounds of Jesus." It stops short of that. In fact, all the Gospels stop short of offering any tangible evidence of a physical resurrection.
That people "saw" Jesus and experienced Jesus cooking and eating doesn't prove anything, apart from their making a claim that they walked, talked, and ate with him. As to the Gospels giving the resurrection a purpose or a particular meaning, they are silent on the topic. There are no quotes by Jesus after the event explaining the meaning of his resurrection. The Gospels basically end with it.
In fact, if the canon of the New Testament only consisted of the four Gospels, one would have to conclude Jesus is still physically alive on this planet. [Note: Mark and Luke have a verse at the end explaining the at Jesus was taken up to heaven. They strike me more of an after thought or footnote attempting to explain why Jesus is no longer present. Matthew and John say nothing.] They do not include any explanation why Jesus is no longer physically present as human being walking, talking and eating with us now.
It is in the Book of Acts that the one and only Ascension story is recorded. Nowhere else is it mentioned, which leaves one wondering if there was a need to find a way to explain the fact that Jesus was no longer here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating some sort of conspiracy theory on the part of Jesus' disciples, just pointing out what seems obvious. If there are four Gospels mentioning Jesus' resurrection, why is the Ascension of Jesus mentioned in only one place, outside of the Gospels?
As to the Resurrection having a meaning, observation could demonstrate that belief in the resurrection offers many people some comfort and hope that there is more to life than this life. As far as saying that believing in it demonstrates faith in Jesus saving us from sin, death and the devil, I would have to conclude that, based on observation, it doesn't do that. If the intent was to prove that Jesus is God, then why did God have to raise him up? Of course, Christians of an orthodox bent (which most Christians are) could provide answers to all of these objections in the form of salvation-based theology and doctrine about Jesus, but they cannot provide answers based on direct evidence or recorded comments by Jesus as the resurrection having a particular meaning.
The fact is Jesus isn't here to tell us and didn't demonstrate to the Temple and Roman authorities at the time of his resurrection that he was physically alive after they had crucified him. When Jesus cured lepers he sent them to the authorities to show that they were clean. It seems odd that he should avoid them upon being raised from the dead. Sticking around and showing himself at the Temple in order to become part of the historical record (Romans were good at keeping records) would have been helpful and would have changed the course of human history right then and there, but those things didn't happen and beg the question if the accounts of the resurrection happened at all.
So what Christians are left with, in my opinion, is a dilemma regarding the resurrection stories found in the Gospels. One can conclude (as many, perhaps most Christians do) that the physical resurrection of Jesus is to be believed as fact upon which one's salvation is dependent, or one can conclude that the resurrection cannot be apprehended in a factual way but its occurrence is nevertheless factual and apprehended only through faith as necessary for one's salvation, or one can conclude that it is not a fact but a spiritual metaphor pointing to deeper and intuitive understanding of being, independent of the need for a salvation theology. There are probably other ways of looking at the resurrection, but these will suffice for now.
THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS
As to the crucifixion of Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world, one can understand how the early followers of Jesus could view Jesus' cruel death as some form of sacrifice. As mentioned in my previous post, the idea of sacrifice was commonplace in ancient religions.
There are two basic views of sacrifice in the ancient world - sacrifice as appeasement and sacrifice as atonement. Most ancient ritual sacrifices probably held a little of both views with an emphasis on one or the other view.
The sacrifice of appeasement was largely preventive. You wanted to keep the gods happy in order to keep yourself happy. You did things to ensure good crops or favorable outcome to an adventure of some sort. In other words, you paid up front.
The sacrifice of atonement was largely retributive or payment after the fact. It sometimes was associated with thank offerings for having received good crops or a good outcome, but more often it was about paying for the bad things you did in order to keep from exposing the community or the nation to the fact that you messed up and was the cause of things not going well for everyone. It's akin to appeasement, but after the fact of something occurring.
Sacrifice in Judaism contains this strong sense of atonement and the practice of it could be inequitable at times. Those who had more could pay for more, in essence, could sin more, and those who didn't have much, worried they couldn't cover the debt incurred through sin. The prophetic voices in Israel addressed this sense inequity and so did Jesus. Remember the story of the widow's mite?
Being rooted in Judaism the crucifixion of Jesus, according to salvation theology, is portrayed as an act of atonement, paying for the price for the sins of the world; past, present, and future. The problem with this approach is that Judaism abhorred human sacrifice. There was no place for it. God frequently showed displeasure with any form of ritual animal sacrifice in the Hebrew Scriptures.
God is known in those scriptures to have said he was fed up with burnt offerings and was more concerned with contrition rather than receiving a retributive sacrifice. Although the Temple in Jerusalem was very active in Jesus' time, it was for the most part a symbol of national and religious identity for Jews throughout the world. Judaism, out of necessity had a robust synagogue-based religious life that could and eventually did exist without the temple. The template for ritual atonement I believe was weak and antiquated even as the idea of the crucifixion was considered the ultimate sacrifice.
Christianity had to reinterpret long held understandings of God and sacrifice. For example, the angel stopping Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac was long understood as an abolition and prohibition against human sacrifice in Judaism. Christianity reinterpreted the angel stopping Abraham from sacrificing Isaac as a prophetic event which pointed to Jesus, as God's only begotten Son, becoming the spotless lamb who would remove the debt of sin for the whole human species.
In my opinion, the early Christians seemed to latch on to an explanation of the crucifixion as a sacrifice without thinking it through. As a result the event became "mystified." At the surface, one would have to ask who was Jesus being sacrificed to? God? The answer would have to be yes, which would then have to lead to the question, why? Is there something about sin beyond God's control; to the extent it was not God who Jesus was sacrificed to but some other source; some other power? You can see how convoluted and speculative this line of questioning can be. I could go on for a long time with this line of questioning without finding an answer.
What I would suggest is that in a world where sacrifices were common place there was great appeal to the notion that an ultimate sacrifice was available that ended the necessity of ritual sacrifice as appeasement or atonement. I suspect it was one of the main attractions to Christianity. No longer needing to make sacrifices, which could be expensive, saved people in any number of ways.
As I mentioned early, it doesn't make sense that the earliest Jewish followers would have seen Jesus' crucifixion as a sacrifice as they would have seen it as total affront to God, a wrongful death of an innocent man, another prophet being murdered, the Messiah being slain by the very people he was trying to deliver. It is not clear that the earliest followers of Jesus, the one's who formed the church in Jerusalem, had a salvation theology based on Jesus being sacrificed for the sins of the world. That theology appears to originate with Paul who was, in many ways, a Hellenized Jew and perhaps more influenced by Hellenistic thought than he portrays.
Pre-Pauline Christians called themselves The Way and the church in Jerusalem seemed to hold the teachings of Jesus in high regard, given their communal life style, rather than taking time to develop teachings about Jesus. They also seemed to have retained a sense of Temple worship. So it is unlikely they would have seen Jesus as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. What they might have concluded is that when Jesus forgave those who crucified him, God did also or that only Jesus did. The crucifixion was not a sacrificial act. It was a crime. It did not pay for anything. Jesus simply forgave those involved in putting him to death. It was an act of pure grace on the part of Jesus for those who brought about his execution. That, in itself, provided a powerful template for how Jesus followers should have reacted to his death.
In the Acts of the Apostles, however, one gets a sense that Jesus' disciples were less forgiving than Jesus and were willing to place a guilt trip on the their fellow Jews, In a speech attributed to Peter addressing a crowd during Pentecost, Peters comments, "Jesus.. who you... put to death... ." This statement would resonate throughout the Western history as a premise for Jewish persecutions. Again, another example of how salvation theology is prone to radicalization.
A PARTING COMMENT
Salvation theology is deeply rooted in the crucifixion and resurrection stories about Jesus. While I am not trying to dissuade anyone from their personal beliefs in salvation theology, I am interested in questioning it and looking at alternatives to what seems, for all practical purposes, a theological nightmare; one that requires unreasoned and baseless belief in unproven and untenable premises. While I consider the "factuality" of the physical resurrection of Jesus and the crucifixion of Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world highly speculative, at best, what I will offer will be blatantly speculative on my part.
The fact is nobody can know for sure what exactly motivated Jesus to be a teacher and preacher within the framework of Judaism. Personally, I am convinced that it was not to establish a new religion or to bring about a salvation-based theology. Being true to my agnosticism, I admit that I don't know.
I do not see a need for God to out-perform what God is already doing; creating the universe as I write. Faith, for me, is not based on having to believe in the extraordinarily miraculous. Don't get me wrong, I believe in miracles (the concept exists and for me the experience exists). It is just that I do not base my faith on the extraordinarily miraculous. Life is miraculous in its own right, and if one cannot see the uniqueness in one's being and in the life one is surrounded by, it is doubtful that one will be able to find it elsewhere. God has no need for unreasoned beliefs.
Next week I will begin exploring an alternative to salvation-based theology.
Until then, stay faithful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)