Still Thinking – The Atonement

There can be in our journey to Easter quite an emphasis on suffering.  Because the resurrection of Jesus is preceded by his violent death, many have argued that even in the new life the Christian is called to accept that both healing and suffering are woven together into their lives.

Throughout Christian history there has been many theories put forward in an attempt to explain and promote the relationship between Jesus’ death and its relationship to the Christian.  Most theories of what has been called the “atonement” are shaped by the world view of their proponents.  Many of the authors in the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures rely on a “blood sacrifice” view of atonement and reconciliation. 

Most hold the view that a price must be paid in blood, the blood of a perfect and innocent sacrifice, to a Holy God who is distant and often vengeful.  Many passages in the Bible are drawn from this world view.  However, that world view does not exist in our culture and time.  It is in fact both repulsive and abhorrent.

There are other views in the Bible about how the death of Jesus is understood and related to the present experience of Christ among us. It was in the twelfth century that the controversial theologian Peter Abelard began to argue that the death of Jesus was not about blood sacrifice, it was in fact, about love. This came to be named the "moral theory of atonement."

It the twelfth century, the common view of the atonement was that Jesus’ death paid a debt, either to God or to the Devil, that humans could not pay ourselves, but Abelard approached the matter from a more subjective angle. He explained that Jesus’ life and death were such radical demonstrations of the love of God that we are moved to love God in response, and God then forgives us on the basis of that love. He wrote

Our redemption through the suffering of Christ is that deeper love within us which not only frees us from slavery to sin but also secures for us the true liberty of the children of God, in order that we might do all things out of love rather than out of fear - love for him who has shown us such grace that no greater can be found.

This view of the atonement became popular during the Enlightenment, a time of intense scepticism towards anything transcendent or supernatural.

It was Peter Abelard who also made significant contributions to Christian thought in the areas of ethics and sin. He controversially taught that humans are not born with original guilt, as no person can be guilty for the sin of another.  He argued that there is no guilt until we have agreed with or acted upon our “sinful” inclination. Whether an act is good or evil depends entirely on one's intention.  And finally, Abelard insisted that no person can absolve another person of sin, so the function of confession can only be to instruct the sinner in the proper penance not to absolve the person from their sin.

While much of Abelard’s language and this theological constructs are foreign to the twenty-first century, he did give a fresh approach to the stale theology of the scholastics and their dogged ascent to time worn doctrines.  As we move toward Easter our hearts are fixed on the love of God demonstrated in the life and the death of Jesus; a God of love who is seen in the capacity to receive the violence of our world and not retaliate with violence.

Christopher 

Still Thinking – Death and Dying

I never thought much about my own death when I was a young person even through at the age of 13 I was in the house when my mother died.  While I had an awareness of what death was I was too much immersed in life to dwell on it.  I recall a real feeling of irritation as a teenager when a travelling evangelist came to Upper Mt Gravatt Baptist Church and at the conclusion of his sermon told us, “As you leave the church tonight and walk out into the street you could be hit by a bus and killed.  So if you don’t accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour tonight you will spend the rest of eternity in hell!” As a “God intoxicated” sixteen year old whose mother had died when she was 32 years old, I truly felt that I knew more about life and death than this itinerant preacher did.

While my mother’s death left an indelible mark on my life the only time thoughts of my own death would pass through my mind as a young person was when I was engaged in something dangerous - like diving off the rocks into the surf at Currumbin beach and then the fear was more about being injured than actually drowning. However, life and aging does change our reflections on death and dying. 

At the ripe old age of 59 I do think more about my own death today than I did ten or fifteen years ago.  But, and I suspect this is true of most in the second half of life, my concern is not so much with death, that final terminus, but with the “process” of dying.  What can be worrying is the manner in which I will die.  I don’t lie awake at night fearful that one day I will die, neither do I want to live forever, but I know that dying often - not always - takes some time.  Perhaps it’s the fear of the loss of control when doctors or my wife or adult children make decisions for me; or the loss of dignity when forced to wear those hospital gowns designed to display ones rear end to the world. I don’t think I fear the pain or the discomfort and while I don’t want to be euthanized, I do want to have the right to both pain medication and the final say about the end of my life.

I am aware that such a discussion is much easier in the theoretical or hypothetical than it is when faced with the sting of death and the cloak of dying but the Christian faith has taught us that death is a part of life and that those who face their own death can then live more fully.  During my time in the desert on the men’s initiation retreat with Richard Rohr I spent a day by myself on the top of hill contemplating my death.  We all had a simple sentence we were to contemplate for 8 hours.  That sentence was, “You are going to die!” What began in the morning as a trite recitation of the sentence, ended after a day’s work with tears, longings and a love for living.  “Death,” someone said, “is too important to leave to the end of life.” 

This morning we will consider the story of Jesus drawing his disciples into the paradoxical truth that “only those who lose their lives for the sake of gospel will save their lives,” I hope that in this story we can still see the flowering of hope and life.

Christopher

Still Thinking – Jesus through the Centuries

John Churcher in his recent book Setting Jesus Free suggests that the

“Jesus of Nazareth was the breaker of barriers that separate and the final barrier to be broken was that between life and death.”

It goes without saying that Jesus still remains one of the most important figures in western civilization even as our society becomes more and more secular and materialist.  For those of us in the Christian church Jesus is far more than an influential figure his life, message, and teaching, is what shapes and forms us every day. But that only occurs when Jesus is “set free.”

The slow movement of history has a way of placing a kind of veneer over the facts and events it is carrying.  We know that the Christian Church has passed through several “reformations” and each time a different and sometimes a new view of Jesus has emerged.  Jaroslav Pelikan in his book Jesus Through the Centuries chronicles the various names and cultural identities given to Jesus through the last two millennia.  Would you believe that in English society in the nineteenth century it was common to refer to Jesus as the “perfect gentleman”? That does not sound like a barrier breaker does it?.  More common of course are the Biblical names that are attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. 

From the second century onward there was more and more emphasis placed on the divine names for Jesus as against the “earthly” names.  For example we know that the early church place a lot of importance on Jesus being a Rabbi/teacher.  In the story of the empty tomb Mary addresses Jesus as Rabbi.  By the third and fourth centuries AD Jesus is referred to as God. For some this was blasphemy for others it was the natural progression for a leader to be deified by his followers. It was left to the various Church councils to come up with some way to reconcile not only the many designations given to Jesus but to state what is the nature of this person who grew up in Palestine and was now seated at the right hand of God in heaven.  So in 451AD the Council of Chalcedon established what is called the doctrine of Hypostatic Union which states

…following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;

It is probably not the language we would use today, but in its time it was a very successful marriage between Christian theology and Greek philosophy.  It stood until the nineteenth century when the inherent logical error that placed all of the godhead in one human being became apparent and so the formula began to collapse.

In the 21st century it seems that the most powerful way we can image the presence and nature of Jesus is in the human.  The Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer called Jesus “the man for others.”  And more recently the predominant way in which the designation, “Son of Man” is translated is as “the Human One.” That may sound strange to our ears because it is not as familiar as other names for Jesus, but it does resonate with our time and culture.

Someone once said, “…the more we worship Jesus the less we seem to follow him.”  The further we push Jesus away from being like us, the less we identify with his call to show love, justice, compassion and hopefulness.

Christopher