A Time To Reconstruct

You may be interested in my book on the same subject: The Renewal of All Things, available from Wipf&Stock and Amazon.com

I think you put into words what so many have struggled to communicate. LOVE IT

This reads to me like Baxter Kruger’s ‘The Great Dance’ or ‘God is for us’ or many of his other books. Such a refreshing, passionate,beautiful plan of real redemption.

I have been rereading Abba’s Child. Manning comes to the same conclusion. It is so freeing.

Pardon me, but this sounds an awful lot like Robert Schuller’s failed project of many years ago. By focusing on our judgment of ourselves (Schuller framed it in terms of self-esteem), it makes the problem entirely subjective. Any theology worth its salt will balance the objective realities and the subjective ones. And it will keep the focus on God while recognizing the importance of the human individual. This shifts the focus uncomfortably away from the Divine center of the story.

While I like what you have to say and believe that it adds to our understanding of the Atonement, I’d be more careful in tossing out hundreds of years of Christian understanding of the substitutionary death of Christ. Not to mention the OT sacrifial system pointing forward to the Atonement. Yes there are problems with the “legal” presentation of Christ’s death and that view alone does not tell the whole story. But I agree with the previous comment; the Atonement is about God acting unilaterally on our behalf.

I’m having difficulty, Jonathan, understanding how your proposal here is so much different from the other two ideas you find inadequate. A far more liberating idea for me is that human beings executed Jesus on the cross because he challenged systems of religious and civil power. God responded by raising Jesus from the dead. The message God sends us is that the divine is constantly working to bring about healing, new life, and reconciled relationships—no matter how far we humans go to preserve our own hold on power. The crucifixion is an example of humanity’s efforts to preserve power through subordination. The resurrection is God’s way of breaking through those human constructs to show us a new way to be and live, which we can emulate if we have the courage to try.

@David, the problem is very real. Otherwise we wouldn’t need the cross.

@Bob, I don’t throw out the ideas of ransom and substitution. I just reframe them in light of the where the problem is actually located.

I am with you, Stephanie. I’m not yet convinced that the theories put forward through 2000 years of reflection, when rightly understood, don’t say this already. But I’m still reading Jonathan’s book :)

Karl Barth said: The cross is God’s NO! to sin and his resounding YES! to all of creation.

@Stephanie, the previous two theories cast the problem outward on Satan and God. I’m suggesting the problem actually resides in humanity. What this does is create the need for religion and power.

I agree with you that Jesus confronted these because they were the basis for how humanity attempts to solve the problem. Jesus addresses it but it’s not the primary problem.

Jonathan,
There are ways, however, of viewing the theories that don’t case the problem on Satan or God, but on ourselves, as you suggest.

Have you read Athanasius’ “On the Incarnation”? On my blog I have an essay which summarizes the problem and the cure, as Athanasius sees it, and I think it resonates with what you are saying. You can find it here: http://chadholtz.net/?p=524

Professing them selves wise they became fools. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death. You are accountable to God for this convoluted effort to shape the “sparing not of His Son” into something that you “feel comfortable with” . You are preaching another Gospel! The offense of the cross is not in your message. Wow.

@Justpassing, Let me just say that I understand how you can say that.

@Chad, I don’t doubt there are others who have said what I am saying. Unfortunately most have not heard it presented that way. I will also be interested to see if you still see it that way after reading it.

@Chad, and let me be the first to say I am not trying to convince you. I am very comfortable with people not seeing it this way.

I believe that Jesus tells us the story of the Prodigal Son as his “fall, repentance, reunion” story – his retelling, perhaps, of that story in Genesis through a new lens. Note that a “curse” was not put onto the wayward son (nor other parts of creation), nor was there any “penalty” or “price” or “legal transaction” that needed to be paid for his reunion (well,maybe the fatted calf!).

It wasn’t until the church was wed with the Empire that stories of “original or ancestral sin nature” or “total depravity” crept in (of course, the Church was conveniently the solution). Prior to that most stories seemed to be more about “original blessing”. While “original sin” and a “fallen world” makes NO sense in the evolving world of which science informs us, original blessing does.

I just received your book, Jonathan, and look forward to reading it!

@ Jonathan: Yes, human sin wreaks havoc. But the issue (for me) with your argument is that you present the ultimate depiction of God’s love as a brutal act of violence. Contrastingly, I see the ultimate depiction of God’s love as the restoration of life where all hope seems to be lost.

Jeff, one of the central things that helped me begin to see the problem differently was our emerging understanding of neuroscience, especially in regard to how the brain processes judgment.

@Stephanie, I don’t see them as separate. The act of violence is part of the story. The important part for me is understanding why it was necessary to the story of redemption. Understanding its meaning allows us to see why it was necessary. But the violence, I would suggest, is our demand, not God’s.

Jonathan, great work. For me, you are shedding new light. Funny though how some people here are drawing such hard and fast conclusions based on a short summation of your theological journey.

One of the questions I am left with is what we do with some of the other primeval Genesis texts that portray God’s attitude toward humanity in a different light than “good.”

If the problem is us seeing ourselves and each other incorrectly (as not good), doesn’t so much of the biblical narrative, and even some of the words of Christ, seem to reinforce this judgment of not-good?

I really like “This is how far I will go to show you that my original judgment of you was true.”
The fact that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” IS the “at-one-ment!”

Priest, I can’t speak directly to what specifically you are referring to but I would suggest that God’s understanding of humanity’s evil is essentially a calling out of our own judgments. It is a recognition of how we see ourselves.

One of the argument I make is that if God’s original judgment of good can become evil, then the original judgment was never true. But if it can’t change, then the narrative of the cross is reiterating what was always true.

Jonathan – Do you believe Romans 5:12? Do you believe that “all have sinned.”? What are you going to do with the scriptures that clearly say “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.” Are you a universalist? and if not…how would YOU answer a seeker who said “What must i do to be saved?” I think that we need to cut to the chase and get down to “What saith the scriptures?” And if scripture is not your final word I hold up the words of our Lord who said “You do err, not knowing the scriptures…or the power of God.” Man’s problem is not a lack of knowledge…it is a depraved heart that is full of self and pride. When I read Galatians one and Paul’s indictment of “those who preach another gospel” I wonder if it makes you nervous.
I am not trying to be antagonistic with you…but what you are saying is high stakes and IS a matter of life of death.

@JustPassing, you’re making some significant assumptions about the content without reading it. I do specifically deal with, and on an extensive level, the nature and problem of sin.

Please answer my question. Do you believe that “there is none good…no not one.” as it states in Romans three? I did read your content carefully…that is why I asked you those questions.. Please answer my direct question to you. Thank you .

I believe that as human beings we can construct a reality that no one is good, especially in regard to the self, which comes out of an orientation of sin. This problem is universal. Everyone suffers from it because of the way our brains construct a judgment of reality.

But the problem is that this reality directly conflicts with God’s original declarations, which establish the reality of creation.

The passage you cite is:

There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away, they have together become worthless.

What Paul describes is an orientation that resides inside the human person, not the judgment of God.

Brian….you just are not intellectually honest. Why don’t you keep reading through verse 18? You also refuse to answer my questions because those reading this page will then clearly see that you are a man who does not believe in the Christ of the scriptures. You fashion a God of YOUR own design. An imaginary one. Thus you will have to settle for an imaginary salvation. Why are you afraid to just come out and say “I do not believe the Word of God”. You act as if you have some new understanding…like the world was just waiting for you to “see it.” Actually there are at least five people in church history that have tried to foist these same things upon their generation. I speak this directly to you because it is not an issue of lack of understanding on your part, or ignorance. It is a clear case of arrogant unbelief where you set your intellect up against the God Who says ” My thoughts are higher than yours…as much higher as the heavens are higher than the Earth.” You hide your clear contradictory view of scripture behind “good words and fair speech,” and you deceive the gullible. I have a loving suggestion for you. “Lean not on your own understanding” but take get serious about asking the Holy Spirit to show you the truth as God has given it. You act like you know the Word…but you do NOT. As it says in Isaiah.”If they speak not according to this Word…there is no light in them.” I just reread your first long writing above and am again amazed at the leaps from reason that you have taken…convoluted thinking based on wrong human supposition. The only way to go from that is into more darkness. I still urge you to clearly answer my questions that I have asked you in a clear way. Drive down your stake and have the moral courage to say what you mean CLEARLY and not in little circlets of thoughts.

Shades of Schuller who said that sin is merely “the failure of man to have a proper self image” . Grievous wolves…seeking to create a following. Clouds without rain.
Angels of “light” and ministers of “righteousness. Another gospel.

@Jonathan

I think Stephanie’s problem with your approach is that you seem to be arguing that the violence of the cross is necessary. Therefore, if one extends this logic, violence (even if it is sometimes) necessary and somehow determined to be the fate of humanity. In other words, the way I interpret your atonement theory is that it is similar to Renee Girard, that the violence of the cross was a necessity so that God could overcome the human propensity to violence. Girard is not without his blindspots. First, violence is first and foremost a moral choice, for those Christians who affirm free will. Second, to universalize the human experience is problematic, especially when it comes to interpreting our views of human sacrifice in light of violence/sacrifice in other cultures. The languages are different, therefore the meanings are difference. That’s my critique of Girard in a nutshell. The problem with the “violence within” approach is that the experience of the victim is overlooked.

So, as for the Ransom theory and Eastern Orthodoxy, it is almost a complete misinterpretation. First, EO never believed that violence was necessary. It is a moral choice (because we have free will). This is part of their view of the fall, which comes from human freedom and its interaction with nothingness. Jesus, through the cross and the resurrection frees humanity from the violence we commit against each other, as well as oppression and sin.The Incarnation, cross, and Resurrection together are one salvific event. In a sense, Salvation is found out there, because we can only find salvation in the Wholly Other (God) as well as in our response to others. Christianity is not just about my personal salvation or private mystical experience; it is about being assimilated into the image of Christ, the Human for Others (Bonhoeffer).

@Chad

Yes, Athanasius is awesome!

@Rod, I did not suggest that violence was necessary from God’s perspective. Only from our perspective. We killed Jesus.

@Jonathan,

My argument is against the notion that violence is necessary, even if it comes from “our demand.” That is my problem with Girard as well.

Rod, I would suggest that the act of the cross redeems violence by rendering it useless.

@Jonathan – what do you mean by “redeem violence”?

@Rod – His book, On the Incarnation, is one of my all time favorites. Love it. Nice blog, btw!

By redeeming I mean it renders it useless. It takes away its power. Perhaps there is a better word than redeem.

@Jonathan, I do not think that redemption means something like, rending something as useless. In the Hebrew Bible, redemption is God actually rescuing human bodies from violence (the resurrection).

@Chad, Thank you. You have a nice blog yourself I see.

What I am trying to say: God does not redeem acts of violence. God redeems human bodies who participate or who have befallen victim to violence.

@Rod, I’m actually not disagreeing with you. What I’m trying and failing to do is communicate a much larger argument against what you think I’m saying, and failing miserably to convey how much I’m actually agreeing with you.

But I will say this. We can’t ignore the story’s use of violence. I appreciate your concern with it and in finding a way to deal with it. I would just say that it took violence to satisfy our demands for how far love will go to redeem humanity. In other words, God redeems humanity in the face of the worst it can construe.

@ Jonathan – I am still hoping that you will answer my questions above.:-}

@JustPassing, like I said before I appreciate why you are saying what you are saying. It’s based on a set of assumptions.

I’ve answered your question twice and it was not good enough for you.

Much love.

Jonathan….
Respectfully I say to you that my words to you are not based on assumptions. They are based on the Word of God. It is YOUR words that are based on assumptions. And the disturbing thing is that you can’t see that. Make no mistake about it…my words are the words of the scripture that the church has held and bled for for years. Do you deny that also? It is your words that are a departure. Let’s get that straight. You are right….your response was not good enough for me, because you did NOT answer the questions of the scripture. Playing intellectually superior is not going to work. Perhaps some of the others who read this will be kind enough to chime in and tell you that you have AVOIDED the clear answers I asked you. Perhaps they see that I am not giving you assumptions….but scriptures. Apparently that is “not good enough for you” ...to use your words. If you have a blog at least have the integrity to be willing to follow to where you statements lead you. Do you …or do you NOT believe the Scriptures? Yes or no? You owe it to your readers who have been gracious to respond to your other musings.

@Justpassing,

I will try this one more time. You asked, “Do you …or do you NOT believe the Scriptures? Yes or no?”

Yes.

Since your answer is “yes” I am sure that you will then answer the OTHER questions I asked of you regarding those Scriptures you say that you believe.
“I will try this one more time” you say…yet you have only answered the very last question I sent you. You have not yet tried to answer ANY of the first ones. Your opening article that you invited us to “jump in on” is NOT in line with the Word that you claim to believe. You can’t have it both ways, friend. I was not trying to be volatile with you but felt that it was necessary to answer your condescending and evasive reply with a little more vigor to see if I could get a clear answer. But Alas…..not yet. Hey….if you don’t want to deal with this I will just pass through. I thought you were really inviting conversation. Don’t you want to base the conversation on Truth? Do we just sit around and all talk about our own assumptions based on what we think…or do we have God’s Word as the only sensible foundation?

@Justpassingthru Just wondering why you bother reading Emergent blogs if you disagree with so much that’s written. Surely you could find a better use of your time and energy. I was once very much the same and got my rocks off criticizing in the guise of what I thought were probing Scriptural questions. Unfortunately I didn’t want a conversation—I wanted to confront the person and prove I was right and they were wrong. The spirit in which I wrote these things was one of anger at my own fundamentalist upbringing and frustration at my own lack of understanding of who God was and what He was doing in our world—and with me. Can’t say it ever did any good to the people I harassed or me. Thankfully I serve a God whose grace and love look beyond my sense of self-rightness or self-importance. Maybe instead of ‘just passing through’ you could join the conversation, not to accuse or question motives (not your domain, my friend) but discussing reasonably, using this dialogue as a chance to learn, to build up others, and to grow in grace and understanding.

@ Jonathan Above in response to Rod you say, “I would just say that it took violence to satisfy our demands for how far love will go to redeem humanity. In other words, God redeems humanity in the face of the worst it can construe.”
For me, these statements still reflect a necessity of violence for the purpose of human redemption. I think “dealing with the violence” of the cross requires rejecting any vision that connects divine redemption with violence, even if that violence is enacted by humans rather than by God. Again, I see the redemption evidenced in the resurrection-not in the crucifixion. I feel like you continue to connect crucifixion with redemption. Is this representation fair and can you clarify? I don’t think this part of your argument is clear above. Thanks for continuing the dialogue!

We all debate these issues from our positions based on our particular take on what type of biblical narrative we inherited or may have bought into. perhaps a read of McLaren’s response to the questions: “What is the Overarching Story Line of the Bible” and “How Should the Bible Be Understood” in his book “A New Kind of Christianity” might help.

I believe we should make reponses rather than answers since answers simply cut out any further discussions but responses stimulate more conversations.

Let us continue our journeys / quests.

Thanks, Jonathan for the stimulation.

Stephanie, not to be self serving, and I tread a fine line here, much of what you are asking is not a two line answer. I make a very deep argument about both in the book.

The question I believe God is answering in the violence is how far can humanity go and still be called good. We can literally attempt to kill God himself and we are not define by it. The violence of the cross answers that, and renders it moot.

The resurrection reveals the end of the problem of death, which was the original concern in the tree.

I’m late to the party, but thanks for sharing, Jonathan. I’ve been asking for some time why a “theory” of atonement is necessary, when pragmatic reality seems so clear: humanity did with Christ what humanity does with anything pure – we are attracted to it, captivated by it, convicted by it, suspect it, we come to fear it, and then we kill it. We don’t need a theory of atonement when human nature’s modus operandi is so predictable (and poignant)?

I’ve only read Jonathan’s synopsis, so I won’t try to parse what I haven’t yet engaged. When I look at the Hebrew narratives, I notice that God usually engages the people on their terms – I watch the patriarchs: The 3 messengers join Abraham for breakfast! God (or another messenger) wrestles with Jacob like a man; God allows Moses to argue and whine, then aids him as best as possible – Ancient wisdom about how God always deals with us? Referencing the comment above about the NT Prodigal story, perhaps Jesus becomes that son, prodigal in both senses of the word, and we punish him for it rather than welcome him. God’s response is to renew a life in a new way, to say our violence/rejection is not the final word. (Early church writers called Easter the 8th day of creation). Thanks Jonathan and all for the discussion.

It’s so sad when Biblical literalists must totally disregard science in order to make the “Sin Problem” story that was concocted in Augustine’s time fit into today’s world. And they wonder why young adults leave the church? Check this out:
http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100718
That’s why a new kind of story is so important.

@ Jeff…you really are just inventing a new religion…not “Christianity” . Please don’t call it Christianity because what you are saying is truly foolish. Augustine did not come up with the “sin problem” . To say such betrays a total shallow grasp of the whole issue. You want to reinvent things to suit yourself and then to give you room to pursue your own way….and feel good about it because “nobody has the real answers”. Poor humanity must keep seeking..and maybe some “enlightened person” like me can help them. I have bee studying and reading all the things you say are the “old story” for more than forty years. I mean really studying…not just reading. As someone older than you…I say to you that you are making a very old and repeated mistake. I do not envy you.

And by the way….Science and the Bible are best friends…at least if one is a true intellectual and not just parroting others. Have you really bothered to study science and how it utterly undercuts most of what is being said by those clinging to the older and outmoded ideas of Darwin and crowd. Please do not try to make someone that believes the Word of God feel intellectually inferior with little curt comments based on parroted lines from others. Amazing.

Physics, Cosmology and biology has moved beyond Darwin, as have I. BTW, Interesting that you just assume you are older than me.

Assumption is well at home in this place. Are you over 60?

Welcome to the gospel. The cross as God’s act of performance art. Ferocious love indeed. That’s who God is, nothing else matters.

@justpassingthru I find it distressing that you are failing so signally at explaining your own position, assuming that if we just read Romans, we would understand it. What, precisely, is the Word of God which you profess, and that you wish so powerfully that Jon was confessing?

@Jonathan At the risk of being an Athenian on the Areopagus, it is an intriguing set of ideas. My natural question, though, is the what next question: if you are correct, how does that change how we live our lives? How we preach the Gospel? What changes, if you are right?

@Stephanie Can we have it both ways? Can redemption be connected both to the suffering of the cross, and to the resurrection? And could the suffering have been enacted without violence? For those of us with baggage on the subject of suffering, the image of Christ’s redemptive passion and resurrection can be equally important.

I am reading this and confused. . . Jonathon is sitting in contemplative thought and comes up with a new way of thinking. It is not a reflection of Scripture, but a reflection of what “he thinks.” It would be akin to me saying I have decided today that 2 + 2 = 5. What do the rest of you think?

Then we call for a “conversation.” So, others suggest that the “truth” is found in our personal speculations as we talk about Jonathon’s new thought about the equation and the sum of “5.”

Then someone comes on and offers the truth that it is “4.” It has always been “4” and that it is almost insanity to both suggest it is “5,” and at the same time truly think that this is something that needs to be discussed.

Others suggest those who know it is “4” are trying to “get [my]rocks off.” (As if the truth/lack-thereof lays in someone’s “mood”- good or bad.)

Can anyone truly see the insanity here? It would be like me suggesting today that I had a thought that Jesus may have really been a pink elephant. “Can we now discuss this?” If we do long enough- we may come up with the solution.

Folks- this is not even close to what the Scriptures give us as to the Personal Infinite God being there and that He has truly spoken. He is the reference point- not my feelings, mood, or opinion.

There is only one place for this type of “conversation” where we sit in speculation and autonomously decide what we “think” of what God has spoken. It is called the Garden of Genesis 3. We are clearly warned of such things. (cf. 1 Tim 4)

As another poster clearly stated- just realize this is NOT Christianity. Anything deviating from the truth (HE “is” the beginning and final Premise of that which is true.) is evil and therefore ought not be loved.

Love is always based in what is true. Truth is based in the very nature of God. You all may “feel” this type of “conversation” is loving, but this is a deception.

Oh Father- set these dear people free of a delusion that has captured their young minds and suggested that they can not know that which is true; You- the Personal and Living One. Thank you you have spoken. I personally would be in the grave of suicide and insanity if it had not been for your love of communicating to us. Show them their peril and only hope. Amen

Daniel, I wonder how ANYONE can read the Bible and NOT reflect or “think” about its meaning? Do you mean to tell me that in reading the Bible over several years you NEVER discover/uncover a new insight from it? That, to me, would be a “dead” book, and NOT the Living, Breathing Logos we claim it to be.

For those truly interested in “listening” (if you catch my drift), here is a link to an interview with Jonathan Brink and The Whiskey Preacher on Jonathan’s new book:
http://whiskeypreacher.com/?p=104

@justpassingthrough (Why not truly join enter conversation with a first name, at least?)

I’m personally big on the text and what we find in God’s story. As a friend of mine sings, “Why tear out one page, when you can throw away the book?” While I know men have touched “God’s Word”, I trust in God more than men that He would allow something that’s been written down by mere men to actually hold up for so many thousands of years. So with that said, as one who does believe the Scriptures, I do not see a problem with Jonathan’s word. In fact, I choked up with tears in my eyes when I read his illustration:
“The cross was God lifting his arms to the world and saying, ‘This is how far I will go to show you that my original judgment of you was true.’ For the first time the Gospel could be framed as a ferocious love. God’s justice was found in the act of mercy.”

I’m just wondering where you think Mr. Brink is in error over his article. After reading your comment to defer him to Romans 5 and that we are all sinners (something I do agree with), the only thing I can perceive from the article is an objection to his perspective that in God’s view, we are good.

To this, I defer you to Genesis 1, something I’m sure we have all read:
v27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
v28: “God blessed them…”
v31: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”

We were born from a Good God, who blessed us right from the beginning. Before there was any curse. Before there was any sin and before death. (For those seeing the reference to John MacArthur commented above, I’m just sticking to the order it plays out in God’s story and not opening up the can of creationism-versus-this/that.)

If we can boast that we are created in God’s image, then in embracing that image, we should also boast that there is a goodness about our lives that Jesus came to restore. He is constantly beckoning us to become the best version of ourselves in our relationship with Him, the version He intended for us at the beginning of time (and realizing our own worth and goodness He spoke over us in Genesis 1 means we must first believe that God is inherently good).

Jonathan said:
“Salvation was no longer release from something out there, but from something within.”

For me, this means I’m that new creation Paul wrote about in 2 Corinthians 5:17, renewed from the inside out. And part of that means I start to see myself with His eyes, where He says “I love you. When I see you, I don’t see your sin nature anymore, but I see Christ in you, the hope of glory. I see you as a new creation because you are in Christ. When I see you, I see my Son. You don’t have to live from the place of guilt or shame or fear because I’m calling your personality to align with My persona of you, one rooted in love, in My goodness.”

Father God called out the goodness when He created male and female. Jesus lived, died and resurrected to begin the restoration of that goodness. The Spirit was left for us so we could carry the same Spirit of resurrection within us to see our goodness and live from this place at all times, as images of the invisible, Good God.

@Jonathan Brink
Thanks for this today and providing a context for me to meet Jesus while sitting here in Coffee Bean. Ha. It reminds me that Love is a person. And the Way means it’s found in a person. Truth is a person. Life is a person. A person that wants to meet us whether it be on a lake or in a coffee shop, a supermarket row or the streets of Skid Row.

I thought this blog was a conversation about a reflection Jonathon saw in a mirror in Tahoe! Not a reflection of Scripture.

Of course we meditate and study the Word of God. That is the final reference point. The Scriptures lead us into a transcendent AND coherent reality of the Living Christ (cf. Luke 24) Just because I, or Jonathon does not like how a particular conclusion “feels” does/does-not change the reality.

If someone today suggests to me that Jesus is a pink elephant, there is no reflection needed. It is non-sense.

The things Jonathon has suggested comes from an epistemology (way of knowing) where he has placed himself as the reference point. The only way you can come to this type of epistemology is to begin your first premise with “man” (in other words “No God”). The Personal Infinite God is the reference point. He has spoken. He has CLEARLY communicated.

This epistemology that many of you are playing with is atheistic- it is evil from its inception. You think it sounds nice and fair. You should NOT be listening. It is the wrong voice- according to the very Scriptures that you say you reflect upon!

Apparently some think you begin with Jonathon’s premise then we collectively come together in this “conversation” to make everyone feel good by affirming Jonathon’s premise. Apparently, this collective affirmation makes it true- or even plausibly true.

But that entire approach reveals the non-sense. 1) God has already spoken on this matter- there is no conversation needed other than how will we surrender to His Revelation. 2) I am still confused as this idea of a “conversation” apparently means we all accept Jonathon’s premise and use it as a spring board to more apparent revelation. The problem- his premise is wrong!

If you start with the wrong premise you end up in the wrong place!

So- will many of you challenge Jonathon’s premise as wrong. Maybe we should all go to Tahoe and look in that same mirror- maybe then we would arrive at the same conclusion??

People- God has already spoken. 2 + 2 = 4. Jesus was not a pink elephant. I do not look that good in a mirror. This is a frightening discussion and belief system that will lead to Nihilism- also known as insanity! Ask Nietzsche!!

My part of the conversation is simply to say that you are “listening” to a wicked voice. How do I know that? Because I “feel” it? Sense it? “NO” Because it is contradicts the very Word of God. He is there, He is the beginning point, He has spoken, we are not left to our own faulty reason or passions. God is there!

@Stephanie Wyatt

Was violence necessary? Maybe Jesus could have died of old age or cancer or a carpentry accident? Hmm. Makes me wonder.

I say all that with utmost sincerity because I believe He still would have been raised from the dead which was the point of all this. Fruit was taken from the tree by the First Adam which brought death and forbade us access to the tree of life. Jesus was put back onto a tree as the Second Adam, in death, so that He could become the life of all mankind. It’s a Great Reversal, in particular when you study it through a Jewish lens. So while I entertain the idea that maybe violence wasn’t necessary, it doesn’t change that God gave Israel the prophetic picture of what was to come, that ”...he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5).

Maybe it just means that God knows us better than we know our true selves. It could very well be that resurrection over death was the only perquisite for salvation to come, and yet the Father knew humanity in it’s religion and power and need for control, wouldn’t be able to handle a man preaching a God of healing, freedom, life and love so much so it would result in a violent death.

I am not a father, though I don’t think the Father above all fathers would wish violence on His son. Maybe He just knew it was inevitable. And that’s interesting in light of what we tend to do ourselves, one another, our families, to our societies and even our own planet—that we have this horrible habit of killing many things. Maybe He knows without Him, it is inevitable. It could just be that God is “receiving Jesus” until the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:19-21), a forward movement and active process He is waiting for us to finally perceive and live out as bearers of life, not death, founded upon love and Love Himself.

@Joel,

Your comment #59 was excellent. Very well said.

I read this blog a couple of days ago but had no time to respond. In the intervening time I have given thought to what Jonathon Brink says and for me it resonates. We were made for Eden. We long to return there. The Cross restores us to a relationship with God where we can walk with him naked and unashamed.
And before anyone makes more assumtions about age etc…I am over 50, have been actively involved in churches since birth and am currently studying for a Bachelor of Theology degree.
There is never any harm in discussing ideas even if in the end we leave with our current beliefs in tact. Confronting ideas that are different to our own opens us up to possibilities that can strengthen our faith. It is important that we allow real “conversation” to take place – the to and fro of thoughts, ideas and opinions.
I do not ever want to get to a point in my life where I am sure I have all the answers – God is much bigger than that and He has so much more to show me, more than I can understand now, or perhaps ever will….but the journey is great!

Thanks Bronwyn, I make a point in my book of saying this is a possibility to consider. Much of this book is my approach to the Gospel but I don’t expect everyone to just jump on board with my conclusions. I expect the pushback of critical thought. I expect well-meaning people like Passingthrough to immediately dismiss my arguments without reading any of it. Why? Because the Gospel matters. It’s important. I wouldn’t have written this book if I didn’t believe that.

What is interesting is that I don’t actually place my faith in my own reasoning or belief but in the person of Jesus who died on the cross for me. I trust him for my salvation. So if I’m wrong, I’m sure Jesus will let me know.

Thanks, Jonathan, for your stimulating thoughts. As a former pastor, and now teacher of seminarians and pastors (biblical theology, spiritual formation, practical theology),I appreciate your attempts to grapple constructively with the ambiguities and tensions within Scripture on the subject of how Jesus is our Savior. Thanks for offering an alternative view that can help all of us to think through better our own beliefs.

Your psychological approach deserves conversation, in my opinion, because it affirms the inherent goodness in creation and the value of sinners to God. No matter how “biblical” the traditional interpretations of the atonement may be, many Christian sub-cultures have tended to interpret the teaching on human sinfulness in ways that often leave people full of shame and without a sense of their preciousness in the eyes of God.

The core of the incarnation,crucifixion, resurrection story, in my opinion, is that God took initiative to reveal God-self to humanity in Jesus, to demonstrate the extent of God’s love (by dying for us), and to offer the hope of resurrection to everyone who look to Jesus as their savior. “How” Jesus saves, however, is beyond our ability to fully grasp, in spite of (or because) the various teachings found in the Bible. The ransom and penal-substitutionary doctrines offer ways to understand the significance of his death and resurrection that made sense to first century believers (i.e., we are not hopelessly trapped by Satan’s power, and Jesus’ death can be understood within the ancient Jewish sacrificial system). Thus they have psychological and cognitive benefit for those concerned about the power of evil in their lives, and for those who saw a connection between Jesus’ death and the teaching that without “the shedding of blood” there is no forgiveness of sin. But we should not think for a minute that these various explanations exhaust all the ways that Jesus saves believers. Nor do they exclude other notions of how one might construe the atonement that yield the same intended psychological effects, namely that we can know that God loves us as sinners, has freed us from the power and consequence of sin, and that through faith we have begun a new life in relationship with God that cannot be destroyed by death.

I am not threatened or offended by your ideas. I welcome them. However, I would like to see more accounting for the numerous biblical texts that portray sin as an offense to God and worthy of judgment; less of an existential, psychological definition of sin that seems irrelevant if someone doesn’t feel guilty or less than good. Also please address why, if we are to accept Scripture’s testimony that human creation is good, we should not also accept Scripture’s testimony that we are simultaneously sinners (objectively, not just subjectively, so). Thank you again for your heartfelt and thoughtful conversation starter.

Jon: awesome stuff man. i think that is the dichotomy of post-modernism, a way to deconstruct which is healthy yet the only thing it lacks is the reconstruction. and i think there needs to be a safe space to reconstruct. in your opinion how does someone/community determine how to do that?

What a blessed challenge! How unanswerable it is! Every sin of the elect was laid upon the great Champion of our salvation, and by the atonement carried away. There is no sin in God’s book against his people: he seeth no sin in Jacob, neither iniquity in Israel; they are justified in Christ forever. When the guilt of sin was taken away, the punishment of sin was removed. For the Christian there is no stroke from God’s angry hand—nay, not so much as a single frown of punitive justice. The believer may be chastised by his Father, but God the Judge has nothing to say to the Christian, except “I have absolved thee: thou art acquitted.” For the Christian there is no penal death in this world, much less any second death. He is completely freed from all the punishment as well as the guilt of sin, and the power of sin is removed too. It may stand in our way, and agitate us with perpetual warfare; but sin is a conquered foe to every soul in union with Jesus. There is no sin which a Christian cannot overcome if he will only rely upon his God to do it. They who wear the white robe in heaven overcame through the blood of the Lamb, and we may do the same. No lust is too mighty, no besetting sin too strongly entrenched; we can overcome through the power of Christ. Do believe it, Christian, that thy sin is a condemned thing. It may kick and struggle, but it is doomed to die. God has written condemnation across its brow. Christ has crucified it, “nailing it to his cross.” Go now and mortify it, and the Lord help you to live to his praise, for sin with all its guilt, shame, and fear, is gone.

“Here’s pardon for transgressions past,
It matters not how black their cast;
And, O my soul, with wonder view,
For sins to come- here’s pardon too.”

Jesus of the Left

Just to reiterate what others have said here: the Ransom theory of the atonement is NOT the Eastern Orthodox theory of the atonement. Ransom imagery permeates Orthodox hymnography, but to interpret these hymns literally is to do them a disservice. Ransom theory is at its best in acknowledging how our sinful choices enslave us to sin and subject us to its power. Thus we often talk about how Christ frees us from our captivity to sin and death. In this ransom theory is useful because it is therapeutic, we all find ourselves enslaved to forces beyond our control in the struggle for holiness and Christ promises to help those who call out to him.

Athanasius gives what amounts to “the” Eastern Orthodox view of the atonement, and it is called the Recapitulation theory of the atonement. Of course, for this theory to be understood we must think ontologically rather than simply economically, which is why this theory is not as accessible as ransom and penal-substitutionary theories even if it is more technically correct.

I think that Jonathan is on the right track here. I said similar things to what he has said during my own stint within the emerging context (the image of the mirror was also central to the theory of the atonement that I articulated as an M.Div student at Mars Hill Graduate School). I have now converted to Orthodoxy and have found Christ’s words to be true, his yoke is easy and his burden is light. It is a great blessing to have access to the theological resources that Orthodoxy has preserved and to not have to reinvent everything from scratch based on my own intuitions and reflections on Scripture. Now that I am Orthodox I can truly say that we are not saved alone because the Fathers and Mothers of the Church support us every step of the way, both through their teachings which have been handed down and through the prayers that even now they offer to God on our behalf.

No one should make any statements about what the Orthodox view is of atonement without taking a close look at what Orthodox Christians themselves say about the atonement. Met. Kallistos Ware has spoken on this topic – I had the pleasure of hearing him live at Seattle Pacific University – and he says that Athanasius’ Recapitulation theory of atonement is the most correct (although he also says that atonement theories are like a buffet and that we should have more of them rather than less). The lecture itself can be viewed here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826#

Also, Fr. James Bernstein has an extended discussion of the Orthodox view of the Fall, the Atonement, and Eschatology (vis-a-vis Catholic and Protestant views) in his book Surprised By Christ: My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity. The book is a theological autobiography which is a genre that I know many people here appreciate. Fr. James’ discussion of these issues alone shows that the Eastern Orthodox view of the atonement is not the ransom theory since he cites a critique of it by St. Gregory (Nazianzus) the Theologian, one of the Cappadocian fathers and recognized by all Orthodox Christians as one of the three holy hierarchs. St Gregory says, “It is an outrage if the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and as such an illustrious payment for his tyranny” (Suprised by Christ 233). The book is an excellent introduction to all things Orthodox and is especially palatable to those in emerging circles since it focuses on Fr. James’ journey to Orthodoxy and the discoveries that he makes along the way. I highly recommend it.

Todd,
Great comment.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on my essay about Athanasius’ book, On the Incarnation. I link to it in comment #11.

peace.

@Charles Spurgeon/Liberal Jesus,
Your comment is WAY too indirect and esoteric. What are you actually trying to say? Wait, don’t answer quite yet, I’m still turning my head slightly to the side, winking, and chuckling with wry irony and self-satisfied wit. It’s fun to be subtle.

While I don’t agree with “Spurgeon” above, I have to say that I find Peter’s comment off-putting. The vehemence of attacking/refuting/mocking/deriding commenters seems inappropriate and mismatched to the broader ethos of the Emergent conversation as I have understood it.

Excuse me as I wink and chuckle with wry irony and self-satisfied wit. :)

(for those who don’t get it, see Peter’s comment to me on George’s ‘unstudying God’ article)

Heh heh. All right, all right Chad. I thought passive-aggression would be better, but you’ve got me.

This is the God who is willing to lay down in traffic in order to save our lives. And we, his followers, are willing to do the same for God’s people, even those who don’t see themselves that way… at least not yet.

What the world needs now is a non-violent understanding of atonement. Isn’t it strange that we can say so many things boldly with our theology, but the best we can come up with regarding atonement is a theory?

Peace out.

Referencing the comment above: “The vehemence of attacking/refuting/mocking/deriding commenters seems inappropriate and mismatched to the broader ethos of the Emergent conversation as I have understood it.”

I, too, have been away for a few days, and I am appalled by the blindness & arrogance of some of the replies…this isn’t a conversation, but gives way to diatribe…after 32 years of pastoring, teaching, study and prayer, if this is where the “emerging”church is headed, then I need not participate…common courtesy gets lost so often in emails and blogs anyway…don’t attack, listen!

Some of you are the type to bludgeon folks with your Bible and theology, which btw I seldom see Jesus do – he addresses behavior and evokes thinking rather than provoking a fight. Grow up and find the Gospel that gives life rather than stifles it.

“The traditional way of seeing the story in the Gospel just didn’t work anymore. “I completely agree with that.

Forgiveness means that someone bears the cost of a misdeed instead of making the person that committed the wrong bear it. God wanted to forgive us rather than punish us for our sin. God became human and offered his own blood in love so that one day he will destroy evil without destroying us, his followers.

Unfortunately, many emergents say the Cross is simply God showing sacrificial love to us. This is incorrect. God had to die in order to forgive us. There was a debt to be paid, and God paid it himself. This is how forgiveness works. And God showed us the ultimate forgiveness.

How could God be a God of love if he does no become personally involved in suffering as we suffer? He can’t. And He does, because Jesus suffered with us. He exchanged places with us. Jesus had to die the way he did. Did he want to? Of course not. He wanted another way. There wasn’t one. ‘Why?’ Jesus cried. For us.

@ Tim: I think that the scriptures around the offense of sin to God could be seen using a social constructionist analysis as people’s construction of how they imagine sin affects God. Wrath for example is often understood now not as God getting irate, but as the felt effect of separation and isolation. So, rather than God being angry, as with the prodigal son example, we can see the Father waiting at the gate, longing for his son to turn towards home. So Jesus’ unswerving dedication to compassion destines him to receive the effects of the machinations of power. This insertion of perfect compassion into human experience confronts the ideas of God’s or our own isolation and brings the loving leadership of God right up close and personal – the Kingdom come near. At least, that’s how it impacts me!

@Jonathan Very interesting blog. Have you ever done a study on “the blood” through the Bible beginning at its first mention (Gen 3:21)? Please excuse me if you’ve mentioned this in your book as I’ve not read it.

Re: Comment #80…If you have studied it out, I’m curious as to what your conclusions were. Thank you!

Wow, I have not done a study on “the blood”. Please share.

I wanted to bring light to a post by Ed Stetzer that caught my attention.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Future-Trends-in-Evangelicalism.html

Ed explores the tension between emergence and the New Reformed but he states, “While they had plenty of differences between them, one thing they shared in common was this: they were both seeking a better gospel. The emerging church wanted a broader gospel (more holistic) while the new Reformed movement wanted a bloodier gospel (more cross-centered). The successful post-2010 church will have worked through the confusion and set a stake in the ground for a more robust, biblically discerning gospel.”

This is exactly what I was trying to accomplish with my book.

First, I want to say that the question I had regarding “the blood” was derived from the (informative) discussion mainly between you and Stephanie about the violence of the cross and the issue of its necessity.

Second, a “blood” study contains WAY too much info to be addressed on a blog, so I will try to share in summary.

A study of the blood in redemption would lead one back to the garden where God Himself declared how he felt about sin, which was hatred. The result of that hatred was violence in Gen 3:21 where some poor animal’s blood had to be shed in the place Adam and Eve’s blood (doctrine of substitution). Subsequent scriptures throughout the OT deal with the violent death of lambs/bulls/goats to get to the blood that God required for the covering of offense until The Lamb would come and remove offense once and for all through the shedding of HIS blood. From the beginning, God has shown the necessity for a price (wages) to be paid (redemption) for sin (perverting His judgment) and that price is blood, which necessitates a violent death.

I also wanted to comment on a few of your statements. (Please keep in mind I haven’t read your book):

Your statement: The key phrase in the story was, “And they realized they were naked.” Naked was always true but their judgment of it had changed.

I think this addresses the result of the offense and not the offense itself. Their judgment changed—true. But it changed because they allowed a perverted judgment (the serpent’s voice) to pervert their own (Gen 3:6). The offense lies, and always will lie, in the perversion of the judgment of God (who is perfect), and therefore, is sin. The price of sin is death because life is in the blood. (Lev 17:11; Rom 6:23)
When sin is dealt with through the blood, it leads us back to a relationship with God that was in the beginning, represented by your statement: “Salvation was no longer release from something out there, but from something within. Redemption was about me trading in my false judgment for God’s.”

Your statement: The cross was not God sending his Son to satisfy the demands of Satan, or to appease his own sense of justice.

From studying the blood, I believe the cross WAS satisfying God’s perfect judgment represented in the beginning. A violent death as the price for sin was satisfied.

Your statement: The cross was God lifting his arms to the world and saying, “This is how far I will go to show you that my original judgment of you was true.”

I believe the following is a more true statement: “This is how far I will go to show you that my judgment is true—period”.

Your statement: The problem wasn’t with God. The problem was in me. I need evidence to the contrary. I needed evidence that would release me from my own captive judgments. I needed someone to take my place in my own retributive form of justice, one that could only see guilt.

Great statement! I agree that Jesus was that someone. (II Corinthians 5: 19)

Your statement: For the first time the Gospel could be framed as a ferocious love. God’s justice was found in the act of mercy.

I couldn’t have said it better myself! God is Love and Judge. Those two characteristics were reconciled in mercy. The payment of death was required and He substituted man’s death with The Lamb’s death. How awesome is that?! Ferocious love, indeed!

What are your thoughts?

@Wow – Honestly I can tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing.

@Jonathan – I assuming that you are talking about if I agree or disagree with the violence of the cross. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)

The answer is both. From studying the blood, I agree that the violence of the cross was necessary. From the same study, I disagree that it was man’s demand. I believe it was God’s demand.

What are your thoughts on that and the other comments I made in #84?

“Ordet” is a wood polychromed 3-D piece by the Swedish artist Torsten Renquist. There is a photo of it in The Life of Jesus by Frederick Buechner. I see this piece about the crucifixion as God’s self-emptying and taking the pain of divine love into God’s self. There is no punishment/penal or ransom at work here. “This is how far love goes” is what a surprised but calm God reads in God’s palm while a nail pierces the other palm “out in the world.” Here Creator and Son are truly one in expression of the divine will. Also helpful is Daniel M. Bell, Jr’s “God Does Not Demand Blood” in the collection of essays “God Does Not …” Ultimately our redemption is a mystery, but it is important to attend to the implications of our imagery and what it says about God

@Len I can only repeat what God has said about those topics from His word, which, I’m sure you will agree, is the only true viewpoint.

What conclusions do you draw when you read His word about:

The Cross
The Sovereignty of God
The Blood
Redemption

I ask about the sovereignty of God, because for Him to be surprised would indicate that He is not in control of everything, therefore, removing ALL sovereignty from Him.

Thanks!

@Wow, it’s okay that we disagree on where the demand is coming from. It won’t be the first time I’ve disagreed with someone about theology. ;-P

Of course it is! And from reading the other comments, I can see you’re NO stranger to theological disagreement! :0)

I do encourage you to study out the blood through the Bible. I think you would find it very interesting and enlightening. My humble advise with studying the blood would be to study ONLY the Bible the first time through. Ask the Lord to reveal to you by His Spirit exactly what He means, so you can have a true view of the blood. Then add commentaries or other studies to the knowledge the Lord gives to you about it.

Happy studying and I’ll be praying for and with you! Have a good day!

(excerpted from RECLAIMING CHURCH by Doug Sloan)

http://dmergent.org/2010/06/03/reclaiming-church/

How many of us have seen or participated in placing a hand on the wall of the sanctuary and then saying, “This is not the church.” With this act, we are trying to illustrate that it is the people of our faith community who are the church and not the building. Do we have any idea what we just said? If the building is not the church, why do we spend so much time and effort dealing with it? If the building is not the church, why is it so important to us? After we have said, “This is not the church,” have we ever taken a far look in the direction we just pointed? What happens when we extend that thought?

What do capital campaigns and 6- or 7- or 8-digit mortgages (or any mortgage amount) and sanctuaries with high vaulted ceilings and proper acoustic resonance and stained glass windows and basketball courts and dining halls and sculpted altars and carved pulpits and custom-built communion tables and decorative carpet and imported floor tiles and plentiful paved parking lots and meticulously manicured gardens have to do with living and sharing the Good News? – Nothing.

What do fund raisers and all the accompanying effort and bother and time and finding and organizing the required workers have to do with living and sharing the Good News? – Nothing.

What do praise bands and church orchestras and bell choirs and octaves of tuned bells and multi-rank pipe organs and grand pianos and synthesizers and adult choirs and children choirs and choir auditions and choir robes and music folders and the search and review and selection analysis and purchase of new music and multi-line PA systems and multi-screen video systems and live broadcasts and recorded broadcasts and hours of rehearsal time and church bulletins and church bulletin art work and church bulletin paper and designer fonts and newsletters and mailing lists and advertising and advertising placement and multi-media web sites and visits by unique IP addresses and the use of and the presence on new media have to do with living and sharing the Good News? – Nothing.

What do membership drives and attendance numbers and baptism numbers and tithing and bequeaths and endowments and liturgical employees and non-liturgical employees and salaries and benefits and committees and committee meetings and church boards and church board meetings and the consequential and unavoidable church politics have to do with living and sharing the Good News? – Nothing.

Much of what we call successful Christianity and successful worship and successful congregations has nothing to do with living and sharing the Good News.

Once we begin to think of our faith in terms of largeness instead of largess or in terms of measurable success or significant achievements or community stature or statistically significant gains or business models or congregational models or appropriate budget processes or cash flow direction or generally accepted accounting practices or independent audits or administrative requirements or managerial transparency or proper leadership roles and boundaries or membership trends or effective organizational structures or a current and accurate vision statement – at that point, we have become the money changers – we have lost our faith and deserve to be driven away for we are neither living nor sharing the Good News.

What would happen if the church universal – every congregational property, every regional office, every national office, every seminary, every camp – was sold and the net proceeds were used to establish a trust fund endowment to support nutritional, medical, legal, and educational services for the poor, the lost, and the hurt?

When you want a new status quo – a status quo different than the current status quo – you are asking for revolution. When you desire radical transformation – you are asking for revolution. When you are tired of capital campaigns for more structural imagery; nauseated by controversy over who is fit to be a church member, deacon, or elder; repulsed by the aggregation and protection of authority that defines narrow rigid paths to ordination; grievously hurt by the abandonment and refusal to acknowledge congregations who dare to be excited by their proclaiming and living the Good News; or sick of choosing better organization over better outreach – you are asking for revolution.

“Doing” has to be the new definition of faith. A “new definition” will not be statements of purpose/mission/vision or political participation or public stances on issues or styles of worship. It will be specific activities; specific ways of living that are the new definition. Participating in CODA or LifeLine or Habitat for Humanity will not be an outreach activity; it will be what we do and definitive of who we are. Supporting a free clinic or a food pantry or a shelter for the homeless will not be the focus of an annual fund-raising event; it will be part of our continuously active and visible theological and spiritual DNA. Worship will not be every Sunday morning – it will be whenever and wherever 2 or 3 (not 200 or 300, not 2,000 or 3,000, not 20,000 or 30,000) are gathered to live, study, and contemplate the Good News. Indeed, “doing” will be about living and being the Good News, not scheduling it as a repetitive activity on our digital calendar on the same day at the same time that always occurs at the same location and always follows the same sequence. “Doing” our faith does not require capital campaigns; local, regional, or national governing boards; seminaries; or licensing/ordination policies.

“Doing” our faith has to be seen as a radical, counter-cultural, defiant way of living. By its very nature, our faith is not supposed to be institutionalized and not measured by largeness, cultural pervasiveness, or authoritarianism. Our faith is supposed to be personal and divinely humane. Our faithful doing is to be delivered person-to-person, face-to-face, one-to-one – not by an invisible faceless remote committee or collective. “Doing” our faith can be accomplished only with more personal involvement and not with more technology that is better, more pervasive, more invasive, and increasingly remote and detached.

Congregations should be small groups meeting for worship in the homes of different members. Just imagine: Church with no offerings, no church governing boards and no board meetings, no committees and no committee meetings, no rehearsals, no fund raisers, no capital campaigns, no finances, no buildings, no property, no maintenance or repairs or replacements, no employees, no membership drives. Just imagine: Church as only worship, only studying, only witnessing in word and service to each other and the world.

Yes the problem lies with us. We were under Satan’s dominion, by God’s plan. And we were under God’s wrath. A d we were rescued from both. Sez so right in Scripture.

(RECLAIMING GOD by Doug Sloan)
http://dmergent.org/2010/07/15/reclaiming-god/

God has never been, at any time for any reason, a capricious God of death, war, destruction, murder, violence, oppression, retribution, vengeance, hate, or conditional acceptance.

God has always been a consistent God of life, peace, creation, healing, reconciliation, liberation, resurrection, transformation, love, and grace.

God has always been the same. God does not change. What is changing is our expanding view of God and the increasing wisdom of our understanding of God and the Godly life we are called to live. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, through the entire course of the Biblical scripture, God is calling us from within the scripture to grow and to continually move forward and to mature beyond the view and wisdom found in the scripture. From mere existence through tribal justice through the detailed code of the Law of Moses through the revelation by Jesus of the dual foundation and purpose and expectation of the Law through the invitation to live a new life of resurrection and transformation with God as the only ruler of our new life. God is continuously calling us to grow and to move forward and to mature beyond our usual human existence to be the Kingdom of God. Without the requirement of death as a precedent, we are constantly invited to be resurrected for and transformed into the Kingdom of God for our life and especially the lives of others. We are called to live here and now a life of resurrection and transformation as the Kingdom of God – this is the Good News.

The “will of God” – what God wants for us – has always been for us to:

* Be Free and Independent

* Think

* Be Curious

* Be Intelligent and Wise

* Value Knowledge over Ignorance and Compassion over Knowledge

* Be Creative

* Grow and Mature

* Live Long Healthy Satisfying Lives

* Live Non-Violently Without Vengeance

* Be Hospitable

* Be Generous

* Do No Harm

* Heal and Reconcile and Rehabilitate

* Be Good Stewards of all Resources

* Live Here as One Family

* Live in Loving Relationship with God

* Be Transformed through Resurrection

* Be the Kingdom of God

God is love and grace. These are the two most important characteristics of God that define who God is and who God always has been and who God always will be. God is timeless. More precisely, God is beyond time, beyond the constraints and confines and control and currents of time. God is not bound by the events or expectations or dimensions or constructs of this universe. In the same way that God is beyond time, God exceeds the bounds and bonds of this universe while being constantly present and immediately accessible in the universe. Even so, God has bounds. God is bound by love and grace; – God is bound by the conditions imposed by the act of creation by a God of love and grace; – and God is bound by the conditions imposed by a God of love and grace being in relationship with creation.

“But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”
(NRSV Romans 11:6)

“Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.”
(NRSV Galatians 2:16)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God – not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”
(NRSV Ephesians 2:8-9)

“Just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies. Don’t ever assume that my using something means I caused it or that I needed it to accomplish my purposes. That will only lead you to false notions about me. Grace doesn’t depend on suffering to exist, but where there is suffering you will find grace in many facets and colors.”
(“The Shack”, William P. Young, pp. 187-188)

Grace is not awarded for the satisfactory completion of a spiritual check list – and grace is not earned for works or acts – and grace is not part of a quid pro quo arrangement or relationship – and grace is not a stipulation of a contract or covenant – and grace is not right thinking or thinking right or thinking good thoughts or having the right beliefs – and grace is not about rewards and punishments – and grace is not about later. Grace is not about heaven or a post-mortal existence or guaranteeing a future occurrence because grace is not about having an after-life insurance policy or hedging our spiritual bets. We live in, we exist in and have always existed in (not “by”, not “because”, not “alongside”, not “under”) in the grace of God. Grace is now – constantly present and immediately accessible. Grace is always freely available and freely supplied and supplied freely unconditionally and abundantly without exceptions and without restrictions and without qualifications. Grace and conditions are mutually exclusive, even oppositional. A faith full of grace has no conditions – meaning no qualifications and no requirements and, consequently, no exclusions and no differentiation. A faith with any condition or any qualification or any requirement or any exclusion or any differentiation has no grace. God requires nothing of us – this is grace.

God accepts whatever we bring to the God/person relationship – our physical and spiritual condition, personality, connection to reality, our participation in relationships, talents, inabilities, cognition, knowledge, ignorance, life journey, spiritual journey, walk about, wandering, seeking, questioning, questing, acceptance of God, rejection of God – and our emotional and mental status: hate/love, anger/peace, sadness/happiness, hurt/health, feeling lost and abandoned/feeling found and included, agitation/serenity, apathy/passion, confusion/clarity, fractures/wholeness – all of this, all of whoever we are and have ever been and every action committed or ever contemplated and every thought we ever explored or entertained or that flitted through our mind – all of this, we bring to the God/person relationship and God accepts the totality of who we are and every component that comprises who we are – as a gift. The constant inviting presence of God and this unconditional acceptance of us in our entirety as a gift – this is love.

Because of the way God is defined and bound by love and grace, God has never required and never recognized and never accepted any sacrifice by anyone for anything. The love and grace of God requires neither a sacrificial tortuous execution nor a death-defying miracle to prove or perversely demonstrate its existence and worth and validity – God is not an abusive parent. Through the constant presence of God, we are constantly invited by God to have an intimate loving relationship with God. We have a constant opportunity with God to accept and acknowledge the love and grace of God and to live a life imbued with and guided by the love and grace of God. Each of us has something to offer to God and God has only good – unrestrained love and unconditional grace – to constantly offer to each of us.

@Doug A couple of questions:

1) Your quote: “Without the requirement of death as a precedent, we are constantly invited to be resurrected for and transformed into the Kingdom of God for our life and especially the lives of others. We are called to live here and now a life of resurrection and transformation as the Kingdom of God – this is the Good News.”

My question: How are we resurrected (Romans 6) if there is no death involved and what scripture do you reference for that thought?

2) Your quote: “Because of the way God is defined and bound by love and grace, God has never required and never recognized and never accepted any sacrifice by anyone for anything.”

My question: There are so many scriptures that are directly opposed to this thought. What scripture do you have to support this? Please explain.

3) Your quote: “God is calling us from within the scripture to grow and to continually move forward and to mature beyond the view and wisdom found in the scripture.”

My question: If God is His Word (John 1:1), and His thoughts and ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9), how do we mature beyond the views and wisdom that is found in Him? Please explain and provide scripture basis for your thought.

4) Your quote: “The love and grace of God requires neither a sacrificial tortuous execution nor a death-defying miracle…”.

My question: In light of this view, please explain the purpose of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and provide your supporting scripture.

5) Your paragraph beginning with “Grace is not…” and ending with “God requires nothing of us…”.

My question: Grace cannot be earned, true, but it has everything to do with heaven (John 3:1-5). Though it is available to everyone in whatever state they are in, there is action required to receive it. (James 2) Through grace, we are created into something new (II Cor 5:17) and implored to live in that newness (Romans 6:4) These are just a very few examples of scripture that your thought goes against, in word and concept. Please explain the basis of your thought and provide your supporting scripture.

Thank you!

(excerpted from RECLAIMING the GOOD NEWS)

http://dmergent.org/2010/08/05/reclaiming-the-good-news-an-epistle/

So, what is the Good News?

The most concise answer and the best illustration is the entire chapter of Luke 15.

The lamb was lost. It was the shepherd who searched, found, retrieved, and celebrated the recovery of the lost lamb.

The coin was lost. It was the woman who searched, found, retrieved, and celebrated the recovery of the lost coin.

The younger child, the disobedient child, is lost – even before leaving home. The lost child rejects the Parent as though the Parent were dead. Even in rejection, the Parent is exceedingly accommodating and generous. Then, this wandering aimless child lives a selfish and self-directed life and, as the child desires, a life without the Parent. Finally, the life of the child reaches a place on the path where there are no options and there is no direction forward or out. There is no chance of rescue, no charity, no hope, no family, no meaningful life and no life with meaning. There is complete separation from love and kindness and family and friendship and companionship, it is an abomination of an existence – this is death and this is hell. At such a time under such circumstances, what happens next is natural and unavoidable – the child goes home. It is not a choice. It is an inevitable continuation of the path and journey that is traveled by every lost child. The Parent has been waiting and watching because the Parent knows that some day that lost child will reach the inevitable conclusion of the unavoidable journey, the last mile of which always brings the child home. When the Parent, who has been waiting and watching, catches that first distant glimpse of the returning child; the Parent rushes out to retrieve the child, once lost and now found, to shower the returning child, again, with generous hospitality and generous accommodation and a generous re-inclusion in the family and to begin a totally maxed-out celebration. In this parable, the child never even gets to finish a well-rehearsed speech of contrition and humility. All that matters is that the wayward child is home – for the child was never lost to the Parent, the son was only lost to himself, the daughter was only lost to herself.

The older sibling, the obedient child, is not happy. The obedient child wants to know: why is there a celebration for the lost when there has never been a celebration for that which was never lost? Why is there no harsh judgment? Why are there no punitive consequences for destructive decisions and a selfish unproductive wasteful life? Why is there a Parent’s happiness for a bad child – a disobedient child who never lived in accordance with the lessons and wisdom and will of the Parent? How could there possibly be room in the family for a stubborn and rebellious child who lived wastefully in rejection of the Parent’s abundance and generosity and hospitality and love? Why is there no final conclusive inescapable justice?

The Parent warmly affirms the unbroken love that the Parent has and will always have for the obedient child and gratefully acknowledges the value and sacredness of the accomplishments and stewardship of this steadfast sibling. The faithful life of the obedient child has immeasurable worth and divine appreciation. The life of the obedient child has not been in vain.

The Parent also rejects rejection. There has been enough separation. There will be no more separation – separation is finished. There will be a judgment. There will be justice that is final and conclusive and inescapable. Instead of an eternal punishment of bitter harshness, the judgment will be the repair and repatriation of the lost child. Instead of punitive isolation and abandonment, there will be acceptance and inclusion and accommodation – and a great party to which all are invited.

What should have been the behavior and response of the obedient child?
How does one live the Good News?

Luke 10:25-37 – The Good Samaritan

Being a disciple of the Good News is practicing generosity and hospitality; living non-violently without vengeance; living here and now as one family where all are invited, welcomed, and included without exception or qualification; living in constant relationship with God; and living here and now – not later and not someplace else – living here and now a life transformed by resurrection. The Good News – without application here and now, without making a positive and practical difference in the life of the disciple and especially in the involvement of the disciple in the lives of others – is useless and meaningless and is not the message lived and delivered by Jesus and is not of God.

“I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,
I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you gave me clothing,
I was sick and you took care of me,
I was in prison and you visited me.”
(NRSV Matthew 25:35-36)

Then Peter came and said to him,
“Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?”
Jesus said to him, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.”
(NRSV Matthew 18:21-22)

From its beginning, the Good News has been apolitical and non-national. When pushed to choose between faith and empire, the way of the Good News has been to respond with non-violent defiance and refusal. Our faith life is not measured by how materially abundant or wealthy is our life and not by how much political or cultural influence we have. Our faith life in no way embodies, is connected to, or dependent upon or subservient to patriotic fervor or national loyalty or good citizenship. Our faith life is measured by how we attend to and improve the lives of others – by feeding them, quenching their thirst, clothing them, visiting them in prison, healing them, and welcoming them. Keep in mind that this is a deliberately incomplete list. It works in much the same way as when Jesus tells Peter to forgive, not 7 times, but 77 times – the point being that by the time you forgive someone 77 times, it has become, not an act that has been repeated 77 times, it has become a habit, a path, a journey, a way of life. The point is that by the time you develop the habit of feeding, quenching, clothing, healing, welcoming, and visiting prisons, you have created a new life complete with new values and new goals and new vision. Once you get to this point, you have discovered and claimed (not earned) and embodied your grace-given membership in the family of God, a membership exemplified by faith, love, and service.

Something did happen on Easter morning – and just to put a label on it, we will call it the resurrection of Jesus. However, the resurrection of Jesus is of lesser importance. What is of critical and major importance is the resurrection of the disciples. If a burial box is found that undeniably contains the bones of Jesus, what is the ramification for the Good News? Nothing – it changes nothing. The message stays the same. The Good News remains vibrant and relevant and complete. The validity of our faith is built on the rock of the personal relationship that God has with each of us, not just on the relationship God had with Jesus or only on that relationship God had with the first disciples. The relationship God had with Jesus and the first disciples is instructional, not controlling.

Whatever happened on Easter morning is inferior and insufficient compared to the miracle of the resurrected lives of the disciples. As faithful followers of Jesus, they too had become, because of the crucifixion, as though dead and buried. Crucifixion was more than an execution; it was the obliteration of an entire life. In the culture of the Roman Empire, it was as if the crucified person had not just disappeared, it was as if the crucified person had never existed – that life would never again be discussed, that name would never again be mentioned. The disciples were more than grief-stricken, more than pathologically depressed, more than dangerously fatalistic; they felt obliterated – within the context of the Roman Empire, their life with Jesus was meaningless because it no longer existed. Within the context of the Roman Empire, their life with Jesus did not even rise to the level of wastefulness because it never did exist. Because of the crucifixion, throughout the entire Roman Empire, their entire experience with Jesus – the love and fellowship, the teaching and learning, the discussions and arguments and bickering, the travels and the resting and the meals together, the prayers and the worship – all their incredible experiences with Jesus had never happened. In the context of the culture of the Roman Empire, Jesus is not just dead, Jesus is non-existent – there is no Jesus, there never was a Jesus. Starting the moment when Jesus breathed his last, this was the awful and oppressive and devastating reality that blanketed and suffocated and consumed the disciples.

On Easter morning, something happened. On Easter morning, something happened that resurrected for the disciples the life and teaching of Jesus and reinvigorated their experience with Jesus. In a very real sense, Jesus was resurrected – from hell, from oblivion, from death. Within 40 days, not only were the disciples resurrected, they were transformed. The Good News that resurrected and transformed their lives (and the thousands of other first-century lives transformed by that same Good News) had nothing to do with sacrificial death, empty tombs, ascensions, virgin births, or miracles. The Good News is neither concerned with nor does it require a direct and overt act of divine intervention. In any biblical story that involves such a divine action; to focus on the miraculous event is to miss completely the purpose and message of the story. To depend on or expect or require miracles is to worship at the altar of the false god of spiritual certainty.

The Good News did not and does not succeed because of miracles. The initial success of the Good News was in how it demonstrated that anyone – even someone oppressed into complete oblivion by an empire – could live a resurrected and transformed life even in a world where death, cruelty, corruption, crime, war, systemic injustice, slavery, and extreme poverty were so rampant as to be the norm. Their success in living a resurrected and transformed life even in such a world is completely relevant to our time and for all time. The Good News is that a life of resurrection and transformation does not have to be preceded by death. The Good News is that the kingdom of God is not a future event or a distant place or a strictly post-mortal existence. An “anticipated” kingdom of God is meaningless and useless. The Good News is that the kingdom of God has arrived, it is here and it is now and it is available to anyone – without exception and without qualification and without sacrifice.

To have a loving intimate relationship with God; to serve others by practicing generosity and hospitality; to seek justice, healing, reconciliation, rehabilitation, inclusion, and participation; and then to live non-violently without vengeance and with a cheerful fearlessness of death and worldly powers – that is the radical and the defiant message and the transformational spirit of the universal and timeless Good News.

Whatever we do –
Whatever we are –
Wherever we are –
– can never separate us from the love and grace and the surrounding and inviting and welcoming and inclusive presence of God.