In our national racial dialog, I think we need to distinguish between the systemics of injustice and the facts in any given case. Yesterday, CNN published some new allegations on the Trayvon tragedy which raised some questions for me. (Note I did not say new facts. We just don't know what all the facts are.)
In the systemics of prejudice and injustice we have so far to go. Those that know me, know I am deeply concerned about injustice and prejudice... individually and collectively. The reaction to the Trayvon tragedy is completely understandable. Everyday, children of color go missing, and too often the media doesn't give a damn, something in contrast to when a cheerleaderesq white girl disappears. This time the media did give it some attention, and that is a good thing.
But the fact is, we just don't know exactly what actually happened on the evening of February 26. And until we do, a rush to judgement doesn't advance our national dialog on race. Too many black men have been falsely accused for us to forget the consequences of a rush to judgement.
However, what we do know is that typically, the death of a white child is given a significant amount of resources, whereas in this case it appears the police did not give the case the investigative resources it deserved, begging the question, why?
If they did indeed fail to give Trayvon's death the attention it deserved, that is a grave injustice. And one that ought to be protested vehemently. Trayvon was not killed because he was wearing a hoodie.
However, acknowledging our collective failure to achieve an equal common good for all. Acknowledging that we are not doing enough to solve this problem. Acknowledging that police do not investigate every homicide equally and that racial stereotypes play a role. None-the-less we have to stop and ask, is that what happened here? I'm not sure we can know that; yet.
When we do, as the prophet Micah said, may there be justice, mercy, and humility. And if the facts support the outrage, may there be protests. May the perpetrators both of the actions and the inactions be brought to justice. But more importantly, may there be solutions and dialog, honesty and truth telling, forgiveness and efforts toward our ongoing need for racial reconciliation; for reconciliation is not just an event, but an ongoing life-long process.
Showing posts with label suffering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label suffering. Show all posts
October 25, 2011
On the militeristic language of scripture
There is a good blog post by Susan Stabil over on her blog which sets up this blog post. I initially posted this as a response there.
The issue is this: is it ok to use the militaristic language found in the Bible when we pray? Generally no. While it might be acceptable on occasion, it is right there in the Bible after all, generally speaking, citizens of the greatest military war machine ever, should not conflate the violent language in scripture with the real world violence that is antithetical to the ways of Christ. Why? Because this conflation has led to innumerable exercises in military might when there might have been alternatives. Paramount to understanding this position is a recognition that in war, it is not just the guilty who die but always the innocent as well. If we believe the myth that modern warfare is clean and surgical, we will never understand the problem. But when we come face to face with the reality of war, the real men women and children affected, we come to realize the increasing need for the transforming values of Christ, contrasted to the myth of peace through might which primarily brings suffering.
The issue is this: is it ok to use the militaristic language found in the Bible when we pray? Generally no. While it might be acceptable on occasion, it is right there in the Bible after all, generally speaking, citizens of the greatest military war machine ever, should not conflate the violent language in scripture with the real world violence that is antithetical to the ways of Christ. Why? Because this conflation has led to innumerable exercises in military might when there might have been alternatives. Paramount to understanding this position is a recognition that in war, it is not just the guilty who die but always the innocent as well. If we believe the myth that modern warfare is clean and surgical, we will never understand the problem. But when we come face to face with the reality of war, the real men women and children affected, we come to realize the increasing need for the transforming values of Christ, contrasted to the myth of peace through might which primarily brings suffering.
September 23, 2011
Justice like a River: Why development needs justice
Moving stuff in this article, Justice like a River: Why development needs justice by Jamie McIntosh and Hiroko Sawai
For those of you interested in international law or development, this is both interesting and saddening. The article lays out several different areas where a lack of justice leads to increased poverty and suffering. Fortunately it goes on to describe some of the solutions as well. The authors have found that the case model, working with people at the ground level, is having a significantly better effect than broad efforts at judicial training and reform. It seems these efforts are often a mile wide and an inch deep, whereas getting into the details of specific cases helps to establish precedent and makes an example for others to follow... or rightfully be afraid of.
Selected excerpts.
Introduction
Without legal protection from violence, the lives and the livelihoods of the global poor are at perpetual risk. Four billion people on our planet live in that risk.
November 03, 2010
How my continuing engagement with Scripture changed my views on public policy
In the 2000 presidential election, I voted in my first presidential election, and as a newly minted member of the U.S. Air Force, was very happy to see President Bush elected. And in the time before facebook and blogs, I e-mailed news articles to friends, often with my commentary, almost always with a conservative slant. So when I say that I have shifted to the left, that should be considered relative. I am pro-life and believe in smaller, smarter government, but after that, I tend to favor if not progressive policies, certainly a lot of progressive values that I see reflected in scripture.
August 07, 2009
My take on potential global warming.
I'm not a scientist. Neither are most of you. So what to do about all the scientific claims on global warming.
Here is what not to do. Don't think that this issue is in any way actually related to any other issue that has become partisan.
I truly don't understand why virtually everyone that thinks abortion is wrong, also thinks global warming is false. Or why so many who think global warming is true, think the war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. One should be able to study an issue and come to a conclusion on that particular issue, irrespective of other issues. To me, the fact that this has become so partisan speaks to what I guess is obvious, the deep divide and mistrust that exists in this country. It is this latter point, as much as anything, that I find so troubling. We should be able to listen to people who are experts in their field, without judging them on every other issue, which they may or may not be qualified as an expert on.
January 13, 2009
Evangelicals should stand with those who suffer in Israel and Gaza
A Christianity Today blog post on the current bloodshed in Gaza says this: In counting their losses, Christians, Muslims, Jews discover common ground in grief. The article goes on to suggest that placing blame helps to perpetuate the violence.
The disproportionate nature of Israel's response to Hamas must be condemned by the Evangelical Christian community because it is unequivocally unjust, and horrible evil. The way that innocent children are dying in the Gaza strip is completely unacceptable!
Wikipedia calculates the numbers this way: As of 13 January 2009, 13 Israelis (including 3 civilians) and 933 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed in this conflict. The Palestinian fatalities include 292 children and 75 women.[42][43][44][45] [46]
Many would in turn respond with questions about Hamas, "Israel is just responding to the evil perpetrated on it." they would say. And they would be right, but as we teach our children, two wrongs don't make a right, particularly when one wrong is grossly disproportionate to the first.
I do not want to join my voice to the thousands of antisemitic voices that turn a blind eye to the evils of Hamas. I could comment on their atrocities, but their conduct is well documented and condemned. What is problematic is the unequivocal backing of Israel's terror practices by the United States, the Christian community and Evangelicals in particular.
As Evangelicals the Word of God is our first guide. The Bible gives us a history of the working of God in history, often through his chosen people Israel. It is natural that we would have a special affinity for the place and people where God first chose to work. However as Proverbs 27:6 says: wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses. When we fail to warn our friend Israel of her failure to defend the human innocents on both sides of an artificial international border, we are an enemy multiplying kisses.
One of the favorite Old Testament passages for the Evangelical is Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.
But notice the passages that precede that verse
Isaiah 1:15-18
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; 16 wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, 17 learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. 18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool
It may be appropiate for Israel to enter Gaza and chase down Hamas, though that is debatable both on practicle and philosophical grounds. However, if it is going to do so, it must do so in a way that conforms to international law, and a basic sense of justice and respect for human life. The Christian perspective on what this looks like is well documented in its many writings on Just War theory. Which it seems the Christian community is wofully ignorent of when it comes to the war between the Palestenians and Israel.
What I am really concerned about is the voice of the Evangelical on the street and the poor name we give our Savior when we and our nation turn a blind eye to the atrocities and terror going on in Gaza. Hamas is a terrorist organization. However when an overwhelming number of children are terrorized by the Israeli army, what are they?
The message of Christ taught by the Evangelical community must seek to love, respect and restore all people, regardless of race, creed or nationality. And we must stand in solidarity with all who suffer. And more than that, like Christ, we must speak out against all who perpetrate this violence. In this case that is both Hamas and the Israeli Army.
January 04, 2008
When Christmas Does Not Feel Like Christmas (1)
Just over a week ago I preached a message entitled, When Christmas Doesn’t Feel Like Christmas, using the story of the Magi in Matthew chapter 2 as my primary text. Often pastors end this story with the Astrologers return to the East by another route, and leave Herod's slaughter of all children two years and under for some other time. I decided to include it, as a celebration followed by a tragedy is too often the story of Christmas for many, as it was for the Christ just a few years after he was born.
After reading the story from the Bible, I went on to simply narrate some of the conclusions.
First we talked about the journey, the question for us being, where are we at on our journey and are we putting the same kind of “effort” into ours, that the wise men put into their cross continental journey? If we are going to describe our faith as a journey, are we actually going on a journey?
Second we looked at the giving of gifts, not to ask for more for the church, but referencing Christ’s statement recorded in Mat 25:34-40, that when we give directly to those in need, we give directly to Christ. My sub point here being that if this is a tough time of year for us, part of our response should be to give our time, emotions and belonging to those in more need than we are. (and some of us may very well be in a great deal of need, but someone else is in more need.)
The third point was The Terrible Ending, in which we looked directly at the ways we hurt this time of year, in conjunction with Herod's response to being outwitted by the Magi.
I said this: One way or another we got this idea in our heads that Christmas should be a time of perfect harmony, families and the like getting along famously. But after too many years of quite the opposite happening, whether its just bickering and fighting, or worse, we start to realize that maybe Christmas just isn’t all its cracked up to be. And in fact can be an instigator of strife. Who’s family are we going to be with? How much money are we going to spend? If I act responsibly and stay within my budget, my child will have little or nothing compared to his friends, and what does that say about me as a man or woman, a provider for my family?
I then responded to those questions this way: Let me say right up front, that neither I, nor anyone else has an “answer” to the “why” question. We don’t know why bad things happen to good people. We can try and apply some logic, but that only gets us so far. However, we have a God who is able to identify personally with our suffering. We know a God who loves us and has been in our shoes. He is a God who had no place to lay his head, who lived the life of a migrant, wondering from place to place. He began life as an alien, living in a foreign land, and there can be no doubt that Jesus’ parents were more than likely discriminated against or worse while they were in Egypt. Our God is a God who joins us in our suffering, feeling what we feel, knowing our circumstances as only he can.
I then wrapped up by putting the Christmas story in it’s larger historical and theological context, the in-breaking, the beginning of the “now” of the
November 18, 2007
Suburban Oppressian
From Consumerism to Stewardship
From Materialism to Simplicity
From Individualism to Relatedness
These are the issues that one of my friends from Fuller Seminary addresses from a youth ministry perspective, in an article for Fuller's Theology News and Notes.
You can read the article in it's entirety here. Below are some excerpts:
In suburban America the powers of consumerism, materialism, and individualism have become so all-pervasive that we scarcely recognize them any more. When combined, these forces have resulted in enormous pressure on teenagers to strive for success in all that they do in order to achieve the “American Dream.” But any force which compels us to pursue a dream which isn’t God’s is an oppressive one.
In 2003, teenagers in the United States spent $112.5 billion. There were roughly 20.5 million teenagers in the U.S. in 2003; therefore, on average, teens were spending more than $100 per week, primarily on clothes.1
Whereas the American dream necessitates that teenagers derive an identity from what they consume, God’s dream is that they learn to be stewards of all they have—indeed, of all of creation.
During one of the years that I served as a youth pastor in an affluent suburban megachurch, we held a New Year’s Eve all-nighter. One of the intended draws of the evening was the contest prize of a donated car. You can imagine my surprise when the newly minted 16-year-old who won asked, “Do I have to take the car?” as he was sure that his parents intended to buy him something newer and nicer. It was an incentive we were not to repeat.
Jesus lived unencumbered by worldly possessions, yet he was able both to give freely and to receive joyfully. Because so many evangelical suburban churches proclaim a gospel which emphasizes going to heaven when you die (as opposed to seeking to give people a taste of heaven on earth such as we are taught by Jesus to ask for in the Lord’s Prayer), the painful grip of materialism on all our people, especially our teenagers, goes largely ignored.
Finally, as leaders, if we are not modeling a life of freedom from the oppressive forces of consumerism, materialism, and individualism, any and all other efforts are rendered meaningless. Jesus’ message had credibility because he preached it with his life. More than attractive and entertaining ministries and programs, the great need of students in suburban America is to be invited into the lives of men and women who are practicing the way of Jesus.
From Materialism to Simplicity
From Individualism to Relatedness
These are the issues that one of my friends from Fuller Seminary addresses from a youth ministry perspective, in an article for Fuller's Theology News and Notes.
You can read the article in it's entirety here. Below are some excerpts:
In suburban America the powers of consumerism, materialism, and individualism have become so all-pervasive that we scarcely recognize them any more. When combined, these forces have resulted in enormous pressure on teenagers to strive for success in all that they do in order to achieve the “American Dream.” But any force which compels us to pursue a dream which isn’t God’s is an oppressive one.
In 2003, teenagers in the United States spent $112.5 billion. There were roughly 20.5 million teenagers in the U.S. in 2003; therefore, on average, teens were spending more than $100 per week, primarily on clothes.1
Whereas the American dream necessitates that teenagers derive an identity from what they consume, God’s dream is that they learn to be stewards of all they have—indeed, of all of creation.
During one of the years that I served as a youth pastor in an affluent suburban megachurch, we held a New Year’s Eve all-nighter. One of the intended draws of the evening was the contest prize of a donated car. You can imagine my surprise when the newly minted 16-year-old who won asked, “Do I have to take the car?” as he was sure that his parents intended to buy him something newer and nicer. It was an incentive we were not to repeat.
Jesus lived unencumbered by worldly possessions, yet he was able both to give freely and to receive joyfully. Because so many evangelical suburban churches proclaim a gospel which emphasizes going to heaven when you die (as opposed to seeking to give people a taste of heaven on earth such as we are taught by Jesus to ask for in the Lord’s Prayer), the painful grip of materialism on all our people, especially our teenagers, goes largely ignored.
Finally, as leaders, if we are not modeling a life of freedom from the oppressive forces of consumerism, materialism, and individualism, any and all other efforts are rendered meaningless. Jesus’ message had credibility because he preached it with his life. More than attractive and entertaining ministries and programs, the great need of students in suburban America is to be invited into the lives of men and women who are practicing the way of Jesus.
July 11, 2007
The Question That Haunts Me
What does the first picture (in a symbolic sense) have to do with the second? What does the church have to do with genocide, abortion, global warming, cancer, AID's, and on and on it goes. It is a question that haunts me. This is why I am something of a cynic. If I go there it breaks me up. So I just don't go there.
April 29, 2007
What is my obligation to those who suffer?
After I sent that e-mail to Brandon, (see previous post) we talked about what i was struggling with the next Sunday. (specifically I'm struggling with the gap between halves and halve nots, and questions on suffering. In this case I have great health and Brandon does not.)
When we had talked the previous Sunday, he wasn't so sure i owed him anything, but after reading my e-mail he could see where I was coming from. However he still had some concerns. The main one was dependency. From the disabled person's perspective, it isn't going to do much good to go around thinking that people owe them. A wow-is-me attitude is a recipe for disaster for the disabled person.
Brandon also wanted to make perfectly clear that I was never going to be able to identify with him in any real physical way. In other words i could have empathy, but never sympathy, which I completely agree with.
Brandon's other concern was a little broader, dealing with the matter of Biblical interpretation. "How does one know they are doing justice to the intentions of the original authors of the Bible and what does that have to do with the hear and now?" was essentially what Brandon was saying, in this case on the matter of suffering and sharing each others burdens. All I'll say here is: exactly.
What Brandon and I finally agreed on is that in his case maybe there is little I can or even should do for him physically speaking, but there are many that don't have the resources he does. Cyra, his wife, is an amazing woman, marrying this man in spite of the condition that has landed him in a wheal chair. (or maybe because of it, I don't know) If anyone suffers right along side Brandon, it is certainly her, setting an amazing example for all of us. Additionally, Brandon owns his own business. He's not rich by American standards, but he has what he needs. Unfortunately this is not the case for everyone who lives life from a chair on wheels. Many many people are not only poor but suffer a great deal do to physical handicaps. So my questions remains. In light of what the scriptures say (see previous post) what is my obligation to those who suffer?
When we had talked the previous Sunday, he wasn't so sure i owed him anything, but after reading my e-mail he could see where I was coming from. However he still had some concerns. The main one was dependency. From the disabled person's perspective, it isn't going to do much good to go around thinking that people owe them. A wow-is-me attitude is a recipe for disaster for the disabled person.
Brandon also wanted to make perfectly clear that I was never going to be able to identify with him in any real physical way. In other words i could have empathy, but never sympathy, which I completely agree with.
Brandon's other concern was a little broader, dealing with the matter of Biblical interpretation. "How does one know they are doing justice to the intentions of the original authors of the Bible and what does that have to do with the hear and now?" was essentially what Brandon was saying, in this case on the matter of suffering and sharing each others burdens. All I'll say here is: exactly.
What Brandon and I finally agreed on is that in his case maybe there is little I can or even should do for him physically speaking, but there are many that don't have the resources he does. Cyra, his wife, is an amazing woman, marrying this man in spite of the condition that has landed him in a wheal chair. (or maybe because of it, I don't know) If anyone suffers right along side Brandon, it is certainly her, setting an amazing example for all of us. Additionally, Brandon owns his own business. He's not rich by American standards, but he has what he needs. Unfortunately this is not the case for everyone who lives life from a chair on wheels. Many many people are not only poor but suffer a great deal do to physical handicaps. So my questions remains. In light of what the scriptures say (see previous post) what is my obligation to those who suffer?
April 26, 2007
My Friend In a Wheal Chair
Here is a e-mail I sent to Brandon, friend of mine who is in a wheal chair. We were talking about how I (and you) can identify with people who suffer and do something about it. (sometimes)
It's just a peak into what the Bible says about suffering and some of the things I'm thinking about.
In the next post I'll share some of the things
Here are some of those Bible passages I mentioned in our conversation this past Sunday.
On the matter of suffering.
Paul's call to ministry explicitly mentions suffering
Acts 9:15
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of
Here Paul teaches the church in Philipi that they are called to suffer.
Philippians 1:29
29For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him
Here Paul says that we should expect to suffer because we are Christians. Specifically look at vs 13, wow!
1 Peter 1:12-19
12Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. 13But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 14If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. 17For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18And,
And the most amazing/disconcerting passage of all
Philipians 3:7-10
7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Now if you set these side by side with the Bibles teachings on sharing each others burdens, and helping one another, and the fact that we all make up one church, one body, what are the implications for daily living?
Romans 12:14-16
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.
How low do the positions need to be that i need to associate with? Is there any valid excuse not to?
Romans 12:3-5
3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.
1 Cor 12:24-26
But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
In what respect do I suffer with you Brandon? Honestly, I don't think that I do.
And if we put all of this in a global information society, one in which I am keenly aware of the suffering of others on a global scale, how should I respond?
What is my obligation, when Pastor Dan teaches that we should throw off everything that so easily entangles? More specifically, what is stopping me from sharing in and/or alleviating the suffering of others to a much much greater extent?!
March 27, 2007
The Scandal of the Cross - Conclusions and Implications
A death on a cross is a scandalous, horrific, and shameful thing, something detailed all too well by Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ. That Jesus died on a cross, and for the Christian, that it was necessary is not a matter of debate, in question is why? (See recent previous posts for more on this.)
Not too long ago it was popular to where bracelets with the letters WWJD. (What Would Jesus Do) The faddish nature of this gradually became appalling, but the initial idea was a fine one, if not a terribly distressing one. (What might the actual implications be?)
The answer to the question, What Would Jesus Do, is given to us in four different gospel narratives, making the answer at times all too apparent. In the end, Jesus died! God died! And before this? He was a poor man, with no place to lay his head. A lowly servant who taught his disciples that the first will be last and the last first, that they must pick up their cross and follow him, that we must love our neighbors as ourselves, and our enemies, yah, we have to love them to.
The common narrative (penal substitution) on the death of Jesus describes Christ’s death as balancing a cosmic account book. One in which all the sins of all of humanity are blotted out by the death of Christ. We then have only to receive this free gift to obtain eternal salvation. There is nothing in this narrative that I think needs to change, rather it is what is not in this narrative that is so terribly disconcerting. The last few posts have detailed a matrix of metaphors by which the cross has been and is being communicated. For most Christians in most places, these metaphors have been refined and simplified down to one controlling view point. “Jesus died to… (fill in the blank)”
In contrast, I believe that Christians would do well to first reengage the cross of Christ devotionally, spiritually, and meditatively. And second, reengage it theologically, examining the variety of historical and contemporary ways the cross has and is being understood. The past few posts have given us a starting point for doing that but are hardly sufficient. None of this theological re-examination needs to undermine orthodoxy or even Evangelical orthodoxy. (Though feel free to question even these assumptions if your so inclined. I believe your faith will be stronger for it.) Rather, a fuller understanding, will, I believe, drive us to radically alter the way we behave.
Previous Posts in this Series
The Scandal of the Cross (5)
In the previous posts we have looked at both the major Biblical metaphors that are used to describe the cross of Christ and the major Theological metaphors. We have also looked at the nature and concept of metaphor.
Biblical Metaphors
Redemption
Reconciliation
Sacrifice
Revelation
Theological Metaphors
Christus Victor Model
Satisfaction Model
Moral Influence Model
Penal Substitution Model
(To be sure there are probably more than just these eight.)
The point of all of this is to illustrate the multiple ways that both the biblical authors and the Church have grappled with the death of Christ. And to press us to likewise grapple with what it means for our God to die on a cross.
I don’t want to get into the myriad ways these metaphors work together and implore us to become more like Christ. That is for you to explore. For now, all I want to say is that I think that these metaphors are best understood as complimentary and incomplete. In many respects, what God did on the cross, and in the cosmos at the same time, is beyond understanding… but not completely, and not to the point of being unintelligible. We have metaphors that make sense. We need to be aware of them and then use them, all of them. (Maybe some more than others, but all none-the-less.) And they need to influence how we behave, as all good theology does.
March 11, 2007
The Scandal of the Cross (4)
The meager paragraphs that follow are hardly sufficient to address the issues at hand. This is more of a “for your information” kind of a post, listing what is out there, and giving us a starting point from which to dialog. Most of you can feel free to read this, say “Oh that’s nice” and move on. It is, however, what I have been musing on lately and so it goes on this blog. If you have the time or inclination, I would love to discuss just how terribly important all of this is, but I doubt that you do. I certainly don’t seem to, as is evident by the frequencies of the posts here lately.
In the last post on the scandal of the cross, we looked at the variety of biblical words and images used to describe what Christ did on the cross. In this post I want to look at the variety of theological motifs available to the church. These motifs have been developed to answer some basic questions.
Why did Christ have to die?
Why did he have to die on a cross?
How does Christ death on a cross save us?
What happened on the cross, spiritually and theologically?
God forgave sins before Christ died. Why then was Christ death necessary? Why doesn’t an all powerful God simply forgive people, without any of this death nonsense?
For the Christian, that the cross saves is not in doubt. But questions about how and why, may still remain, particularly if one chooses to question the Sunday School answers she was given as a child. The answers that follow are theological in nature, not apologetic. Meaning that they are meant to help Christians understand the nuances of what they believe, not convince unbelievers of the truths contained within. What follows is foundational, and academic. It might seem dry, but these are the historical building blocks from which pastors, missionaries and others work. This post gives you access to a few short descriptions, so that we can work from the same sheet of music.
Below I am only going to give you some titles and short descriptions of different perspectives. Its up to you to look into these in-depth if you are so inclined.
Cristus Victor as Recapitulation.
Iraneaus (130 - 202) was one of the first to put forward a theological understanding of the death of Christ. From his perspective, Jesus conquers the devil on the cross, largely by tricking him. As a prize he wins back the rights to humanity. The devil thinks he is defeating Christ by killing him, but in actuality, because the devil does not know the rules, he is sealing his own fate.
Christus Victor as Ransom
Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) taught that Jesus offered himself as ransom for humanity. He gave himself up to the devil, but the goodness of Christ was too much, and the devil lost his grasp, losing his prize as well as his prisoners.
According to both of these perspectives Christ conquers the Devil.
Satisfaction Model.
Created by Anselm (1033-1109) during the middle ages, this model relied heavily on Medieval imagery. Anselm rejected any notion of the devil being owed anything. Rather, Christ offers himself as satisfaction to God for the debt that sinful humanity owed to God.
This model is very similar to penal substitution models that developed later, but due to the different settings they developed in, are in fact, very different. The satisfaction model draws on the obligations that people in various positions owed to each other during the middle ages. For instance, surfs had obligations to the Lord of the manner, and he in turn had obligations both to his surfs to provide protection, and to a king above him, providing the required payments of various goods. Likewise, Jesus satisfies the debt we owe to God, by dying on the cross.
In contrast, the penal substitution model, draws on a system of courts and justice, different than a system of debt and obligation common in the middle ages.
Moral Influence Model
Abelard (1049-1142) was the first to bring this perspective to bear. He first rejects all other notions as described above. He then simply states that it was Christ love for humanity that brought him to earth. Offering us an example of how we ought to live. That he was killed was simply an outgrowth of this, and in his death also he showed us how to behave. In his life and death Jesus drew humankind unto himself by his selfless example, causing us to repent and love God.
Penal Substitution Model
Charles Hodge (1797 - 1878) was one of the first proponents of this model, the most common perspective taught today. It is basically very simple. God would like to live with us all happily ever after, but because of our sins, and because he is holy and just, he cannot. As a solution, God sends his son to earth to suffer the punishment we deserve. Because Jesus paid our penalty, God can now regard us as holy, and commune with us. Many of us have heard the story of the judge that pronounces one guilty of all their sins, but then says, “if you accept the payment that my son has offered” he will bear your guilt and you may go free.
The main difference between this model and the Satisfaction model is that in the latter, Jesus pays a debt we owe, but in the former, Jesus steps in to take the punishment we deserve.
In the coming final post on this topic, we will look at the implications for these models and the one’s found in the Bible detailed in the earlier post.
February 10, 2007
The Scandal of the Cross (3)
As we continue to examine the meaning of the death of Jesus on a cross, I would like to turn next to the word-images that appear in the New Testament narrative. What images did the authors of the Bible use, and what are the implications of those images?
The Biblical authors found it necessary to construct multiple ways of explaining the cross, ways which where bound up in their time and place. All I'll do here is list what those images are, and offer an all too brief word on each. If you are so inclined there is more than you will ever want to read about each one if you click on the link. If I have missed some images used by biblical authors to explain the cross of Christ, by all means let me know.
Redemption
This word gets at the heart of salvation. This doctrine not-so-briefly sums up our standing with God.
Sacrifice
This word gets at the nature and means of God's redemptive work on the cross.
Revelation
The link I have provided for this one is less helpful. Revelation as it applies to Jesus Christ gets at the idea that in Jesus we see most full the heart and reality of God the Father. In other words, Jesus revels God to humanity. Jesus' whole life does this, but nothing so vividly as his death. The death of Jesus illustrates or revels the love of God in a way nothing else can.
Reconciliation
This doctrine sums up what has been accomplished by the other three points. Most Christians are aware of their personal reconciliation with God, however what is taught less often, is the way and degree to which Christ death has the potential to reconcile all things, and in fact one day will, on that day when the lion will lie down with the lamb. To be specific, race relations, economic affairs and humanities relationship with its environment, God's creation, are just three areas that are in need of immense reconciliation. The death of Jesus makes these things possible, in part because of the example Christ displayed for us but also for other spiritual and theological reasons as well.
The Biblical authors found it necessary to construct multiple ways of explaining the cross, ways which where bound up in their time and place. All I'll do here is list what those images are, and offer an all too brief word on each. If you are so inclined there is more than you will ever want to read about each one if you click on the link. If I have missed some images used by biblical authors to explain the cross of Christ, by all means let me know.
Redemption
This word gets at the heart of salvation. This doctrine not-so-briefly sums up our standing with God.
Sacrifice
This word gets at the nature and means of God's redemptive work on the cross.
Revelation
The link I have provided for this one is less helpful. Revelation as it applies to Jesus Christ gets at the idea that in Jesus we see most full the heart and reality of God the Father. In other words, Jesus revels God to humanity. Jesus' whole life does this, but nothing so vividly as his death. The death of Jesus illustrates or revels the love of God in a way nothing else can.
Reconciliation
This doctrine sums up what has been accomplished by the other three points. Most Christians are aware of their personal reconciliation with God, however what is taught less often, is the way and degree to which Christ death has the potential to reconcile all things, and in fact one day will, on that day when the lion will lie down with the lamb. To be specific, race relations, economic affairs and humanities relationship with its environment, God's creation, are just three areas that are in need of immense reconciliation. The death of Jesus makes these things possible, in part because of the example Christ displayed for us but also for other spiritual and theological reasons as well.
January 19, 2007
The Scandal of the Cross (2)
On the cross, Jesus accomplished a number of things, a wide variety of things that we tend to boil down to a simple explanation. This is very unfortunate. By simplifying what Jesus did on the cross to a simple statement like, “Jesus died for my sins.” Or “Jesus’ blood covers my sins”, we do not do justice to the degree to which Jesus’ death turned the world upside down. What follows is just one of many other things that Jesus’ death accomplished.
The Roman world was based on patronage, people doing what was expected of them by others. Everyone had expectations. Slaves were indebted to their owners, sons to their fathers, the Elite to the Emperor, and the Emperor to the gods. Gifts and favors were given with an expectation of a return on the “investment”.
In contrast to this, Jesus set forth an alternative ethic, one in which we “die to ourselves take up our cross and follow him.” This ethic is found through out the gospels. For instance, we see the disciples fighting among themselves over who is the greatest. Jesus responds by saying that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. During the sermon on the mount, over and over he says, “you have herd it said, but I say unto you…” He invites the little children to come to him with out reservation, and shortly before he dies, he takes on the role of a lowly servant, washing his disciple’s feet. The teachings of Jesus have turned and are turning the world as we know it upside down.
Now none of these teachings constitutes something new for those of us who identify ourselves as Christians, but how far would these teachings have multiplied if Jesus had not died a horrible death on a cross? They would be lost. By making the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus set his other teachings and examples in concrete, causing them to be immovable objects. As Paul puts it “we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”
To draw an analogy, the life and teachings of Jesus are like a demolition team setting up a building for demolition. If the effort of the demolition team over the course of weeks doesn’t result in a gigantic explosion, bringing an old building to the ground, their effort is for not. Similarly, if Jesus hadn’t died, his teachings and life would be like a demolition team setting the charge but not igniting the fuse. If Jesus hadn't died, would we even know his name?
His teachings have changed the world, and continue to change the world, but none of this would be true if he hadn’t died the way he did. If his teachings had endured, but he hadn’t died, there would be a point at which we could say, “this far and no further, I am willing to give this much up, but no more.” Instead, because Jesus is our example, and because he went all they way, we have no option but to also go all the way… whatever that might mean. : )
January 13, 2007
The Scandal of the Cross (1)
What did Jesus do on the cross? That is the question I would like to examine in the next few posts. I'm reading a book, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross - Atonement in the New Testament and Contemporary contexts. And in the up-coming posts would like to explore the implications of what both the authors, and the Bible itself says about the meaning of Christ's death on the cross.
The back cover says: "The New Testament displays a rich array of interpretations of the cross. These were shaped by the church in mission as it rooted the saving story of the scandalous cross in the language of every day realities and relationships. But for many Christians today, not only has the true scandal of the cross been obscured, the variety of its New Testament interpretations have been reduced to a single, controlling view of the atonement."
A question: how would you describe what Jesus did on the cross? Not physically, but theologically. How would you alter your description if you were addressing believers, verses the un-churched?
The back cover says: "The New Testament displays a rich array of interpretations of the cross. These were shaped by the church in mission as it rooted the saving story of the scandalous cross in the language of every day realities and relationships. But for many Christians today, not only has the true scandal of the cross been obscured, the variety of its New Testament interpretations have been reduced to a single, controlling view of the atonement."
A question: how would you describe what Jesus did on the cross? Not physically, but theologically. How would you alter your description if you were addressing believers, verses the un-churched?
November 10, 2006
(RED)EMPTION
Mike, blogging over at Waiving or Drowning has a bit to say about the (Product) Red campaign, which encourages consumers to by products that are supporting AIDS reserch with part of their profit. Mike critiques the fact that the only way some will give to great causes, is if it is part of their consumeristic habits. As a result he set up an alternative campaign, (RED)EMPTION, which is designed for those who aren't inclined to spend $100 or more, to make a $10 donation. They think we should simply donate $10 or more directly to the cause. I think you should really check out both campaigns.
My take, we got to give generously. Then, if you were going to buy something anyway, you might as well by a product that gives back to the common good. Having said that, do we really need half the junk we buy? Rather than buy a t-shirt for $20 from the GAP, which will donate 50% of the profits to AIDS research, don't buy the shirt and donate $10 or $20 directly to the cause.
My take, we got to give generously. Then, if you were going to buy something anyway, you might as well by a product that gives back to the common good. Having said that, do we really need half the junk we buy? Rather than buy a t-shirt for $20 from the GAP, which will donate 50% of the profits to AIDS research, don't buy the shirt and donate $10 or $20 directly to the cause.
May 30, 2006
On Abortion
Enabling Conversation
A frame of Reference for Christians Who Disagree
Following are excerpts from my 10 page ethics paper.
Introduction
Presently, the topic of abortion and embryonic research are highly divisive. In the broader discussion, issues in world view hamper our ability to communicate. Often decisions about women’s rights or politics cloud our ability to think clearly about the beginning of life. Among Christians, assumptions about theological perspectives and biblical exegesis make their way into our judgment haphazardly and with little reflection, but once adopted are nearly impossible to dislodge. What I would like to do is offer a way forward for those who may disagree about the legality of abortion, the ethics of it, and the ways the discussion should be framed, but who agree on some broad principles. Those who can in any small way agree with my apriori assumptions, I hope will find the following template useful.
Some of the quotes I made use of:
Stevens, Supreme Court Justice
The State’s interests in the protection of an embryo – even if that interest is defined as “protecting those who will be citizens” – increases progressively and dramatically as the organisms capacity to feel pain, to experience pleasure, to survive and to react to its surroundings increases day by day. The development of a fetus -- and pregnancy itself -- are not static conditions, and the assertion that the government's interest is static simply ignores this reality.1
Beckwith
It is apparent then that the main dispute in the abortion debate does not involve different values, but disagreement about both the application of these values and the truth of certain facts. The abortion rights advocate does not deny that human beings have a fundamental right to life. He just believes that this right to life does not extend to the unborn...and their existence demands that another is asked to make significant non-obligatory sacrifices. The pro-life advocate does not deny that human persons have the liberty to make choices… He believes this liberty does not entail the right to choose abortion since such a choice conflicts with the life, liberty and interests of another.2
Gushee
Both full-personhood and potential-personhood views---and a variety of options that exist along a spectrum between them---demand that Christian disciples practice the welcoming and nurturing of human life. Likewise, a just society extends its respect and protection to the un-born, developing in complete vulnerability in their mothers’ womb. The fetus is certainly a form of life; it is a form of human life; it is (at least) developing into a human person. The burden of proof is certainly on anyone who would intervene it its life in order to destroy it. (italics mine)3
Conclusion
In our present state, the guardian has all the power. It is ultimately him or her that will make the decision regardless of what we say here. By putting the burden of proof on the guardian, I think I have better balanced the equation. It is not up to the being that has no voice, to prove their value or their worth. These things are inherent in their being. Having balanced the equation by putting the burden of proof for the destruction of fetal life on the guardian, I think we must be careful not to overbalance the equation, putting men and women in a place where they feel as if they can not make any decisions for fear of committing a grave and horrendous sin that no one would understand. We live in a sinful world. One in which we cannot depend too heavily on textbook ethics or theology to make our decisions for us in advance, nor on how we ‘feel’ at the moment, as if we lived in a vacuum. We must make our decisions prayerfully before an awesome God, weighing all factors.
I believe I have out lined a way for us to discuss our differences. I also hope that I have given us a template to lay over our real world decision making. By keeping this template in mind, we will all be able to make wiser, more ethical decisions, and we will be able to discuss our differences from a mutual frame of reference.
Though we do not agree on how one is to weigh the various competing rights, by keeping the interest’s of all relevant parties in mind, not just one side or another, we will live more graceful and peaceful lives.
Notes
1. Thornburgh, p. 778
2. Beckwith, p. 27
3. Stassen, p. 224
Bibliography
Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, Ed. The Ethics of Abortion. Rev.. Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books,
1993.
Beckwith, Francis J. Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments For Abortion Rights. Grand Rapids MI:
Baker Books, 1993.
O'Rourke, Kevin D., and Philip Boyle. Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teaching. 3rd ed. Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1999.
Stassen, Glen H., and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers
Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986)
A frame of Reference for Christians Who Disagree
Following are excerpts from my 10 page ethics paper.
Introduction
Presently, the topic of abortion and embryonic research are highly divisive. In the broader discussion, issues in world view hamper our ability to communicate. Often decisions about women’s rights or politics cloud our ability to think clearly about the beginning of life. Among Christians, assumptions about theological perspectives and biblical exegesis make their way into our judgment haphazardly and with little reflection, but once adopted are nearly impossible to dislodge. What I would like to do is offer a way forward for those who may disagree about the legality of abortion, the ethics of it, and the ways the discussion should be framed, but who agree on some broad principles. Those who can in any small way agree with my apriori assumptions, I hope will find the following template useful.
Some of the quotes I made use of:
Stevens, Supreme Court Justice
The State’s interests in the protection of an embryo – even if that interest is defined as “protecting those who will be citizens” – increases progressively and dramatically as the organisms capacity to feel pain, to experience pleasure, to survive and to react to its surroundings increases day by day. The development of a fetus -- and pregnancy itself -- are not static conditions, and the assertion that the government's interest is static simply ignores this reality.1
Beckwith
It is apparent then that the main dispute in the abortion debate does not involve different values, but disagreement about both the application of these values and the truth of certain facts. The abortion rights advocate does not deny that human beings have a fundamental right to life. He just believes that this right to life does not extend to the unborn...and their existence demands that another is asked to make significant non-obligatory sacrifices. The pro-life advocate does not deny that human persons have the liberty to make choices… He believes this liberty does not entail the right to choose abortion since such a choice conflicts with the life, liberty and interests of another.2
Gushee
Both full-personhood and potential-personhood views---and a variety of options that exist along a spectrum between them---demand that Christian disciples practice the welcoming and nurturing of human life. Likewise, a just society extends its respect and protection to the un-born, developing in complete vulnerability in their mothers’ womb. The fetus is certainly a form of life; it is a form of human life; it is (at least) developing into a human person. The burden of proof is certainly on anyone who would intervene it its life in order to destroy it. (italics mine)3
Conclusion
In our present state, the guardian has all the power. It is ultimately him or her that will make the decision regardless of what we say here. By putting the burden of proof on the guardian, I think I have better balanced the equation. It is not up to the being that has no voice, to prove their value or their worth. These things are inherent in their being. Having balanced the equation by putting the burden of proof for the destruction of fetal life on the guardian, I think we must be careful not to overbalance the equation, putting men and women in a place where they feel as if they can not make any decisions for fear of committing a grave and horrendous sin that no one would understand. We live in a sinful world. One in which we cannot depend too heavily on textbook ethics or theology to make our decisions for us in advance, nor on how we ‘feel’ at the moment, as if we lived in a vacuum. We must make our decisions prayerfully before an awesome God, weighing all factors.
I believe I have out lined a way for us to discuss our differences. I also hope that I have given us a template to lay over our real world decision making. By keeping this template in mind, we will all be able to make wiser, more ethical decisions, and we will be able to discuss our differences from a mutual frame of reference.
Though we do not agree on how one is to weigh the various competing rights, by keeping the interest’s of all relevant parties in mind, not just one side or another, we will live more graceful and peaceful lives.
Notes
1. Thornburgh, p. 778
2. Beckwith, p. 27
3. Stassen, p. 224
Bibliography
Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, Ed. The Ethics of Abortion. Rev.. Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books,
1993.
Beckwith, Francis J. Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments For Abortion Rights. Grand Rapids MI:
Baker Books, 1993.
O'Rourke, Kevin D., and Philip Boyle. Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teaching. 3rd ed. Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1999.
Stassen, Glen H., and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers
Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986)
May 24, 2006
How Do You Want to Die?
How do you want to die? That was the question in a film we watched in my Ethics of Death and Dying class.
Did you know that for many that are dying, the use of ever larger doses of morphine to control pain, expedites their death.
A basic principle of ethical reasoning is that like situations should be considered alike.
So consider two similar situations in which a drug is administered to alleviate suffering that eventually causes death. One is called morphine, the other is called physician assisted suicide.
Now yes I know about "double effect" and "unintended consequenses" and other viable arguments, but that's beside the point. The question is "how do you want to die?"
Did you know that for many that are dying, the use of ever larger doses of morphine to control pain, expedites their death.
A basic principle of ethical reasoning is that like situations should be considered alike.
So consider two similar situations in which a drug is administered to alleviate suffering that eventually causes death. One is called morphine, the other is called physician assisted suicide.
Now yes I know about "double effect" and "unintended consequenses" and other viable arguments, but that's beside the point. The question is "how do you want to die?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)