Showing posts with label atonement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atonement. Show all posts

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Book Review: Recovering the Scandal of the Cross



As we rapidly approach Holy Week, the thoughts of many Christians will turn to the sacrificial death of Jesus of Nazareth on a Roman cross. The biblical texts are clear on this point: Jesus' death and resurrection were a necessary part of God's plan to overthrow evil and redeem creation. And so the church repeats again the truth that "Christ died to save sinners."

Exactly how his death accomplished this feat isn't so clear. Across the pages of the New Testament, a multitude of images and metaphors are used to explain what Jesus' death meant. These include sacrifice, ransom, battle, covenant, worship, and personal relationship. Since the time of Christ, the church and its theologians have wrestled with the meaning of the cross in their particular time and place. Various versions of atonement theology have arisen across the ages, including Christus Victor, Recapitulation, and, most famously, Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

In Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, Green and Baker cover in some detail the various atonement images used across the pages of scripture, as well as the more popular explanations from church history. In doing so, they come to the conclusion that there are so many images because there can be no single explanation covering the saving significance of the cross and resurrection. Instead, atonement is a multi-faceted concept that is best described using a variety of images. The New Testament writers followed this model; so, too, should Christians today avoid claiming any one model as THE model explaining the work of the cross.

This, of course, has raised no little controversy. To many Christians, Penal Substitutionary Atonement is most definitely the singular explanation of the saving significance of the cross. From Kirk Cameron to John Piper, voices have been raised in protest, arguing that denying PSA is denying the gospel. But Green and Baker make a powerful case that other images are truer to the biblical message; in fact, they agree with many who claim that PSA is a dangerous misunderstanding of the nature of wrath, that it too often leads to the support of abuses of power, and that it paints an unhealthy picture of God.

In the end, the authors believe it more important to seek out new ways of explaining the cross in our current contexts. Shame-based cultures will need to hear a different telling than would guilt-based cultures. The model used in Japan could and should be different from the model used in central Africa, which would differ still from models used on college campuses in the U.S. The basics are all the same - sin and rebellion have left humanity alienated from God, the source of all life. But on the cross Jesus has overcome the effects of sin and rebellion, and created new opportunities for life and wholeness for humanity.

From that starting point, Christians are encouraged to think broadly and deeply, exploring how their culture experiences the effects of sin, and what salvation means to them. Green and Baker offer some examples of this in action, using models developed in Great Britain, Tanzania, Japan, and the U.S. They then encourage the reader to move beyond simply accepting models created centuries ago across the world, and to ponder what the cross means in our world, and how best we can articulate that to those around us.

This is the 2nd Edition of Recovering the Scandal, and it has been heavily updated to reflect the decade of atonement discussion since its first publishing; in addition, sections have been expanded and clarified in response to criticisms of the first edition. It is an important read for anyone seeking to understand the broader atonement debate that has opened up in the last 10 years; it is equally important to anyone seeking to understand the meaning of the cross in their life, and in the world.

Note: Mark Baker was my professor in seminary, and he gave me a free copy of this book for the purpose of this review. I was pleasantly surprised to find myself in the book, although the reader would never know it was me. . .

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Office

No, not the TV show. My Easter Sermon. . .


I suppose it was the loneliness that was the worst. Sure, there was the mind-numbing drudgery, there were the office games, there was the sarcasm and the gossip and the so-called practical jokes, but in the end, it was the loneliness. Getting up every day and eating my cold cereal, fighting traffic into the office, sitting there at my desk all day, surrounded by people but not really knowing anybody, then fighting traffic home and sitting in front of the TV all night, watching other people laugh and live and fall in love.

Life wasn’t supposed to be this way. We all grew up watching Friends and thinking we’d find ourselves in that world; hanging out every night with our best friends, going on adventures, experiencing all sorts of crazy things, falling in and out of love but always having a place to belong, and friends to share it all with.

But that’s not how it worked out. I don’t really know why – I always figured I’d goofed up along the way, I’d missed out on the opportunities to make friends, that something was wrong with me, or otherwise people would invite me along, would want to spend time with me. Somehow. . .life just didn’t end up like it was supposed to.

It’s not like I didn’t have any life, though. Sometimes I’d go out with a few coworkers on a Friday night; we’d go out for drinks, once a year or so we’d head over to Safeco for a Mariners’ game. We had the annual Christmas party, and the Halloween monster bash. And I had a couple friends leftover from college; about once a month we’d connect on facebook and decide to get together for a movie or a trip to the beach when the sun was out.

But really, at the end, I still felt alone. Even when I was with those people, I couldn’t shake the nagging feeling that they didn’t really want me there, didn’t like me all that much. And the truth was. . .I’m not sure I really liked them, either. They were a way to fill the time; we had some laughs and talked about sports and politics, but never really got that involved in each other’s lives. At work. . .it was even worse. It could be vicious there.

You might say that gossip was considered fine sport at work. That back-biting, that spreading rumors, that dissing people, insulting people, playing pranks on others were all considered normal behavior. There was the usual back-stabbing to get ahead; the lies told to the boss, the sabotaged reports. Then there were these four guys who worked in sales, who really made life miserable for everybody else. They were the hot shots; they drove the expensive cars, they took their clients to expensive restaurants, they knew the company counted on them, and would back them up. They pretty much dominated the office.

I remember one time; it was really just a little thing. I’d gone into the lunch room and sat down with one of the newer girls; we were talking about past jobs, where we’d lived and worked, gone to college – that sort of stuff. Nothing serious, but it was nice to have a real conversation. Until Tony came in. “Got a new girlfriend there, I see,” he said. It got really awkward. I looked at her, she stared at her sandwich. I told him “No Tony, we’re just having lunch.” “Not what it looks like to me,” he said. A couple of his buddies came in behind him. “Hey, look guys! We’ve got a new couple in the office! I’m setting up a pool on how long it’ll be until the first kiss.” They all left, eventually, but she and I really didn’t have anything else to talk about. Every time we saw each other after that it was just weird, so we pretty much avoided each other.

Two more stories.

Jack was one of my co-workers, and actually a decent guy. Always had something nice to say. He remembered people’s birthdays, he would stop by your desk and talk about life and personal stuff. He was one guy who gave me hope for this office. . .so one day, Jack had an important presentation to make, but somehow, before he got up there, these idiots got into his computer and messed it up. Nothing too obvious, nothing that would make it clear that this was all a joke – they just messed his numbers up, they changed the order of his slides, they moved a few things around, so that Jack looked confused, muddled, out-of-sorts. The managers weren’t happy, and Jack looked like an idiot. I happened to look over and see the four amigos sitting back there, snickering; as we all left I saw them high-fiving each other. It was obvious this was their work. Surprisingly. . .Jack didn’t say a word. He didn’t get mad. He just apologized to everybody for not being prepared, and went on to the next thing.

One more. Every night around 5, as we were all getting ready to go home, the cleaning crew would show up. I knew one or two of them casually – we always said “hi” as we passed in the hall. I tried to show some appreciation for the work they did, because I know they work long hours and don’t get paid much. And some, like Rosa, are trying to raise a family on the meager income they make cleaning up our messes. So this one time – it was right before Christmas. We’d had an office party, so it was kind of messy to begin with. And I think somebody had added a little something to the punch, because people were acting goofier than normal. And so it happened – we were heading out, and Rosa and her crew were walking in. . .and one of these guys says really loudly, “here, let me help you out.” And tipped the punch bowl over onto the carpet. Which got everybody else going; pretty soon there were tater tots flying across the room, Christmas decorations thrown on the ground, jello salad dumped in the corner. And when it was done somebody shouted ‘Feliz Navidad, cleaning suckers!’ and everybody left.

You can understand why I didn’t really like these people. Why none of us ever really got along with each other. Why we all mostly went about our business, trying not to stand out, not to get in the crosshairs of these crazy people. And yet. . .like I said, it was lonely. You can imagine living in such a caustic atmosphere, where at any moment you could become the butt of the next joke; where any time you try to make a friend you just get laughed at, where you can only go along with the joke – if you try to fight back it only makes it worse. It was miserable.

So it finally came to a head a few months ago, last Spring. It was a sunny day so I decided to eat lunch outside. As I bit into my chicken salad sandwich Jack came by, asked if he could join me. We talked for a bit – he asked how I was doing, even seemed to care about my answer to that question. So I asked him about his presentation – why didn’t he try to fight back? Why didn’t he get angry and tell those guys off? “You can’t beat them at their own game,” he told me. “They just act that way because they’re insecure, too. They try to make themselves look funny, they try to dominate the whole office social scene, but it’s only because they’re miserable, too. What good would it do if I tried to get some revenge? If I made them look like fools in front of everybody else? They’d just have to one-up me, to gain back their power, and the cycle would keep going on. You just have to forgive them and keep moving on. Maybe one day they’ll be honest enough with themselves about what they’re doing, and cut it out. Maybe not. . .but the only way to really beat them is to respond to their games with forgiveness, with kindness. Otherwise, this whole office will be destroyed.”

It made me think. . .but we had to get back to work. Later that night, though, I saw it in action.

Some of us had gone out for drinks and something to eat at a local hangout spot, we were sitting in a corner booth; it was loud and dark in there. We were talking about college basketball, I think. Across the room near the door were our four salesmen, the four amigos; they were the loudest group in the room. I was a bit surprised to see Jack standing up against the far wall; he seemed to be in deep discussion with a person I’d never seen before. Anyway, we were all out for fun. . .but then Rosa and her crew walked in the door. Which probably wouldn’t have been a problem, except one of the sales guys saw her and had to make a sarcastic remark about the ‘servants mucking up the place.’ I saw Rosa stiffen, but she and her girls kept walking past toward a booth in the back. Only this guy didn’t want to be ignored. So he made another remark, something about her inability to ‘understand the English language?” The girls kept walking.

So this guy, and his buddies, get up and walk back to the booth where Rosa had sat down. And started talking tough, a little threatening. Like a dirty kind of flirting, almost. It got awkward really fast. And we could tell it wouldn’t end well.

But at that moment Jack walked up, calmly but with an intent I hadn’t noticed before. “C’mon guys, let’s leave the ladies alone for a night, okay?”

“Why don’t you butt out” was their reply.

“No, I just think these women are here to have a good time by themselves; this place is big enough for all of us. Let’s just calm down and let them be.”


I’ll tell you, Jack had accomplished one thing. The guys were no longer interested in the ladies sitting there. They were all focused on Jack, instead.

“Mind your own business, Jack,” one said.

“I would, but Rosa doesn’t deserve to be treated this way..”


Steve, the biggest guy in the bunch, got up in Jack’s face. He pushed Jack back a bit. “We’re just trying to have some fun, too, and don’t like you getting in our way.” But Jack wouldn’t back down. Calmly he told them “It doesn’t have to be like this. We could all enjoy this night, without all these games you’re playing.”


“Oh, so you think it’s a game, do you? Well, I don’t. I think this is serious.” And with that he knocked Jack to the floor. Before Jack could get up, one of the other guys had dumped his beer over Jack’s head. They all laughed. . .and then Jack stood, and looked them in the eye.

“I told you, it doesn’t have to be like this. You’re just making everybody miserable – yourselves included. Let me show you how much better it can all be. . .”

But that was too much. They knocked him back down – one kicked him hard in the chest, another kicked him in the gut. They were like pack animals with the scent of their prey – they couldn’t control themselves. We jumped up – for a moment – but the scene was horrifying. I seemed paralyzed, until I looked down and caught Jack’s eye. It was weird; I could tell he was in pain, but where I expected rage and anger, or even resignation, I saw none of that. It was almost. . .contentedness. Peace. Acceptance.

The picked him up and carried him outside – we followed at a distance. Soon I think he was unconscious, and still they kicked and stomped. . .right up until we heard sirens in the distance. And then they drifted away, and I ran. I ran in anger, I ran in disbelief, I ran in shame that I hadn’t done anything to stop it. . .I ran home to my lonely little apartment, where I spent the weekend locked inside, watching mindless television and sleeping the nights away accompanied by dark dreams.

Monday morning I got up like normal; ate breakfast, left for work. I had no idea what to expect. Would everybody just pretend it never happened? Would it all just go back to normal? Would these guys ratchet up their office games, now that they had tasted blood? Would it always be intimidation like this?

But a funny thing happened. I sat down at my desk, and found a note with a phone number. All it said was “call” – and then a number. It wasn’t signed, didn’t say if it was work-related or what. So I warmed up my coffee, sat down at my desk, and called.

It was Rosa who answered. She sounded. . .excited. “I went with Jack to the hospital. He spent a couple days there, but they let him out earlier this morning. I was going to take him home, but he said he had something to take care of first. We’re on the way to the office right now. Meet us outside, at the picnic table in 15 minutes.”

And so I found myself there 10 minutes later, watching Rosa’s car pull up, watching as she and Jack walked over to where I sat – I was stunned to see Jack so soon, stunned to see him back at the office in the first place. And he came bearing gifts – he offered me a cup of coffee and sat down.

“So. . .what are you going to do? Report them? Get them fired? Get back at them?” I asked.

Jack shook his head. He paused, and then gave his answer.

“You still don’t get it, do you? All these guys know is this game of domination, this game of humiliation, this endless cycle of trying to destroy everybody else. If I go in there and try to get some revenge, they’ll never learn. Nobody will learn.”

“But Jack,” I said, “you can’t just let them get away with what they did!”

“Listen,” he responded. “Why do you think they act they way they do? People aren’t supposed to act this way, they’re not programmed to act this way. They act this way because they’re broken, and there’s only one remedy for that brokenness. Can you guess what it is?”


“Punishment?” I guessed.

“No. That’s what a lot of people think. But the only true remedy for this kind of brokenness is love. These guys only act the way they do because they’re afraid, too. They’re lonely, they’re ashamed of themselves, they think nobody will respect them unless they act tough. If we go in and try to get revenge, try to punish them, it will really just be stooping to their level. If there’s any hope for these guys, they need to experience love. Which means I’m going to forgive them.”

“What?” I asked. “Forgive them? After what they did to you?”

“Yes. I’m not saying what they did was right. It was wrong. Completely, utterly, horribly wrong. They deserve to be punished. But I’m going to let it go. I’m going to forgive them and love them. That’s the only hope of changing all this.”

“But that doesn’t make any sense,” I argued.

“Let me ask you something. How should I treat you right now?”

“What do you mean?”

“You saw me lying there, you watched all this happen. . .and you ran away, didn’t you?”

“Well. . .I suppose you’re right. But I don’t know what else I could have done.”

“Well, maybe not just you. But all your friends were there, too. You saw what they were doing to Rosa. And none of you did anything. So I’m not sure you have the moral high ground to judge those other guys. In a way, you’re just as guilty for doing nothing.”

I have to admit, that struck home. It stung. I didn’t want him to be right. . .but he was. All these years, we’d all just gone along with it. Put up with it. Sometimes joined in with it.

Then Rosa spoke up. “It’s okay,” she said. “I forgive you. I’m not mad.”

I won’t claim that everything changed in that moment, that the skies parted and the angels started singing and I won the lottery. . .but something inside of me stirred. Some piece of me that had been left for dead started to breathe, just a bit.

Jack went on. “I know you’re lonely. I know it all seems so pointless. So let me tell you a little secret: This is the way this world works. Everybody’s broken, everybody’s ashamed. There’s this sickness deep down inside of everyone, but they won’t admit it. So they act out like this, playing these games of domination, of put-downs. The teasing, the practical joking, even the abuse: It’s just a mask people use to avoid the pain of facing their lonely reality. But it’s a never-ending cycle, it’s like a feedback loop. Violence leads to more violence, which leads to more loneliness and brokenness, which leads to more of this stuff. And on it goes. And in the end there is only one solution, one perfect answer: love. And they only way to express that love is through forgiveness. So I’m going to go back up there and see those guys, I’m going to look them in the eye, and I’m going to tell them I forgive them. And I might just invite them to sit down and talk it over with me, see if I can’t get past that hard shell they project, see if I can’t get them to admit their pain, their need for validation. See if I can’t get them to own up to all this, and change.”

“Wow,” I said. “I’m impressed you can do all that. I never could.”

“Well, that’s just it,” said Jack. “I need you to. I need you to find that place where my forgiveness touches your heart, and see if you can’t forgive those guys for all they’ve done to you. I need you to love them, too. Rosa’s already told me she’s in. If you come along, that’s three of us. I may or may not be enough. . .but with all three of us, and if we can find some others to join in with us. . .we may save this place yet. So what do you say? You know I care about you, right? I’ve always been your friend, always looked out for you. So let’s go treat those guys the same way; let’s go be their friends. Let’s flood this place with forgiveness, and love, and see if we don’t transform the world.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

The Pit

This is the sermon I gave on Easter Sunday. It was offered as is, with no introduction or concluding remarks, allowing the story to stand on its own.

+++++++

. . .His dying into the earth

begins the great reversal –

as blood from a vein leaps

into the needle, so with his rising,

we surge into light.[1]

“And then he was alive. The tomb could not hold him. The stone was simply blown aside by God’s returning life – not returning human life, which always ends in dissolution and death, but God’s life, which is triumphant over anything and everything that threatens human existence, including most of all dissolution and death. The resurrection of Jesus Christ means that God has reversed the story, reversed the odds, reversed the direction – from death to life.[2]

“It means,” said Aslan, “that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.[3]

From our earliest days, the Pit lay on the edge of our dreams. It was in the lullabies our mothers sang to us; it was the theme of the nursery rhymes we chanted as children.

Lullaby, my little one,

rest sweetly through the night,

should terrors come into your sleep,

my love will be your light.

And what terrors could those be, but the terror that was the Pit.

Sing and Dance around the land,

through forest, plain, and town,

close to home we all remain,

we always fall back down.

Falling down – as children it seemed so simple, the stumbling of boys and girls attempting their first early steps. But scholars point us back further; falling, they tell us, has always meant the Pit.

Our earliest morality tales, the fairy tales we learned upon grandfather’s knee, often ended with the naughty child wandering too close to the Pit, falling in, never to be heard from again. Our teachers, our preachers. . .certainly, they taught of so many other things: how to be good, how to be wise, they taught us reading and writing, they taught us the ways of nature and the universe, but most lessons eventually returned to the Pit.

It lay a short ways beyond the back of our village. On the playground, boastful classmates would claim they had been there, they had seen it, they had heard the anguished wailing said to pour out on warm harvest nights; but we never believed them. Still, we wondered. Wondered what it looked like, wondered if the rumors were true.

This is what we did know: the Pit had always been there; at least, in the history of our people it had always been there. Our preachers told us that at the very beginning there had been no Pit, but that the people had made the gods angry; in retaliation, the gods had created the Pit as punishment. Again, more stories and fables, no way of knowing how true they might be.

What we did know was that the Pit remained, deep, dark, impenetrable. And we knew two more things: Those who went into the Pit never, ever returned, they were never heard from again; and we knew this: eventually, everybody went into the Pit. Both were mysteries. Our sages and philosophers attempted to explain the first; perhaps, some said, the other side of the Pit was so wonderful that nobody would want to return. Others taught that the Pit had no bottom – those who fell in would keep on falling, forever. But nobody had ever returned to tell us; it was all so much guessing.

The second truth was the most troubling. We all knew the Pit was dangerous. We all knew the warnings: Never go near the Pit. And yet. . .eventually, everybody fell in.

Or, at least, that was what we assumed. Some went out for a walk and never returned; others were seen climbing into their beds at night – in the morning, their blankets were cold and empty, and they were nowhere to be found. Ever again. There were stories that were told of shivering hunters in the woods on the edge of the Pit – glancing up from their hot soup and coffee to see a child, a man or woman walking through the fog toward the Pit, turning neither right nor left, simply wandering toward the edge and, without slowing, stepping over the side. Why? we asked. Why would anybody jump into the Pit? It was a question that had no answer.

We had many questions without answers, but we learned to live with them. Usually.

One summer in my youth, the mother of my best school-friend disappeared. It was early one morning, as summer’s heat was finally breaking the fog and gloom of the rainy spring; they gathered together for breakfast, a basket of homemade bread and fresh milk; they said their morning prayers, and then went out into the day. She carried a basket out into the field, “to get enough berries to make a pie for dinner,” she told them. They watched her as she happily walked beyond their field and reached the woods. . .and she was gone.

When she didn’t return that evening, we all searched the woods; the police asked around town, they offered a reward, they passed word on to the other villages in the valley, but everybody already knew. She had gone into the Pit. I said we learned to live with our questions. But I knew differently. My schoolmate was never the same. None of us were. Our own parents fretted, they tried to make excuses, they even tried to blame her - “she never should have gone over there; she should have known better” – but, in the end, nothing lessened the fear, or the sadness. We suffered as our friend suffered. And we learned to fear the Pit like never before.

Those were the difficult times. Sometimes an old person disappeared, and we were sad, but we all agreed, “She lived a good life; if the Pit is kind, she will be happy again.” But the other times – when a mother or father disappeared, when a child went in. . .it was anger that surfaced. Rage. Men and women would scream, they would break things. They would yell out their hatred of the Pit. They would cry out about how unfair it all was; they would scream that they could no longer stand it.

But nothing could be done. Nobody seemed to have any power over the Pit. No matter the warnings, the nursery rhymes and morality tales. . .still, year after year, people would disappear into the Pit. And this we knew: the Pit never returned her prize. There was only one direction with the Pit: Down.

I learned the mystery of the Pit when I was a young man, taking on new responsibilities as a member of our family. Childhood was fading. “You’re becoming an adult,” my father told me. “Time to start earning your keep around here.”

And so that cold autumn morning I left early, carrying only my rifle and pack with the few supplies needed for a day of hunting. Winter would be here soon enough; we had to fill our food supplies to carry us through. The fields were mostly picked clean; but I thought a small deer, even a wild turkey or few grouse would make a nice addition to the dinner table on those long, cold nights that lay ahead.

It was a miserable day, with mist giving way to drizzle as I made my way across the small creek that marked the west boundary of the village. At lunchtime my luck had only been wretched; two small pheasant flushed, and both shots missed. I paused to down some tepid coffee and a sandwich made of leftovers from last night’s table. The food offered enough energy to carry on through the afternoon, but my luck wouldn’t turn. Nothing to be seen but the endless wood, the thickening moss, the water drops collected from rain and mist dropping to the dark forest floor. I was cold and wet, dejected, tired; I could think of nothing better than the fire of home, and mother’s stew on the table. Giving up on the hunt, I turned toward home.

But I heard music.

Through the trees, I heard music. The soft splinter of notes, mixing with the late afternoon wind, the dripping of rain through the leaves. It came, it went, it came back again. From time to time gypsies would camp in our woods; It was well-known that teenagers from the town would often sneak out, away from the watchful eyes of parents; there were hidden alcoves among the trees where a dozen could gather and party and never be discovered. Whether this music came from the fiddle of passing vagabonds or even friends of mine out for a night of fun, I couldn’t tell.

Wandering closer, I soon made out a campfire, with two huddled shapes sitting close by. They seemed to be singing – it was sweet, it was mournful – but there was music behind their voices; its source, beyond my sight. It drew me toward them, out of the woods into the small clearing in which they sat. I didn’t think I knew them from our village, their singing in a language I didn’t understand. And yet. . .it was an enchanting melody they sang. Plain, simple, and yet it touched a chord inside and pulled me forward. A small kettle hung over the fire; I smelled a soup of some sort cooking inside; the hunger from my day’s wandering jumped at the thought of a warm meal; and yet, these two singers, these two strangers took no notice me. Their song and their food alone was working their magic

Until I said, with some trepidation, “hello?”

And they were up. Throwing back their cloaks, clutching out at me with bony, darkened hands, cackling with sickened delight; and I realized, in a glance that left me cold with horror, that we allstood on the edge of the Pit. Fear lurched in my stomach and I turned to flee, but it was too late. I was too close, too tired to fight. Showing surprising strength for their withered arms, these two grabbed me and pulled me back, thrust me toward the Pit, pushed against my last efforts to save myself. . .

and it was over. For a moment the cloudy evening sky tumbled overhead, I could see the light of campfire flickering off branches, and then, all was dark.

How long I lay there, I have no idea. Hours; days; years? All was black, all was silent. I could hear nothing, I could see nothing, I could feel nothing. My shouts into the darkness fell flat, as if underwater. I drifted, losing all sense of time and space. The only thought that remained was this: those who fall into the Pit never return.

Were there others around? All those who had gone before? I couldn’t tell. How does one describe utter darkness, total silence, lack of any feeling? It was like floating in water, only I couldn’t move. That, I knew. My body seemed frozen, paralyzed. Perhaps I was? Perhaps in the fall my body had been damaged? Only I felt no pain. I felt nothing except fear, at first, sheer terror and panic; but, eventually fear gave way to despair. All was nothing. Blackness surrounded me, silence like the grave held me tightly. And I lay there, waiting in eternity.


Until. . .how does one tell the exact moment when the afternoon sky begins to darken into dusk? When the day turns to evening? How do you mark the moment when stars first break through the canopy of sky?

In the same way. . .in a moment after eons, somewhere out at the fringes of my senses. . . something was different. Something was. . .changing. I began to make out. . .sound. Muffled, but becoming clearer. At first, incoherent murmurings, but as I strained to understand, they gave way to voices – shouts. Angry shouts.

I cried out to them “I’m here! I’m here! Save me!” but could feel the uselessness. As if rags were stuffed in my mouth, my voice wouldn’t carry. I gave up, trying to listen all the more.

And this is what I heard:

“Throw him in! Throw him in! It’s all his fault!”

No distinct voices, just the murmuring, the chanting of an angry mob.

“He said he’s the Master of the Pit! Throw him in!”

It grew louder and louder; moving as if toward victory it reached a fevered pitch, and then – the loudest of cheers, punctuated by a single cry of anguish, and all grew silent again. Except for the singular sound as of gravel sliding a steep slope, the pop and crunch of falling sand, an echoing thud. And then all truly was silent.

I strained to hear more; I called into the blackness, I lay in stillness, straining my ears for more, hungry for something, anything, but it was pointless. All was as it had been before.

Except. . .

How does one mark the moment of first light, when the eastern horizon begins to glow in primal sunlight? How does one mark the beginnings of the gentle song of a lark singing in the distant wood? How does one measure the exact time when night gives way to early dawn?

My eyes beheld a quickening light.

At first, only the faintest light and deepest dark, shadows of shadows. Slowly these gave way, and I began to see gray dark walls of stone, as in the inside of a mountain cavern. I tried to look around, but found I was still frozen in place; and yet, in front and above me I could soon see soaring walls of granite reaching beyond my sight, and then, looking down, I found the cause of my imprisonment: ropes like vines held me fast to the floor. Growing out of the ground itself, long tapers wrapped around my legs, my arms, my torso, my neck and head. Much as I strained against them, it did no good. They were strong as a new steel chain. I could see, but I could not move.

The light was growing brighter now – inside this cave, inside the Pit it seemed almost as bright as day – and finally I could see why.

A man lay on the ground a few yards away. I could only see him out of the corner of my eye; he wasn’t moving. And yet he was, I almost don’t know how to say it – he was glowing. The light was coming from him. From inside of this man. His skin was translucent, his face was radiant. All the light in the room seemed to find its source in this man, as if he were made of electricity itself.

In spite of this strange light, I assumed he was dead, or unconscious, stuck like me, until. . .he laughed. The deep, heart-felt laugh of one who recognizes the joy of work well-done. The laughter of one who has no care in the world. Beautiful, rich, joyous; it was wondrous to me to hear.

And then his eyes opened and he was looking at me. I could see – his eyes staring into mine with a strange fervor, and yet he was smiling. Tears of joy were streaming down his face as laughter filled this cavern. . .and then he sat up. The vines wrapped around his body simply slipped off, as if melting at his motion. He climbed to one knee, then the other, and pulled himself up, stretching his arms up to the heavens, laughing, a laughter of pleasure and of song. He turned; looked at me, and finally walked over.

He stood over me a moment, his laugh temporarily muted, he shook his head and – I shall always remember this – a tear dropped from his cheek. For a moment it hung in midair, as if suspended in space, but it was falling toward me – it landed on my chest, and to my amazement, the vines that had held like steel pulled back – recoiled even, as if the tear was poison to them –

he reached out his hand – I took it in mine, and stood.

“Yes,” he said. “Yes, we are finished with this place. Let us go.”

And this was most wondrous of all – he lifted off the ground, as if flying upward; and, with my hand in his, I flew with him. The walls of the Pit drifted downward past us, the wind picked up in my ears, I looked in wonder and awe at this man, this man who had been thrown into the Pit by the mob; His gaze remained upward, as if seeking out the line that would mark the lip of this cavern.

Was this possible? Was I dreaming? Could it truly be that he was lifting me out of the Pit? Returning me to the land from which I’d fallen? It was unheard of – nobody returned from the Pit. And yet, and yet. I saw it with my own eyes. Far overhead a slit appeared, it quickly widened as we flew upward; the space between filled with the brilliant blue of a summer sky; we rocketed skyward and as we did this man who was pulling me upward began to sing – a shout of glory, a cry of triumph, an exuberant melody of joy and satisfaction. . .

And then we stood at the top. The impossible – returning from the Pit – had been accomplished. He and I stood, gazing in wonder as the deep green wood seemed to bend around us; the songs of the summer lark and the buzz of the dragonfly hammered in our ears, the fresh, clean taste of air filled our lungs.

A small pool lay ahead of us. He walked over, bent down, sank his face deep in the clear water, and drank. It was all the invitation I needed; I joined him as quickly as I could move; the icy, crystalline water poured down my throat, fairer and sweeter than any wine I’d ever tasted. The moment was glory.

Finally, after all this time, I found my voice to ask him: “Who, who are you?”

He turned to me, a gentle, friendly smile on his face.

“It depends on who you ask,” he replied. “I’ve been know by many names. Some have called me a wretch, others have called me a King. My friends have called me Joshua, or Teacher. For now, you can call me friend.”

“Will you come back with me?” I asked. “Will you come back to the village – to see my family, to join us? Will you stay?”

He glanced wistfully over his shoulder, back in the direction our village lay, and shook his head.

“No, that’s for you. You go – your mother is waiting. Go and tell them what you’ve seen. Go and tell them the story has changed. Go and tell them of this reversal. Go and tell them this: No longer will the Pit hold you. What had been true: those who go into the Pit never return, well, I’ve reversed that. The Pit couldn’t hold me; they should have known that. And since I have returned, the Pit has lost its power to hold you. Up to this moment, there has only been one direction possible with the Pit: In. No longer. Now the Pit must give up her prize. Now all must rise as you have risen. All is reversed. All is changed. The Pit can no longer hold you.”

“But won’t you come with me, even for a day?” I asked. “I have so much to ask you.”

“No, I can’t.” He said. “I have work still to do.

And, with that, he rose, he wrapped his mighty arms around me, he embraced me for a moment. . .letting go, he gazed skyward, said “yes, I have work still to do,” and, even as his words echoed in my ears, with a victorious shout he dove back into the Pit.



[1] Shaw, Luci. “Present,” in Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross, Mark D. Baker, ed. ©2006 Baker Publishing

[2] Rutledge, Fleming. “Reaching Out,” in This Incomplete One: Words Occasioned by the Death of a Young Person, Michael D. Bush, ed. © 2006 Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co.

[3] Lewis, C.S. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

James Alison - Knowing Jesus

What [Jesus] gave the disciples on his resurrection, therefore, was the ability to follow him without death being a stumbling block. There was nothing left that might cause his disciples to stumble – death was swallowed up in victory. Now, see what this led them to understand: it led them to understand that all stumbling blocks – all relations where people are locked in with each other as stumbling blocks, where imitation and learning is distorted by rivalry – are related to death. The presence to them of the crucified and risen Lord was what enabled them to learn to imitate pacifically, having the deepest bonds of their relationships which were cast in modes of stumbling, loosed, so that they might no longer live towards death, but instead live with death as an incidental side issue.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Words for Lent, Approaching Holy Week


Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
in my place condemned he stood.
Sealed my pardon with his blood,
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Guilty, vile, and helpless we,
Spotless lamb of God was he
'Full Atonement!' Can it be?
Hallelujah What a Savior!

Lifted up was he to die,
'It is Finished' was his cry.
Now in Heaven exalted high,
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Book Review: Atonement for a Sinless Society



First, let me get this out of the way. This is a heavy book. It is a deep book. It's a book that makes you think. It's not easy Saturday afternoon reading. It's the kind of book that makes your head hurt. It begins like a freight train exploding out of a tunnel, and never lets up. So reader, beware. This one takes time.

On the other hand, it's a very important and necessary book, adding a much-needed voice into the 21st Century atonement discussion. It stands up there with Scot McKnight's A Community Called Atonement and Joel Green and Mark Baker's Recovering the Scandal of the Cross in calling the church to rethink the message of the cross of Christ in a multicultural, multilingual, postmodern, postChristian society.

Mann begins by making this somewhat startling claim: sin is dead. Or, to put it another way, we live in a 'sinless' society. But before you instantly write him off as a heretic, understand his reasoning.

"Sin has been caricatured, a tool for advertisers to suggest that a product is good and pleasurable. Far from being something to be avoided, sin is now part and parcel of the human desire that drives consumerist mentalities."

There is something deeper here, however, than simply a consumer-driven mindset. In actuality, sin is first and foremost a relational concept; sin is something we do against another, be it another person, or God. And both of those categories - the other, God - have all but disappeared from our thinking. Whether or not there is a God, belief in God has been waning for some time now; in addition, even many who would claim belief in God certainly live their lives as if God didn't exist. But even more, the postmodern self is an isolated self. In a world of I-pods and My-space, in a world lacking in deep relationship and community and familial relationships, in a world in which human beings have been reduced to consumers of products, people have lost any sense of "others." And, thus, "We live in a 'sinless' society because without the 'Other' there are no subjects to have wronged."

Even worse, where any concept of 'sin' exists it does so within the context of being 'sinned against,' rather than being a sinner. In other words, the 20th Century Therapeutic culture has successfully convinced people that "it's not your fault." We're all victims, be it of our parents, the institutions around us, or strangers in our world. ". . .the only obligation the client has is to his or her own self-realization, something deemed achievable without the 'Other', who is more likely to be perceived as the cause of traumas rather than the answer to them."

Now, astute readers may argue that Mann is discussing perception here more than reality, but that's exactly the point. Mann is not so concerned with the ontological nature of sin as he is the missional question of how we share the gospel of Christ. And for hundreds of years, that message has gone something like this:

1. You're sinner
2. You're guilty before God
3. The penalty of that guilt is death
4. Christ died in your place

However. . .when we attempt to tell this story today, people stop tracking right there at point 1. Since the people of this culture live in a 'sinless' society, any message beginning with concepts of sin and guilt will fall on deaf ears. Back in the day of big revivals and Four Spiritual Laws, people got this - they understood it. I've sinned. I've hurt others. I've hurt God and broken his laws. But today, people are more apt to protest "Wait! I'm the victim here!" And thus they never will stick around long enough to hear the message of the Gospel.

At the heart of Mann's work, though, is the understanding that, even as concepts of "sin" and "guilt" have passed away from our consciousness, people are no happier, nor fulfilled, than before. In fact, the utter isolation and separation that marks the lives of many people is just as miserable and painful as were earlier feelings of guilt and sin.

The new story goes something like this:

"While
the post-industrialized self is able to push away the sins of moral misdemeanor. . .the intensity of emphasis placed upon the self has generated a chronic, internalized dis-ease, typically labeled 'shame'. . .shame has so consumed some, however, that they have taken on the identity of a shamed person and can only relate to themselves and to others as such."

In this new world, individuals still seek intimacy with other humans, but no longer out of a desire to know another; instead, "the self is primarily looking to satisfy its own need." There is a deep hunger for self-realization, and a latent understanding that relating to others is a necessary step to that self-realization. However, in the end, it's always about project "I." And, "once the 'Other' discovers that the agenda in relating is always 'I,' the person becomes disillusioned, cynical about relationships and the real reasons for social interaction."

And where this all leads:

"Thus a vicious cycle ensues: we long for intimacy, to have a deep sense of connectedness with ourselves and with 'Others.' However, the project of self-realization ultimately pushes the 'Other' away. Alone, the project of self-realization collapses in on itself, laying the seedbed for chronic shame to grow. . .With such fears the chronically shamed person hides behind masks, never truly connecting with others, never satisfying his or her need for intimate, mutual, undistorted relating - and so always falling short of what it means to be a human being, created in the image of the relational, Trinitarian God revealed in the Bible."


In other words: our society is awash in deep-seated feelings of shame, desiring above all else to share in mutual relationships, and yet knowing that, should they open up to the 'Other,' they will be rejected for being less-than perfect, less-than acceptable. For being a Loser, for being Lame, for being Stupid. Think of it this way: the images young people portray are all the images of who they want to be - cool, hip, sophisticated, partiers, fun, sexy - and so they present themselves on their facebook pages, their myspace profiles. Yet behind those stories lie their real selves, desperately seeking affection and unconditional love and acceptance; in fact, they desire Eden, where Adam and Eve were "naked yet had no shame." But there is no getting there, because of this reality: to be exposed is to be shamed, for none will truly love them and accept them as they need.

Shame, then, becomes the over-arching story for all postmoderns. "What becomes obvious is that she fears being exposed. . .for who she really is - a chronically shamed person, a self trying to live an unexposed life, fearful that others will 'notice' her and see the true self rather than the ideal. The self has a sense that it is defective and has a basic flaw that ensures its unacceptability and rejection by those whom it loves."

The ultimate result of all of this is a serious distortion in any and every relationship - their relationships with others, their relationship with God, and even their relationship with themselves.

It is at this very point that we can begin to discuss atonement. What people seek most of all is mutual, accepting relationship - someone who will love and accept them as they really are. And, at its most basic level, this is the story of Jesus and the cross.

Mann spends significant time expounding on the narrative surrounding the cross, bringing it to bear on our own narrative. Our experience is this: often, people will say they are "for" us; and yet, just when we need them most, they turn from us. This rejection feeds right into our psyche of shame. Jesus, on the other hand, said he was "for" us and then proved it. His "real" self lived out the "ideal" self which he presented to the world. In more common parlance, his "talk" was proven by his "walk." Not only did he say "greater love has no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends"; he went out and actually did it - he gave up his life for his friends, rather than run away in self-protection.

Mann makes much of this issue of "ontological coherence" - the idea of being complete and true and coherent, even at our deepest levels. As humans, we lack this kind of coherence. Our "ideal" self is never matched by our "real" self. And this is the heart of our shame, why we never reveal our "real" self." Jesus, on the other hand, was completely true to himself. And the cross was the proof of that. He certainly made a lot of promises; had he turned and walked away from the cross, he would have proven that his "true" self was just like ours - a sad shadow of the "ideal." Instead, when faced with the option of allowing himself to be killed, or running away and saving himself, Jesus chose the former, and thus proved that his word can be trusted. His love and acceptance can be trusted. And here we begin to overcome the power of shame.

In fact, it is on the other side of that cross, at the resurrection, that the possibility of new, undistorted life begins. Having proved that his love conquered even death itself, Jesus invited all to enter into this new life he had begun.

"Rather paradoxically, Jesus' pursuit of death in actuality becomes the pursuit of life. The postmodern fears that, in living for the 'Other,' we die to ourselves. At the cross, Jesus subverts this rationale. Living for the 'Other' (even unto death) leads us from a place of isolation, alienation and meaningless insufficiency as a human being to a coherent ontology and to a place of mutual, undistorted, unpolluted relating - to a life that conquers emotional, spiritual and (almost inexplicably) physical death."

Now, I've almost completely ignored one of the major tenets of Mann's work, which is that, to the postmodern, fact is nothing and narrative is everything. One can confront postmoderns with the Fact of sin and guilt, or with the Fact of shame and fear, but it will continue to slide off. Postmodern people define their reality (much as premoderns did) via story and narrative. Thus, the counter to the narrative of shame is not the Fact of the cross, but the Story of Christ, living a life of love and truth, sharing meals with the outcast and the shamed, dying himself as the most shamed and yet returning with continued love and acceptance.

As an example of this at work, Mann counterposes the stories of Jesus and Judas at the last supper, and in so doing presents Judas in a new and, I believe, refreshing light.

For too long, Judas has been caricaturized as the conniving, greedy, satan-filled villain of the story. The truth is, the scriptures leave plenty of room to discuss the final motives for his actions. Perhaps he was simply greedy, or making a play for power. On the other hand, does he not fit this description, penned by Stephen Pattison and quoted by Mann?

Some shamed people lack a sense of personal worth and value. This means that they may act compliantly and in such a way as to attract approval from outside themselves rather than being concerned to do the right thing or what is best for others. The need to be acceptable may also cause shamed people to lie or be dishonest.

Mann recognizes that we may never fully know what Judas was up to. But that's not the issue. The fact is, Judas easily becomes the recognizable figure to the post-modern self, seeking value and worth in the absence of true relationship. "The post-industrialized self reads the story of Judas and recognizes someone traumatized by the dis-ease of chronic shame."

Point of fact: while the reader often focuses solely on Judas the betrayer, it is usually missed that the other disciples are all betraying Jesus, and each other, at the same time. Each is left to ask "Is it I who will betray you?" To add to the pain, note that nobody followed Judas out of the room as he left to make his final bargain. "Surely the disciples could feel the distress that must have come over Jesus as he watched one of his closest friends depart. Still, for whatever reason, there was no attempt to stop him, no one willing to inquire after his welfare. He was left to his own devices, to disappear from their lives into the darkness." To top it all off, in Luke's telling of the story, "even as the door closes behind Judas, an argument breaks out as to who is the closest to Jesus, the most loyal friend, the truest companion and therefore the most important in the kingdom." All are self-serving, all seeking after their own gain.

When told this way, the postmodern reader will quickly identify. This hodgepodge group, all self-serving and self-seeking, all presenting their ideal self - "I will never betray you, Jesus" - while at the same time living the reality of their true self - focused only on their own gain.

And Judas plays one final role - he displays for us the ultimate response to complete personal breakdown. The pain of the fracture between ideal and reality becomes too strong, and Judas kills himself. He can no longer endure the isolation, the loneliness, the incoherence, and death - non-identity - becomes preferable to carrying on.

Jesus, however, plays the counter-story, the story that gives us hope.

To frame Jesus once more with the narrative of Judas: both Judas and Jesus die on trees away from human relating. Though both, it may be suggested, are 'offerings', only one is efficacious. Judas does not restore his own relationships, or those of anyone else, through his death because he dies in the absence of mutual, unpolluted relating. His death represents his life, and the life of all who suffer the same absence - and that includes the postmodern self. . .Jesus' death, however, takes on this non-relatedness, this non-being, by making way for the possibility of a restoration of relationship - resurrection, even. . .

The cross. . .is not a place of judgment for the inadequacies and insufficiencies of human relating. Indeed, it is a place of acceptance, of embracing the human condition. Atonement is the presence of the 'Other' without condemnation.

So, then, what do we do? As the postmodern self is define by narrative, and that a painful, broken narrative, the answer is to tell a new (old) narrative - the narrative of Jesus, who died as he lived - seeking open, honest, mutual intimacy with those around him, and who destroyed even the final barrier, death itself, thus opening up the door for the rest of us to live lives of mutual, undistorted relationships.

Mann sketches out one primary method of telling that story - the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist. Mann suggests we recast the liturgy of the Lord's Supper, so often told as a story of guilt, wrath, and forgiveness. Instead, the same story can be told as a story of broken lives posturing for self-gratitude while at the same time full of shame and loathing, and the one at the center who sees beyond all that and loves and accepts anyway. This story, re-enacted and lived whenever the church gathers around the table, tells the atoning work of Christ in ways that will sink in and reach a culture that knows its shame but knows nothing of guilt.

There is so much more here, so many other directions this book moves, so many powerful nuggets, but this review is too long already. Congratulations if you're still here. Obviously, I was impressed with the book, and am still wrestling with many of its questions and implications. I need to set it down for a bit and let my brain stew on it, before cracking it once again and seeking how to apply it in my life. As I said earlier, it's a heavy book, but a book for which I am very grateful. It's truly one of the most important books on the atonement that I've read in a couple years. I only hope this review has done it justice.

_____

Next Up: Soul Revolution, by John Burke

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Music, Theology, and The Saving Grace of Jesus

Not too long ago I was speaking to Mark Baker on the issue of communicating the atonement. Baker is a former professor of mine in seminary, and the author of several books, including Recovering the Scandal of the Cross and the editor of its sequel, Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross. Because of our relationship over the last 7 years, I was able to submit a chapter for Proclaiming, which, I'm always pleased to tell people, made it through the final cut and into the book.

At heart is the issue of atonement: what exactly did the cross accomplish? Baker's premise is that today we live too strongly with one story/metaphor: Penal Substitutionary Atonement. You've heard the story: We sinned, God became really angry, we deserved God's wrath, Jesus took God's wrath into himself on the cross, God was appeased and we received salvation through Jesus.

Historically, there have been other ways of looking at the cross. Biblically, there are certainly other ways of describing the work of Christ to bring salvation to his people. Some would argue that PSA should be only one of many metaphors (a la Scot McKnight), others would argue it's an unhealthy metaphor at best, so perhaps should be set aside for awhile.

In Recovering the Scandal, Baker and Joel Green make the case that even the biblical models of atonement are metaphors at best: none fully describe the intricate inner mechanics of salvation. They argue that the NT writers were doing their best to contextualize the message of the cross, bringing home the eternal message in contemporary words to impact local listeners. They thus encourage today's pastors, teachers, sunday school leaders, thinkers and theologians to come up with metaphors for atonement that speak to today's listeners: to tell "the old, old story" in such a way that it is faithful to the biblical texts but expands the models so that they impact today's listeners. They also, certainly, encourage us all to open up the biblical models and embrace the fuller range of atonement language, rather than focusing in on the "appeasement of wrath" message inherent in PSA.

So back to our conversation. Mark's question to me was "how do we get this message out? How do we reach people? How do we get their attention? How can we begin to impact the larger church culture with this message?" The PSA model is so central to so many presentations and understandings of the gospel that almost nobody is hearing that they have a choice to look at it differently. From the days we're in sunday school, up through "decision night" at camp, into the sermons we listen to and the songs we sing. . .they are all dripping with PSA language. So Mark's written these books, Scot McKnight recently added to the conversation with his A Community Called Atonement, but on the ground, word just doesn't seem to be getting out very quickly. So how do we change an entire culture?

About that same time, I was finishing up Her Heart Can See, the recent biography of Fanny J. Crosby, and it struck me how much our music influences our theology. The songs we sing as children, the songs we love in worship - whether or not we realize it, they teach us the things we come to believe are Truth. In Crosby's day, she was often criticized by theologians and composers as being "trite" and "given to emotionalism." Her hymns were simple and spoke simple truths of hope and faith and God's love. In many ways, the Evangelical Church owes its passion for evangelism to Crosby and other songwriters, who wrote songs like "Rescue the Perishing." Much of our sentimentalism is owed to her and others who wrote songs about Jesus as friend, as companion, as dear father waiting to welcome us home. And so it struck me: as long as we're singing songs that say "And on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied," people will continue to hold strongly to a PSA model. A changing of hymn lyrics could be one of the primary methods of getting people to think about this all differently. The truth is, theologians can argue about this until the cows come home, but one or two good songs could bring about quick change across the board.

And so it was that I was excited to hear the new song "Jesus Saves," by Travis Cottrell and David Moffit. (You can listen to it on Travis' MySpace Page). They paint one of the fullest, most robust pictures of atonement that I have heard in song. What I especially appreciate is that they reflect one of Scot McKnight's central tenets, and one that I have long felt was important: that the whole life of Jesus Christ, from birth to death to resurrection, is part of the atonement story. You cannot boil the whole thing down to one transaction that took place on the cross. Instead, from the incarnation, through the life and ministry of Jesus, on the cross and in the empty tomb, all are working together to bring about salvation for us and this world. And Cottrell and Moffit get it. Look closely at these lyrics, and note how they bring the whole story into The Story:

Hear the heart of heaven beating, "Jesus saves, Jesus saves."
And the hush of mercy breathing, "Jesus saves, Jesus saves."
Hear the host of heaven sing, "Glory to the newborn King."
And the sounding joy repeating, "Jesus saves."

And this is the part where they really nail it:
He will live, our sorrows sharing, Jesus saves, Jesus saves.
He will die, our burden bearing, Jesus saves, Jesus saves.
"It is done!" will shout the cross, "Christ has paid redemption's cost!"
And the empty tomb's declaring, "Jesus saves!"

Do you see it? The whole life of Christ is there - birth, life (identification), death and resurrection, all in one full picture of redemption. And the cross is there, the idea of paying the cost of redemption, but without bringing in an angry God in need of appeasement. You have substitutionary atonement there, without bringing in the Penal part of it. You have the necessity of the cross, but also the importance of Christ sharing in our sorrows throughout life. And you have it all brought to completion, not at the cross, but in the empty tomb.

It also helps that it's a great song, with a very catchy, singable melody, so it sticks in your head once you've heard it once or twice.

And this is exactly what is needed in the conversation. I encourage you to take a listen, and see if you can't get it into the rotation at your church, wherever that may be. And take time to consider: what other songs could contribute to this conversation?

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

podcasting the atonement

Tony Jones, of Emergent Village fame, interviews Mark Baker, professor at Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, and author of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross and editor of Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross (to which I submitted a chapter. . .).

Mark was my professor in my MBBS years and has remained a friend over the years.

His discussion with Tony covers everything from Mennonite theology to Nicaraguan wars to atonement theology. Yoder and Ellul make an appearance or two, as well. . .

And I even get my own five seconds of fame.

Go listen and enjoy.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Emergent Atonement Contest

The winner in the Atonement Metaphor contest over at Emergent Village has just been posted, along with a couple runner-ups. You might even recognize one of the judges. . .

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Be A Winner for Jesus!

The aforementioned "Images of Atonement Contest" is up and running over at Emergent Village.

"In order for the rich benefits of alternative atonement theology to move beyond the circles of those who read theology books we must develop alternative imagery. We need not just a golf bag full of different explanations; we need a bag full of different imagery to use in conversations over coffee, in sermons, youth meetings, on blogs, etc. This contest aims to help this happen both through encouraging a wide number of people to work at developing an image, and then also by sharing the best images so that many others can use them."

Go ahead - try it out. Even if you don't win, it's good to stretch your mind around the broader meaning of atonement in our world.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Book report

One of the benefits of long plane rides is all the spare time for reading. So it was that, on the way to Chicago, I finally finished Scot McKnight's A Community Called Atonement.

This issue of Atonement (the theology, not the movie - although I read that book coming home from Chicago 5 years ago or so. . .) has been rumbling around in my head ever since taking the Theological Understandings of Jesus class at the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary. Mark Baker, class professor, had written (with Joel Green) Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, which attempts to push back against the overwhelming single narrative of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Green and Baker argue that there are a number of biblical metaphors for atonement, and that the church should do well to claim them all. In fact, they suggest, it's time to write some new metaphors to carry the message of atonement into a world that has left the idea of guilt and sin behind.

(side note: The folks at Emergent are working on a contest, in which people will be able to submit new atonement metaphors that would speak to a post-modern culture. Judges will include MESSAGE DELETED TO PROTECT ANONYMITY OF JUDGES)

To cut this down - I was challenged by the book and Baker's teaching; I ended up submitting a chapter that was included in Recovering's sequal, Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross. Following last Easter I preached a series on "what did the cross actually do?" The message I preached on shame was one of the most powerful experiences of my preaching career.

And, of course, last year Scot McKnight weighed into the discussion with the above-mentioned book. McKnight's premise, somewhat akin to Baker and Green's, is that there are any number iof biblical images that speak about atonement, and that they are all important. While each is metaphor in its own right, each offers a slightly different shade as to the extent of the work of the cross. McKnight's genius is in likening all this to a golf bag - in your bag, you need a number of different clubs, because different clubs fit different situations better than others. So too with atonement metaphors. One will speak to one issue, in one situation, one will speak better in another.

McKnight begins by discussing the problem itself - what problem was atonement meant to solve? Because where you begin ends up defining where you end. And the basic problem, according to McKnight, is this - we were made in the Image of God, to live in relationship to God, to others, to creation, and to ourselves. Sin cracked that Image, and distorted all four directions of relationship. Therefore, atonement must be big enough to restore that Image, and to restore relationships in all four directions.

He then moves on to discussing the various atonement moments and metaphors. I appreciate the fact that he pushes atonement further out than simply the cross, or the cross and resurrection. To McKnight (with whom I wholeheartedly agree), the whole life of Christ was an atoning work. Thus, the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection - these all are part of the bigger atonement picture.

McKnight briefly sketches a few of the historical developments related to atonement, and then sums them up with this thought: The bag that holds all the atonement images is defined as this - Atonement is identification for incorporation. Jesus came to earth to identify with humans. His life, Passion, and resurrection are all about identifying with humans, with living the human life in all its fullness. And Jesus did this that we might be incorporated into his death and resurrection, that we may be restored to God, self, others, and creation through his redemptive work. Jesus died for us, instead of us, and with us. "God sends his Son into this world, the Fourth Gospel tells us, to set in motion the earthly missio Dei, the mission of God to bring the world to its consummation, to restore cracked Eikons [humans made in the image of God], to heal humans in all four relational directions. . .Everything good happens to the Christian by virtue of union with Christ."

Finally, McKnight challenges us to recognize this fact - the primary work of God is to create an atoned community who will carry out the work of atonement in the World. This is not an individualistic "Jesus saved me!" thing; when we are incorporated into Christ, we are given the mandate of joining with the people of God to live out atonement for the world around us. Therefore, the Church is to be about the work of the missio Dei, fighting for the oppressed and loving the hurting and feeding the hungry and standing up to injustice and proclaiming the Good News that Jesus Christ is Lord. When the church gathers for fellowship, when the Church fights for justice for all, when the church goes to work in carrying out God's mission to the world, when the Church lives out the Lord's Supper and Baptism, then the Church is reflecting it's nature as God's atoned people.

Now, I must admit this. I love theology, I also love practicality. And I found myself at the end of the book saying "and how do we do this?" But this is more of a theological, setting-the-stage kind of book, than it is a "how-to" book. Perhaps sometimes I expect too much, or I'm looking for the easy answers. Either way, McKnight's book throws out the gauntlet - are we going to be the people God called us to be? Are we going to be living atonement in our midst? Are we going to be living out the Mission of God in our communities? Are we going to expand atonement until we realize it is about the restoration of all of Creation, and not just the salvation of a few? And are we going to be the Christians we're supposed to be, carrying on God's work into our communities?

Or are we going to settle in, knowing that "It's all good between Jesus and me. Now pass the chips. . ."

Friday, October 26, 2007

Still reading

I'm still working through Scot McKnight's A Community Called Atonement. It's short enough that I probably could have finished it in a couple days. But my attention has been taken up by Tolstoy's Resurrection, which is a lot longer and deeper. And has a better plot.

But when I have a moment, I pick up Community and read a chapter or two.

One of my favorite quotes so far:

"This generation of students doesn't think the 'I'm not perfect, just forgiven' bumper sticker is either funny or something to be proud of. They believe atonement ought to make a difference in the here and now. . .If a previous generation was taught that evangelism and social justice were disconnected, even if one could (or even should) flow from the other, the present generation knows of a holistic human being in an interlocking society of connections where any notion of gospel or atonement must be integrated and community-shaped if it is to be called 'good news' at all. As God is missional (missio Dei) so the work of the church and individual Christians is also missional. To be missional means to participate in the missio Dei, the mission of God to redeem this world."

What I really like about McKnight's work is that he emphasizes the real-world issues. Too often our theological discussions remain cerebral and technical, and don't spill over into the "what difference does it make in real life" realm. The atonement especially - it all becomes about what happened spiritually in Jesus, what happens in eternity. McKnight brings it back to earth, showing both that it can (and should) have a massive impact on how we live our lives today, and that, if it doesn't have physical, real-world impact, then it's not worth much as a doctrine.

Which, by the way, is part of the point Tolstoy is driving at in that other book I'm slogging through.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Recommendation

Mark Baker recently gave a talk to a group of Anabaptist missiologists, working through how our view of the atonement affects our methods of evangelism. In other words, it's atonement through a missionary's eyes. You can download it here.

About 1/2 way down you'll see the link that says "Two Foundational Stories of the Cross. . ."

And in the interest of full disclosure, I, along with a few others, had some input into the final version of the article. . .