Why did Jesus die? Part 2

Ok, after looking through the Bible with the hypothesis that penal substitution isn’t there I’ve discovered something kind of cool. Substitution is often read into verses where it just isn’t there but Substitution is in the Bible. This was exciting because I think when we tell the gospel as substitution or particularly penal substitution we are missing out on the full picture of Jesus. It would be a bit like telling someone about an elephant and only describing the trunk, missing out on the tail, the ears the legs the feet the skin. We all discover an elephant or Jesus in different ways. For example, if I was part of a tribe of people who gave sacrifices as way of showing repentance (like the Jewish people did) then I might connect with Jesus through the lens of the Jesus as the last sacrifice. If, like much of modern society, I did not have that way of looking at things I may not connect with Jesus in that way but another. Perhaps like I described in my new analogy for atonement post.

What my little escapade in to scripture has done is made me excited that the story of Jesus connects with people in so many ways of which substitution is only a small one. What we need to be responsible is for is how we tell that story and what lens we tell it through. We may only have to describe the tail and the ears before someone falls in the elephant – particularly if they have an aversion to the idea of eating with your nose. This is perhaps why some of the best analogies for Jesus life come from modern movies directed by non Xns who aren't thinking "must tell story through the lens of substitution"

So I've moved on from asking "Why did Jesus die?" now I am asking how am I going to tell the Jesus story in a way that will connect to the person I am telling it to.

John Shepard: Satan Incarnate or just a very naughty boy?

Well John Shepard’s (JS) Good Friday Address has got lots of people talking. But is he Satan incarnate, just a naughty boy or does he have some good points? Well I’m not going to agree with everything that JS has to say but I think he has got some good things to say.

Okay firstly, so it’s all out in the open I believe Jesus death and resurrection is what achieves atonement (at-one-ment) with God.

Secondly, some history, in the 12th Century a dude called Anselmian basically came up with the Substitution theory. Which is what most modern day evangelicals think is atonement. That is… We have huge debt to pay to God, nothing we do is good enough for God. Jesus substitutes in for us by dying, which is good enough for good and we get forgiven. A classic illustration of this is Matthias Media’s 2 ways to live (if you ever wondered how a non Xn reads 2 ways to live click here)

Now the problem is that when we read scripture having heard or grown up with substitution is we straight away read just substitution (a metaphor) not atonement when we read Christ died for us.

Now this is similar to using the metaphor of a father to describe God. God is not a father, but the father metaphor can be helpful to illustrate some aspects of God. But all metaphors have their limit.

Similarly atonement is not just substitution. It is a metaphor that has limits, some of the most obvious being that God is completely without mercy before Jesus which, if we read the Old Testament, simply isn’t true, and secondly that substitution really sets up Jesus and God at odds with each other. Hence you have people thinking the Old testament God is full of hate but the New Testament God is full of love (after being pacified by Jesus).

Now I don’t think any Xn would want people to view God like this. So the challenge is really to come up with some new metaphors.

JS was also said some stuff about repentance. I think many evangelicals have had a fixation particularly with the sinners prayer. Which for many people has been like a gateway into a relationship with God, and there is nothing wrong with that. For me it wasn’t at about 10 years of age I made a commitment to God I got a bible for Christmas, started going by myself to Sunday school and praying to God. However, I discovered a year later (aged 11) that although I had done all these things I hadn’t prayed the sinners prayer. So I did and it felt really weird because although I hadn’t verbalised it I had already lived it. It’s a bit like asking someone who has come to church for the first time “Do you know you need God in your life?” Of course they do that’s why there at church! JS uses the prodigal son to illustrate this. There is no neat order of saying repentance and then receiving acceptance. It’s messy like a true relationship. Both son and father are running towards each other both, I would imagine, wondering “has my son come back for more money or back to be with the family?” “Is my dad running to tell me go away and don’t come near me or to welcome me back?” Both these questions answered in a simple embrace.

Mmm, maybe instead of asking “would you like to pray the sinners prayer?” we could ask “would you like to give God a big hug?”

So do I think John Shepard theologically right or wrong?
Well I don’t know and I’m going to let God decide that.
Do I agree with everything John Shepard says?
No
Is there lots to learn from what John Shepard says?
Yes
Is slagging him off via the letters to the editor page a good thing to do?
No

The Beginning of another Alternative to Penal Substitution

I sometimes wonder if the only reason that Xns have successfully been able to tell their non Xn friends about penal substitution is because when they say “let me tell you about penal substitution” they’re expecting to hear a story about two lesbians and a sex toy.

Then when we start telling the story about the Nazi prison camp (a story used in Alpha courses) the one where a prisoner is about to be shot by the prison warden for some very minor offence. When an innocent fellow prisoner steps in and says shoot me instead, which the prison warden does. It’s a horrible shocking story. As shocking as anything Hollywood could come up with. Then as we say “Jesus is just like the innocent guy who dies”. I wonder is the quiet respectful response that we think people are giving is actually shock and astonishment as they process that we have just told a story about our loving God who is best represented by a cruel Nazi guard who is happy to kill an innocent man for a petty offence.

So how can we describe of the atonement

In my head at the moment I’ve got this image of Jesus, in his death, diving through the walls of reality as we know it and then coming back resurrected. This means that if we follow Jesus we will not die it means that God is bigger than what we see. The problem with being Christ like, being reconciled to God is that it seems to be all in vain but in Christ’s death and resurrection we are invited to take up our cross and follow him and be part of a new Kingdom that cannot be stopped even by death.

How I’ll flesh this out into a fuller atonement theory I’m not yet sure. It’s just a start. And I’m sure just like the penal substitution theory it will not completely explain all of the atonement, hopefully it might be just another face on the diamond that is all atonement narratives and that helps us to fully understand the atonement.

Where Was God At Easter?

Having pondered about the inadequateness of the penal substitution metaphor for some time. Every so often I'll come across yet another part of the bible where the penal substitution metaphor justice doesn't cut it. This Easter was no different. The question I wondered was who was God with at the crucifixion Jesus or the Romans. If you believe in the trinity then god is with Jesus on the cross, if you believe in penal substitution then god is with the Romans sending Jesus to die on the cross. Penal substitution can be a helpful metaphor but only when it is a metaphor among many and not the only metaphor.

Why did Jesus die? Part 1

Ever said something so simple that it just rolls off your tongue and then bang it's out there and you've suddenly realised that what you have just said is actually really huge.

Well this happened to me recently on a reframe discussion. I'd thrown in my 2 cents worth to a discussion about atonement that I thought substitution (penal substitution to be exact) was a pretty crappy analogy for atonement. Which was a just a rehash of my It's time to Substitute Substitution post and New Analogy for Atonement post.

After a little discussion someone suggested that hypothetically we could be forgiven through some other means other than Jesus death, one member was a little distressed at this suggestion. And asked

You (another member not me) wrote, 'God could mercifully forgive us whether or not Jesus came'. How? It feels like you guys are discussing the cross as some sort of symbol rather than something that achieved an ontological reality. Should I be concerned?

To which I replied

Regarding your question about 'God could mercifully forgive us whether or not Jesus came'. I guess I'd say because God has forgiven us (humanity) before Jesus died. (See Gen 18:26, Exo 32:32, Num 14:20, 2Ch7:14, Neh 9:17, 2Ch 30:18, Isa 55:7, Psa 65:3, Psa103:12, Jer 31:34, Jer 33:8, Eze 16:63, Mat 9:6/Mar2:7/Luk 5:21 for a start, there are more but I was being lazy) When you ask How? I'm not to sure of the mechanics. None the less God has said that he has done it. I know that this doesn't sit well with the traditional penal substitution thing and I have heard people say that God was forgiving in the old testamant with Jesus death in the future in mind but just wasn't letting us in on that yet. I'm not sure if I buy that.

Now this is all fine and Dandy but it got me thinking did Jesus die for my sins?

Dennis Bratcher (I have no idea who he is but I like his site) would say "no" see question 5 of his 10 questions article.

So what about verses like...

Matthew 20:28 the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Galations 2:20 Jesus gave himself for me.

1 Corinthians 15:3 Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.

Well this is part 1 of my little journey to try and answer this question. For more details on how my brain will process this have a look at my Liberal Evangelical post. I thought it my be fun to honestly journey with this question rather than just post an answer that I have already thought through. So here goes...

Non Penal Substitution Atonement Analogy from Brian McLaren

I know it's been a while since I've banged on about atonement analogies other than penal substitution. But, everytime I do it seems to be the one subject that generates more emails (rather than comments) than anything else. In his latest tbook, Everything Must Change " Brian McLaren outlines a sickness model of atonement - which he describes as "emerging view", paralleled with the good old penal substitution - which he describes as "conventional view". What impressed me most was the succinct way that he packages the explanation, which I have written out below.

The Human Situation: What is the story we find ourselves in?

Conventional View: God created the world as perfect, but because our primal ancestors, Adam and Eve, did not maintain the absolute perfection demanded by God, God has irrevocably determined that the entire universe and all it contains will be destroyed, and the souls of all human beings—except for those specifically exempted—will be forever punished for their imperfection in hell.’

Emerging View: God created the world as good, but human beings—as individuals, and as groups—have rebelled against God and filled the world with evil and injustice. God wants to save humanity and heal it from its sickness, but humanity is hopelessly lost and confused, like sheep without a shepherd, wandering further and further into lostness and danger. Left to themselves, human beings will spiral downward in sickness and evil.

Basic Questions: What questions did Jesus come to answer?

Conventional View: Since everyone is doomed to hell, Jesus seeks to answer one or both of these questions: How can individuals be saved from eternal punishment in hell and instead go to heaven after they die? How can God help individuals be happy and successful until then?

Emerging View: Since the human race is in such desperate trouble, Jesus seeks to answer this question: What must be done about the mess we’re in? The mess refers both to the general human condition and to its specific outworking among his contemporaries living under domination by the Roman Empire and who were confused and conflicted as to what they should do to be liberated.

Jesus’ Message: How did Jesus respond to the crisis?

Conventional View: Jesus says, in essence, “If you want to be among those specifically qualified to escape being forever punished for your sins in hell, you must repent of your individual sins and believe that my Father punished me on the cross so he won’t have to punish you in hell. Only if you believe this will you go to heaven when the earth is destroyed and everyone else is banished to hell.” This is the good news.

Emerging View: Jesus says, in essence, “I have been sent by God with this good news—that God loves humanity; even in its lostness and sin. God graciously invites everyone and anyone to turn from his or her current path and follow a new way. Trust me and become my disciple, and you will be transformed, and you will participate in the transformation of the world, which is possible, beginning right now.” This is the good news.

Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus important?

Conventional View: Jesus came to solve the problem of “original sin,” meaning that he helps qualified individuals not to be sent to hell for their sin or imperfection. In a sense, Jesus saves these people from God, or more specifically, from the righteous wrath of God, which sinful human beings deserve because they have not perfectly fulfilled God’s just expectations, expressed in God’s moral laws. This escape from punishment is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love. Those who receive it enjoy a personal relationship with God and seek to serve and obey God, which produces a happier life on Earth and more rewards in heaven.

Emerging View: Jesus came to become the Saviour of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil. Through his life and teaching, through his suffering, death, and resurrection, he inserted into human history a seed of grace, truth, and hope that can never be defeated. This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world’s ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of. All who find in Jesus God’s hope and truth discover the privilege of participating in his ongoing work of personal and global transformation and liberation from evil and injustice. As part of his transforming community, they experience liberation from the fear of death and condemnation. This is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love.

Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile

My wife bought the book "Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile" on a whim, I'm glad she did and that she has such great intuition. The book traces the biblical story from Genesis to Revelation taking a "New Exodus" reading of the text. The book works through the pattern of oppression, liberation and exile in the biblical narrative. I really enjoyed the book because it was full of "ah-ha / groan" moments. "Ah-ha" because I discovered something new and "Groan" because it had been staring me in the face for years.

I did get a bit frustrated at times as I felt the authors didn't completely follow through on their "New Exodus" convictions. For example on page 88 they briefly describe Jesus death as absorbing violence, sadly they don't go on to expand this into atonement narrative, but by next page are penal substitution style talking about the price paid etc... I coming more to think of atonement as like a multi faceted diamond. We need many theories to see the whole diamond if we just stick to penal substitution it's like looking at a plate of glass.

They also give a "biblical definition of sin" which seems come from left field. When they talked about violence, oppression and sin. It left me thinking is what is sin if not, violence and oppression.

I also wish that as they compared the Roman empire to the American empire that they would have talked about how that changed the way they lived too.

None the less, overall these are small criticisms. If you know of any one who wonders what Xy has to do with helping the poor. Or, thinks that helping the poor is not central to the gospel but just an aside for those who feel called, I cannot think of any book that would be a better place to start.As I said before I enjoyed the book because of the conclusions I came to and that I think is a testament to authors ability to retell the biblical narrative in such a powerful way.

I can certainly see this being one of those books that I lend out to lots and lots of people. Christians and Non-Christians. For me there is not much more of a higher compliment for a book than that.

Oh and I'd like to change the title to "Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church under Solomon" I'm not sure why it's the "church in exile" after reading the book it sounded more to me like the church under Solomon perhaps moving into exile. And I don't know if we're moving in to persecution as much as irrelevance.

It's time to Substitute Substitution

1) Most Xns believe that Jesus took our punishment by dying on the cross for us.
2) Most Xns believe that God is a loving God.
3) Most Xns would argue that we should lock up and throw away the key for any father who would kill their own son as a way of settling a score with an independent third party who was unable to pay up.
4) Most non Xns just don't get the whole God is a loving God but kills the innocent Jesus instead of us thing.

Let's face it the whole substitution analogy is actually a really bad way to explain how Jesus death bring us back into relationship with God. It's time for a new analogy.

Any ideas?

Cameron Reilly asking tough questions about Christianity

Cameron Reilly who once interviewed me about my work and probably more famously appeared on the front of the Bulletin magazine posted "how many people did god kill in the bible" on his blog. Just as I was thinking I should formulate some kind of intelligent response to the post. Lots of Xns beat me to it with, well mostly dumb responses.

Unlike some of the Xn posters on his blog I believe Cameron does have a right to attack Xy over any other religion in Australia as it is the dominant religion by far.

So, what about the question? Perhaps the key problem and why some Xns find this hard to explain is that they believe scripture is inerrant. I am a Xn not Bibleian (follower of the Bible) I do not see the Bible as the vehicle through which God speaks but rather the written account of God acting in the world. The culmination of that being Jesus. So that means for me that I read everything in the OT through the lens of Jesus. So when an OT prophecy talks about God sending a great leader to rule over all the earth. Rather than thinking Jesus did a pretty crap job of the whole military conquest thing, I see a difference between what the writer was anticipating and hoping for and what God actually had in mind. So instead of a great military leader we get Jesus a great leader but more in a Gandhi sense than a military sense.

Also, something that is important to me (and gets rid of 3 million deaths on the tally) is that I think Genesis 1-11 (the pre Abraham stuff) is myth rather than history. These myths explain how the world got here but probably more importantly they take pre existing myths like creation and flood myths and re-tell them in a Yahweh kind of way. So in the Yahweh version of the flood story for example God promises never again.

All that aside the honest truth is that yes this stuff does bug me and I often wonder if I am just using theological gymnastics to get around this.

By the time I had written the above, Cameron had posted an interview with John Dickson talking about the historicity of Jesus. Much as I suspected this was not going to be persuasive. At best all the historical stuff will prove that there was a guy called Jesus who did a bunch of stuff that people thought was amazing at the time, he was killed and then a bunch of his followers claimed he had been resurrected and they were prepared to die for that. Which is all well and good but doesn't really go any where meaty. None the less Cameron did end the interview by starting to ask questions about the internal logic of Xn theology. This I'm keen to hear.

With any belief system or religion I think there are a few key questions to wrestle with.

1) Is it historical (if it claims to be)
2) Does it have it's own internal logic
3) How can you square this with what you can and can't prove.

I'm keen to hear where this goes I'm kind betting it'll get stuck in the substitution atonement theology stuff and Cameron (like any intelligent person) and much like the Dave Slusher's podcast that I wrote about is going to find it hard to reconcile a God that Xns say is loving and gracious but needs you to pay a price you can't pay for your sin that can only be made by the death of an innocent man (Jesus) all in order to let us spend eternal life with a bunch of Xns. Which, believe it or not is the best of two possibilities.

I also posted a response to the podcast with John Dickson supporting Cameron in his wrestle with Christianity.

Christus Victor - Alternative to Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Usually I don't just copy and paste other peoples stuff. But, Tony Jones wrote such a great summary of Christus Victor, an alternative understanding of the Atonement, I've reposted it below. You can read it on his blog here.

In 1930, a relatively unknown Swedish bishop and theologian revived an understanding of the atonement that had largely been forgotten for 1,000 years. Gustaf Aulén’s book, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Atonement was translated into English the next year, and it’s stayed in print ever since.

The Christus Victor model, Aulén argues, was the predominant theory for the first millennium of the church, and it was held by the majority of the church fathers whom we still revere. Along came Anselm and changed the game — for reasons I’ve written about before and will discuss in an upcoming post — and CV was relegated to history’s rubbish bin. Until Aulén.

Today, CV has had something of a resurgence. ;) That’s been led by Greg Boyd – who’s personal brand was called, until recently, Christus Victor Ministries — and others.

CV falls under a broader umbrella called the Ransom Theory. In this understanding, the original sin of Adam and Eve placed all of humanity under subjugation to Satan. Christ, the second person of the Trinity, came to Earth and died, giving his life as a ransom for many.

At this point, CV may sound like the penal substitution model that many of us grew up with. But that’s where Aulén said we’re wrong. The early church did not understand the death of Christ as paying a penalty in some transactional sense that only God’s son could pay. The crucifixion is not, in that sense, cosmically necessary to reconcile God and humanity.

Instead, Christ’s death is God’s victory over sin and death. God conquers death by fully entering into it. God conquers Satan by using the very means employed by the Evil One.

Thus, the crucifixion is not a necessary transaction to appease a wrathful and justice-demanding deity, but an act of divine love.

God entered fully into the bondage of death, turned it inside out by making it a moment of victory, and thereby liberates humanity to live lives of love without the fear of death.

It’s a beautiful thing, the crucifixion, in this view. And, for those of us who are robustly trinitarian, it maintains an egalitarian view of the Trinity — one in which the Son and Spirit are not junior partners in the atonement.

Doing Alpha and don't think you're a horrible sinner?

The Alpha course I'm doing is having a two week break right now but in the last session I found myself writing notes to my wife, kind of like two naughty kids in high school. Although not particularly respectful it is just a video and the video does take up a huge chunk of time in the Alpha format and I was bored. While alpha is not my cup of tea many people in the group seem to love it. None the less I have recently heard of someone who struggled with the underlying "your a really horrible sinner who needs to ask for forgiveness" message that she got from the course. As much as I know that advocates of the course would say there is more than just that. I think this is still the basic starting point of the Alpha message.

My guess is that for many people who just don't feel like they are horrible sinners, it's not that they are arrogant and would not claim to be perfect. If they were to be put on a scale with Mother Teresa at one end and Hitler at the other even if they put themselves in the middle they would definitely want to be more like Mother Teressa than Hitler. Further more to the best of their ability they are trying to do that. Sometimes Xns have responded by saying things like perfection is like jumping off the Sydney harbor bridge to reach New Zealand no matter how hard you try your always going to fail. Leaving many people feeling like God makes us failures and then damns us for being so and expects us to come crawling back to him grovelling for forgiveness. And, they find it hard to square that with a loving God.

Perhaps it's time to start reframing things. I feel like I'm sounding like a broken record having posted about this a lot before (It's time to Substitute Substitution,A New Analogy for Atonement?, Why did Jesus die? Part 1, Why did Jesus die? Part 2, Relooking at Sin and God is just like the Gestapo?) I feel there is something about the way that Xns often communicate the brokenness of our world and our broken relationship with God that stops people from becoming Xns and it is far more than people's ability to realise their own imperfections and brokenness (sinfulness). Maybe it's as simple as we are asking people to consider themselves as "filthy rags" when they see themselves merely as "flawed creations of God".

A New Analogy for Atonement?

Okay in the last post I suggested Substitution as a pretty crappy analogy for Jesus death and resurrection. Not only because as far as analogies go it is pretty flawed but because it can also romanticise suffering. Often I have heard Xns talking about what it must be like to live in a country where Xy is actively persecuted and almost secretly wishing they were there, as it would make them feel better about being Xn.

Firstly I think forgiveness is different from being saved from sin. God already forgives in the Old Testament and there I can’t see why with much mercy God would not continue to do this. Perhaps, however we are saved from sin or more specifically a sinful way of living because Jesus shows a new way of living. Of which Jesus death is crucial because it shows us that it is possible to live a life of love that is not oppressive where a just life of love is rewarded with eternal life.

The original Matrix film tries to work in the whole death and resurrection thing into it’s narrative when during the final battle Neo dies and then after a 3 seconds rises to life. Perhaps a better death and resurrection an analogy maybe the eat the red pill or the blue pill scene. It is here that Neo leaves his world (dies to it) and later he is resurrected when he returns to the Matrix.

Neo sees his world in a new reality and lives accordingly. We don't have to conform to the sinful ways of this world because we see a new reality we live a life free from sin.