The Gospel of Fight Club

I recently read and watched Fight Club, again both one of my favourite books and films. So I thought I might say a little something of why I like this story so much.

Darby Ray author of "Deceiving the Devil" describes atonement as “the reconciling, redeeming, liberating activity of God in Christ.” I think this is a pretty succinct and broad summary of atonement, covering everything conservative substitutionary atonement through to liberation theology and many other ideas. My guess is that we have too often in the west we have overly focused on the redeeming and reconciling parts and neglected the liberating part of the triad.

Overlooking liberation may have been for good reason. In the west we usually don't think of ourselves as being needed to be liberated. At best we see ourselves as the oppressors from whom others needed to be liberated. For me and many of my peers there is a feeling amongst us that the life of an oppressor is not something we chose but something we inherited. We were born into a world where it was impossible to buy a shoe that had not been made in a sweat shop and where third world inequality and environmental degradation was just seen as part of the natural order. An old friend of mine (white and male) once lamented that he wished he had been born black and female, then he'd at least know what to fight against. We are a generation who have an awareness that there is something wrong with the world. We love escaping into movies like the Matrix and TV shows like Buffy the vampire slayer where the main characters are the only ones who realise there is something really wrong with the world whilst everyone else just walks along like zombies.

Many people have sought to find Christ like atonement narratives in the Matrix and Buffy. Whilst they might be there I prefer to look in Fight Club. Where the Matrix and Buffy set up dualistic universes (a "flesh" reality and a greater "spiritual" reality) Fight Club does not do this. There is no overarching vampire or matrix that we need to discover and fight, rather the evil is being perpetrated by us and the systems that we comply with. In Fight Club Tyler Durden is the Christ like figure who walks into Jacks life. Tyler forces Jack to face the current reality of his world, the injustice, the love of money, the obsession of the trivial and to liberate him, an "heir of oppression" (my term) from that. There is much Xns can learn about atonement from Fight Club.

Here are some of my favourite Gospel and Fight Club parallels...

Fight Club

Only when Jack truly gives up his will to live is he saved.

Jesus

Luke 14:26. "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”

---

Fight Club

Jack quits job and Tyler Durden destroys all that he owns.

Jesus

Matt 6:24-34. "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

---

Fight Club

Jack has no family, those around him following Tyler Durden and his followers become his family.

Jesus

Mark 4:34-35. "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother."

---

Fight Club

The first assignment for fight club members is for them to start a fight and loose.

Jesus

Matt 5:38-39. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;”

---

Fight Club

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We are all part of the same compost pile." Tyler Durden

Jesus

Matt 7:1-5. "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?”

---
Fight Club

Tyler Durden destroys Jacks apartment, and destroys the buildings of credit card companies in order to make everything go back to zero so that non one is in debt.

Jesus

Luke 18:22. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

Author of Fight Club Chuck Palahniuk. Has also written the books Survivor, Invisible Monsters Choke, Lullaby, Diary and Haunted. They are all really good.

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.

Atonement - The Movie

How is it that we make amends for something that cannot be made right? How do we atone for what we have done and how we feel? Somethings can be fixed but the death of a child, disfigurement or even broken trust can be permanent. Whether we have directly done something, big or small or just stood idly by when, in retrospect we wished we'd acted, it makes no difference. Both have the same result, someone else has been hurt and I cannot take my action or inaction back.

Recently I saw the film atonement. A good film that I think could have been a great film if it focused less on being romance and more on the conundrum of atonement.

It strikes me that as a society we have not come up with any way of atoning be that a Xn or secular ritual. Now I realise atonement is the big thing in Xy. Jesus died for our sins etc... But this is about our relationship with god not with other humans. Further more sometime fixing a relationship with God is always easier. You have time on your side with an eternal deity. With humans we don't have that same luxury. I'd love to know what atheist, humanist or other religious and philosophical thinkers have to say about this issue? l have previously expressed my frustration with some Xn ideas about forgiveness. A reconciled relationship with one person or God) doesn't mean reconciliation with another human.

I think a relationship cannot be reconciled without the victim offering forgiveness. But this for good or bad reasons may not be available. How you atone shows how serious you consider your error and how much you value the relationship. The question is still how? After watching the film Atonement this question kept resonating in my head.

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.

The Theology of Fight Club: The Talk From The 10 Year Anniversary Screening

Last month I was part of some Fight club 10 year anniversary celebrations. It was a bit of a Fight Club month. I was asked to write an article for the transit lounge about the theology of fight club and At the 10 year anniversary screening I did a talk to a packed Perth crowd of 12 (it was a small room so it was packed) about the theology of Fight Club too. Below is a copy of the Transit Lounge article and a copy of the talk. I would have like to have spent a lot more time on it so it's a bit scattered and disjointed none the less here it is.

Transit Lounge Article

I can still remember walking out of the cinema through the streets of Fremantle, stunned and feeling like I had seen something truly unique.

Ten years on, I have seen Fight Club (directed by David Fincher) and read the book, written by Chuck Palahniuk, numerous times.

Although denounced by some as a very unchristian film, it continues to resonate strongly with me and my faith. I see one of the film's two protagonists, Tyler Durden, as a Christ-like figure.

The premise is this: Jack works for an unscrupulous company earning good money with which he orders furniture for his apartment. Jack is living the good life—the American Dream—and finds it completely numbing and meaningless. Along comes Tyler to liberate him from this life.

In Christian theology we often talk about liberation and it is usually with regards to poorer people being liberated from oppression. Something a rich, white, Western male like myself can appreciate but cannot relate to.

In Fight Club, Tyler forces Jack to face the current reality of his world: injustice, love of money, obsession with the trivial; and to liberate him from that.

Below is a list of some of my favourite gospel and Fight Club parallels...

Fight Club: Only when Jack truly gives up his will to live is he saved.
Jesus: Luke 14:26. "Whoever comes to me and does not hate even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”

Fight Club: Jack quits job and Tyler destroys all that he owns.
Jesus: Matt 6:24-34. "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other.”

Fight Club: Jack has no family; those around him follow Tyler Durden and his followers become his family.
Jesus: Mark 4:34-35. "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother."

Fight Club: The first assignment for fight club members is for them to start a fight and lose.
Jesus: Matt 5:38-39. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.”

Fight Club: Tyler Durden destroys both Jacks' apartment and the buildings of credit card companies in order to make everything go back to zero so that no-one is in debt.
Jesus: Luke 18:22. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

Be warned: the film is graphic and brutal and deserves its R rating, but if you are looking for a film to show disaffected adult Western males that exemplifies liberation, I can’t think of a better place to start.

Talk from the Anniversary Screening

Two years ago I was doing alpha course and Nicky Gumbel told a horrific story of a Nazi death camp. It’s the story of a family man found guilty of some petty offence and sentenced to death. A priest steps in and is killed instead of the family man which the Gestapo agree to.
Nicky then went on to explain that we are like the family man and Jesus is like the priest, which is all fine and dandy until you realise that God is the Gestapo and that the priest died so that the family man can be friends with the Gestapo.

Now I’m sure we’ve all heard analogies like this. Stories like this to try and explain what Jesus life and death did. Stories like this is what theologians like to call an atonement narratives. That is it’s a story that describes the atonement “the reconciling, redeeming, liberating activity of God in Christ.” Obviously there’s bits of the Nazi death camp story that echo bits of the gospel but obviously any metaphor where a loving God is represented by a cruel guard at a Nazi death camp has got some problems too.

Now if you’ve been around in Xn circles for a while you have probably heard many stories like this. I can remember one from my youth group that involved a train and station master who puts his son in the road of the train to save the people on board or something like that.

Have people heard these kind of stories? And they’re usually slight variations on the same theme? To be technical that theme is called penal substitutionary atonement.

My problem with this story is that I think the gospel and what God has done through Jesus is too big to encapsulate in just one story. It’s about like Jesus talking about the Kingdom of God he didn’t just stick to the KOG is like a mustard seed he used many analogies. And that’s what we have to do with our atonement narratives. The atonement is like a multifaceted diamond. If we only stick to one story then we’ll end up making the gospel look like just a plate of glass. Of course there will be no one story that describes the “the reconciling, redeeming, liberating activity of God in Christ.” Completely.

This is where I’d like to introduce fight club. Now I’m willing to bet you haven’t been to a church service were the pastor has said ”let me just play you a clip from fight club to illustrate this point” In fact the First time I met Nathan à Baptist College à are you reading Chuck Phaulinuk à He looked so surprised I was sure I was going to get a ear bashing about it’s horrible morality etc.

Fight Club is in essence a story of liberation. In rich western Xy most Atonement Narratives talk about acts of reconciliation or redemption. Liberation occasionally might be framed in the story of sex addict or drug addict – who comes to the youth group to tell his testimony and how he has been set free. I certainly remember hearing that at my youth group, I also remember half the guys thinking they should get out of youth group and get into sex and drugs.

Personally I think it’s tragic that we have missed out talking about liberation. My generation were born into a world where it was impossible to buy a shoe that had not been made in a sweat shop and where third world inequality and environmental degradation was just seen as part of the natural order. Our parents worked hard to give us heaps as I got set to inherit this hard work I couldn’t help but notice the injustice that had been left in it’s wake. So we said no thanks for a while bought cheap flannelette shirts and Nirvana records. But most of us have given up that idealism and like our parents have a well thumbed IKEA catalogue on the newspaper rack. I grew up in a generation that were the heirs of oppression. We could see the injustice in the world and new we were destined to benefit from it but had no way to change it.

Perhaps this is one reason why we as a generation loved escaping into movies like the Matrix and TV shows like Buffy the vampire slayer were there is some greater reality a computer program or vampires that would give us meaning because everything else staring us in the face would pale into insignificance.

It was specifically for generation X males that Chuck Palahniuk wrote the novel Fight Club for. Fight Club is a story of liberation from a society where the only valued role in life is to be an oppressor. Jack the main character in Fight Club works day and night for an unscrupulous company earning good money that he uses to fill his apartment with furniture. Fight Club is a novel for a generation “raised by television to believe that someday we'll all be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars.” (Fight Club the film) A generation raised to believe in the American dream, that we can be anything we want.

In Fight Club liberation comes in the from of the character Tyler Durden who convinces Jack to hit rock bottom. That is, to give up the desire to become a movie star, to not play the game, trying to be famous or powerful, to not even bother with his job or apartment to just drop out of the rat race altogether. For Tyler Durden hitting rock bottom is not a simple submission to the powers around. Rather it is to live in spite of the powers around despising all that they value. For me this is encapsulated in the way Tyler Durden says “you have to give up” to Jack. I could totally imagine Jesus saying this to the “you have to give up” rich young ruler or Zacchaeus the tax collector who gives half of what he owns repays people he has cheated four times what he has taken from them.

Jack is liberated by giving up on the what the rulers, powers and principalities of this world view as important. A respectable job, a nice house and nice furniture to fill it.

Paul famously wrote in Galatians for freedom Christ has set us free. But ask many rich western Xns what they have been set free from and I bet they might struggle. We often we would fall back to our Nazi death camp model and say something like freed from death and freed from judgment. Which is certainly true and will make a difference when we die but it can be hard to see how that can make a big difference while we are alive. What I like about what I see in fight club and in Jesus. Is that rather changing what might happened if you died tomorrow they change what might happen if you live tomorrow.

Fight Club is a violent film, I’d argue it’s Possibly the most violent pacifist movie ever made. It’s tough and confronting liberation is often similar to Jesus when he asks us to give up everything to follow him. Part of the reason why the book Fight Club may resonate with someone who identifies as a pacifist is that no one is forced to join and no one is allowed to just watch. Part of the ethos of Fight Club is to take down the current social order by sacrificing / causing violence to yourself. Participant disturb those around them primarily by hurting themselves and not hurting other people. The only time participants go and fight someone who is unwilling is with the strict instruction that they are to loose the fight. It is an exercise in empowering the other person rather than intimidating them. Like big moment at the end of the film were Tyler blows up empty bank buildings, wiping all debts causing a jubilee. Jesus big moment turning tables in the temple was also a violent act that doesn’t hurt anyone.

But like the Nazi story I started with Fight Club is not a perfect metaphor – It’s going to be hard to find a Xn justification for urinating in food and splice pornography into children’s films.

Probably one of the reasons that we don’t think Jesus when we see fight club is because doesn’t fit into classic penal sub framework. But to prove my point here are some gospel parallels with the film. I’m sure there are more.

Fight Club - Only when Jack truly gives up his will to live is he saved.
Jesus - Luke 14:26. "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”
---
Fight Club - Jack quits job and Tyler Durden destroys all that he owns.
Jesus - Matt 6:24-34. "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
---
Fight Club - Jack has no family, those around him following Tyler Durden and his followers become his family.
Jesus - Mark 4:34-35. "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother."
---
Fight Club - The first assignment for fight club members is for them to start a fight and loose.
Jesus - Matt 5:38-39. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;”
---
Fight Club - "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We are all part of the same compost pile." Tyler Durden
Jesus - Matt 7:1-5. "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?”
---
Fight Club - Tyler Durden destroys Jacks apartment, and destroys the buildings of credit card companies in order to make everything go back to zero so that non one is in debt.
Jesus - Luke 18:22. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

At the end of the film Jack ends up living a life consistent with the beliefs of Tyler Durden. Doing this leads to him attempting suicide. At this moment Tyler (his mentor and example) dies and Jack goes on forever changed by Tyler. Jack asks himself “If you wake up at a different place at a different time could wake up as a different person”

Moral Exemplar A Theory Of Atonement For Now?

Tony Jones has a new short eBook out on atonement theories. One of the thing he points out is that different theories answer different questions. The Ransom theory, (think C.S Lewis The Lion the Witch and The wardrobe) answers the question of how we deal with the devil? (the white witch). The Penal Substitutionary theory, (this is the one you grew up with) answers the question how do we deal with sin?

I'm interested in asking is what is the problem are people dealing with now? And therefore, what is an appropriate theory of atonement to be using.

I'm going to suggest it's not the Ransom theory as almost no one is wrestling with Satan and Satan's power. Anyway, for the past 1000 years most Xns have not been comfortable giving Satan as much power over God as the Ransom theory does. Similarly, I don't think the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory will be helpful as few people I come across are wrestling with sin. This is not to say that either are not true, in some way, they are just not particularly relevant.

Now, I know there are some "PSA is the gospel" type people thinking this is heresy and I'm sure if we were to ask the average non Xn did they think they were perfect, they'd say no. It's just that they just won't see themselves as so horribly depraved they deserve complete exclusion from God. Now the usual move from a PSA evangelist is to explain that God sees your relatively small list of sins as just as bad as being a serial killer paedophile, hence the non Xn person is deserving of complete exclusion from God. It's not a great argument. Partly because Jesus (who we're claiming is just like God) seemed pretty comfortable hanging with sinners but mainly because it just makes God look like a complete jerk.

With that little aside out of the way we come back to the question, what is the problem people are dealing with now? I'm going to suggest that the question many people are asking is, how do we live in the world? Now, I know that many (including Tony Jones in this homebrewed Xy interview) are looking for a way that Jesus death and resurrection might address the systemic sin in our world, but I don't think we're going to find that. I think it'll be hard to find a theory to address that in the same way that it was hard for early Xns, who under Roman occupation saw similar if not much more extreme examples of systemic sin and injustice.

Whether it's the Roman Empire or our much more elusive capitalist empire. We are still left with the question of how do we live? How do we live when most of our clothing is made in sweatshops and there is not an obvious alternative? How do we live when taxes are being spent on war but there is no way to redirect our taxes from war to health care? How do we change the way refugees are treated when both electable political parties treat refugees appallingly? I believe, How do we live in a broken, corrupt, fallen world is the big question of our age. It is the question particularly in the west because we are not mere serfs trapped within a oppressive feudal system. No, we have a sense of freedom, a sense of connectedness and and a sense of potential to affect change that is perhaps unprecedented.

With this in mind I believe it is time to revisit the earliest atonement theory, The moral exemplar. This theory is that Jesus Christ is seen as a moral exemplar, who calls us toward a better life, both individually and corporately. Tony Jones talks more about this in this post.

Part of the problem of the Moral Exemplar theory is that Jesus death and resurrection seems not only secondary but completely dispensable.  I'm not sure what earlier adherents of the theory would have argued but, to me it's completely indispensable. Here is why. For most of the people I talk to the question is not "What is good?" or "was Martin Luther King or Oscar Romero good?" (to name but two Xn heroes whose actions changed systemic injustice) instead the question is how can we do the same?

How can we with our overwhelming senses of responsibility to get a good job, buy a house and a car, send our kids to a decent school, save for retirement and insure our health and our stuff. How can we overcome this all consuming reality and do something radical, something dangerous that might change the world? To do such things is too risky, too irresponsible. To challenge this way of thinking we need someone to break the current time space reality and show that reality is different, we need God to show us that what we think is reality is not actually reality. This, I contend is exactly what Jesus death and resurrection does for us. Like the red pill that Neo takes in the Matrix, Jesus opens our eyes to a new reality, a reality where the deaths of people like Martin Luther King and Oscar Romero are not deaths in vain. Where our greatest fear, death, is taken away and we are freed from spending all our time making our lives as safe and secure as possible. Indeed we are free to live in the radical way that Jesus did. "For freedom Christ has set us free".

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

Substitutional Atonement back to haunt me

Well I thought after my second last post I'd put the substitutional atonement thing behind me. So, you can imagine my sup rise when I rocked up to a church meeting to find out that we were going to be watching Bill Hybells speak on "the power of clarity". Seemed ok until he came to about one third of the way through the talk where he was about to summarise the entire Xn message in just two words. I was wondering what could that be... "Love God and Love others" perhaps? (the summary that Jesus used) You might be able to squeeze that into three words but not two. Then Bill did his big reveal to show the two words he had written on a big piece of paper "Substitutional Atonement". Needless to say I had some issues with what Bill had to say and whilst many people watching thought it was all great I voiced some concern and have written a quick out line of what my concerns are here for my own peace of mind.

The first difficulty was the issue of clarity and his idea that “Leaders owe people clarity”. I’m not sure that this is true. I’d like to ask clarity about what exactly? Having clarity about absolutely everything is fundamentalism at it’s worst, on the other hand having clarity about nothing is liberalism at it’s worst. Two extremes I’m sure we’re keen to avoid. If parishioners “cry out for clarity” (as Hybels suggests) is it the leaders roles to say “do this” or is it the leaders role to give the skills for the parishioners work it out for themselves?

Hybel’s seemed to be suggesting adopting a business model to church and there is certainly a lot that church can learn from the business model way of doing things. But, since business are not always the most ethical things in and of themselves there maybe things worth avoiding as well. So, my question is what parts of the business model do we adapt to church? Does the average business model give room for the spirit to speak through least qualified person and least likely person?

My quick thought is that we need to have a clarity of values and culture as a church but need to be fluid about our strategies and programs as they need to respond to the needs of the church and community.

The second brief difficulty I had was when Hybels described society as “pluralistic and confused”. I’m not sure if these two things necessarily go together. A divergent set of opinions about spirituality amongst a group of people may in fact indicate that people may have an increasing clarity about what they believe rather than a confusion.

The third difficulty is that “Substitutionary Atonement” (SA) is the key Xn message. Certainly SA is one key thread that runs through the biblical story but it isn’t all there is to Xy. SA is far more narrow than the new testament idea of grace or the Hebrew idea of hesed. By focusing on the SA thread I think we are in danger of missing out on the rich tapestry of the story of God interacting with humanity.

Furthermore, I wonder if in a similar way we reduce sin to just personal immorality. I fear that when we do this any evangelism needs to begin with convincing someone that they are sinner who deserves to die before moving onto the love of God bit.

That SA is only one thread in the overall Biblical story is illustrated in Hybel’s idea that the one question people will be asked when they die is “who will atone for your sin?” This does not sit at all well with the sheep and goats story that Jesus tells in Matthew 25.

I think an over emphasis on SA is one reason why as a church we are missing people under 30. Certainly Jesus disciples did not follow Jesus based on an understanding about SA. Since so many people seem to like Jesus but not church I wonder if we need to build on communicating Jesus rather than communicating the church doctrine of SA no matter how well it encapsulates much of what we believe.

Another problem with the “what will happen to you when you die?” approach to evangelism is that for some it can reduce Xy to an insurance policy against an angry God. All of us would still be Xns now even if we had a way of becoming a Xn 10 minutes before we die. What makes us choose to do this, I think, is far more appealing many to non-Xns than the “what will you say to God when you die?” approach.

Let me reiterate that I do not think we should get rid of SA and that I think it is an important thread in the Biblical story. However it is not the only thread in the Biblical tapestry.

My Fourth and final difficulty was that as a church “we are message centric”. We certainly have a message but are we message centric? If we are then why do we run a play group or give bread to people in need? Is it merely as a carrot to get people in to hear the message or does it have an intrinsic value of it’s own. Again to quote Matthew 25 the people who are in with God in this passage are not in because of the message but because of how they loved or served others. I’d say that as Xns we are love centric which means we serve out of love and it also means that we tell our message out of love.

Ok, that’s it. Maybe there's some deeper psychological reason why my brain seems to be obbsessed with this at the moment.

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.

Atonement Alternative

I've often written critically about atonement illustrations like Nicky Gumbell's Nazi camp story. So I thought it was time to write an alternative illustration. Of course like other illustrations it doesn't capture the entire gospel it just captures one aspect.

The hike started to take a turn for the worse. We had reached the summit of the mountain and we were on our way back when we discovered an avalanche had cut off the path home. The sun was starting to set and jack, our guide, confirmed our fears that the moans in the distance were indeed bears. Jack lead us to the opening of an abandoned mine. "this is going to be our only way out" he suggested "I've never been down inside but it might lead out somewhere pass the bears". A few decided to stay at the mouth of the mine most of us followed jack. The mine shafts got narrower and narrower. Some of the lager and more claustrophobic in the group stopped to see if we would come back after hitting a dead end. The rest of use winded our way single file through the mine until we came to a small hole where we could hear running water below. The opening was big enough for one and the ledge below was big enough for just two. The stream was going to go somewhere and it was big enough to for someone to swim in you just needed gills to breath until you found air somewhere. Jack turned to the hiker who had gone down with him and said he was going to swim. Through and see where it went. A while went by went by until jack resurfaced "it gets us out just take a deep breath and follow me. Don't try and come back though you'll probably drown and block the path for everyone else." So jack left then a second hiker got down on the ledge with the first hiker. By the time I got there this story had been relayed to me by at least a dozen people. As it was my time to relay the story back to the person behind me. I wondered why I was believing it could everyone be just going to there death? I held my breath but my faith in jack and swam believing life would greet me on the other side.

9 Reasons I'm Not A Good Evangelical And 9 Reasons I Won't Be A Mainline Liberal Any Time Soon Either

Why I'm Not A Good Evangelical

1. Christian music makes me feel nauseous.

2. I feel like I need to shower after leaving a Christian bookshop.

3. When I hear an atheist debate an evangelical I end up rooting for the atheist.

4. I didn't like "A Purpose Driven Life"

5. I worry about the "values" that could be taught to my kids at their Christian school.

6. When someone says "you know that Hillsong song we've been singing at church every Sunday for last 2 months" have to honestly say "no".

7. Penal substitutionary atonement drives me batty. (Atonement is so much bigger).

8. When I hear an evangelical preacher speak on just one verse from the Bible I quickly open mine to prove that in context the verse is unrelated to what he (OK once or twice it's been a she) is saying.

9. I'm OK with gay.

Why I'm Not A Mainline Liberal

1. Organ music makes me sleepy.

2. I like it when church has people under 55 in it.

3. When I hear an atheist debate an mainline liberal I'm not sure why they are a Christian (apart from growing up that way and now making some sort of living by saying they are one).

5. I think Rick Warren sounds like a great guy, and does some great things. (he gives away 90% of what he earns and works for his church for free. There's a reason he wears daggy Hawaiian shirts and not Armani Suits).

6. Even though they think social justice is more important than evangelicals they still don't give more money or do more than evangelical churches who think it's a minor concern.

7. Giving the bible and Jesus to the evangelicals so they could keep liturgy was not a good idea.

8. I just can't handle watching the newcomers getting completely lost flipping through the book of common prayer.

9. Robes look ridiculous.

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.

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.

God is just like the Gestapo?

Night 3 of Alpha I found kind of disturbing. It was probably the first time during Alpha where I found myself thinking "do I really want to identify with this?", "Do I really want to be implicitly saying I'm a Xn just like the way the video says".

My thoughts started when Nicky Gumbel told a story of a Nazi death camp where a priest steps in and offers to be killed instead of a family man which the Gestapo agree to. Nicky then went on to explain that we are like the family man and Jesus is like the priest, which is all fine and dandy until you realise that God is therefore the Gestapo and that the priest died so that the family man can be friends with the Gestapo. To be fair Nicky later explains that The Gestapo and the priest are really the same person (not using this analogy) but none the less you end up with a sadomasochist God rather a Gestapo God. Both I find pretty unsatisfactory.

I've wrestled with this before in my new analogy for atonement post. My thoughts about Jesus death at the moment go something along these lines.

1. We start life outside the Garden of Eden and dislocated from God
2. The only way for that connection to renewed is for God to become human
3. As a human (Jesus) God shows us a new way of life, a life where we choose love the result of which is suffering and for Jesus is suffering on a cross.
4. The cross is where we get a new perspective on life it's the point on the journey where we think everything will end but instead in the resurrection we see a new reality. A reality where love and justice prevail and sin does not.

Of course with no one else in the group bringing up the issue of God being equated with the gestapo and the speed of my brain it meant I didn't say anything. Maybe I will next week, but maybe I won't. The whole Alpha thing seems to be working for most of the group, just not for me.

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".

Emerging Church and/or Theology

The "Emerging Church" is something I have usually associated myself with, and most of the time the emerging church as a whole seems to be focused on how we do church where as my blog although I cover that a little bit often seems to be more focused on big theological ideas. Which could seem not particularly post modern and emerging. None the less I think this is really important and here's why.

I have rather belatedly discovered the amazing "Why I'm not a Xn" podcast by Dave Slusher at "the Evil Genius Chronicles" - thanks to Wired Jesus. Dave outlines why he was once a church going Xn and why he's now an atheist. It is a raw and honest podcast and compelling listening. It reminded me a lot of a very good friend of mine who had a very similar experience to Dave and s now not a Xn. I can remember when I move to the same city as him some of our mutual Xn friends where keen for me to "win him back" to God. This I didn't do (I guess I thought God might like to do that) I did report to the surprise of some of our mutual friends that I thought my friend had given up Xy for good reasons. His beliefs where somewhat different to mine and where not able to stand up to the average set of questions non Xn friends posed to him.

To me it seems that common to both stories the thing that pushed them away from God was not the practice of Xy or church or the institutional nature of religion but the theology of God that they had been taught. Which certainly for Dave Slusher seemed to be so heavily soaked in substitutional atonement theology that God ends up painting God as someone

As much as I'm all for experimenting with the way we do church and the way we live as Xns first and foremost I think we need to look at what we believe about God.

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.

Am I a "Liberal Evangelical"?

After years of feeling too Liberal to be an Evangelical and too Evangelical to be a Liberal. I've finally come up with a name for my particular brand of theology. In short Liberal basically describes how I understand the Bible and Evangelical describes how I read the Bible.

Unfortunately http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/libevang.htm proves I'm not the first to come up with the idea.

I agree with the 4 points outlined which are...

(1) The authority of Scripture is understood as residing not in the letter of the text (this would be bibliolatry) but in its dynamic revelation of God in Christ.
(2) Older and what is believed cruder penal theories of the atonement have sometimes been replaced by those stressing the redeeming love of God in Christ.
(3) Scientific theories such as evolution have been embraced and understood as being compatible with a Christian view of creation.
(4) Higher critical conclusions concerning the Bible (e.g., the dating of Daniel, the authorship of II Peter, the redaction of (Matthew) have been accepted.

In a generally practical sense the two things that hold my life in tension are Spirit and Scripture. I'll read something in the Bible pray about it and then see how that sits with me (listening to the spirit). If a face value reading of the scripture doesn't sit well then I will start to explore it thoroughly, as I have posted about with the women and homosexuality posts.

Similarly with every aspect of my life when I am confronted with something whether it be the idea of a needle exchange program or whatever I'll look at what the Bible says that could be relevant, pray about it and see how the two sit with me. Of course I also keep in the back of my mind that I could always be wrong about anything and therefore listen seriously to any contrary voices.

It annoys me when a fundamentalist evangelical says "it's in the Bible (at a face value reading) therefore X must be right". And equally I'm annoyed by the fundamentalist liberal who says "look I know the Bible says X but I think Y is the loving answer and God is love so therefore Y must be correct".

I tend to share lots of social and political ideas with liberals but a grounding in scripture that tends to be more evangelical.

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.