RSS

Tag Archives: Jesus

The Slippery Slope: A New Paradigm

'101 km to Mount Everest Base Camp' photo (c) 2007, Marc van der Chijs - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/A group of expeditioners formed a team to attempt a summit of the formidable Everest.  They anticipated the journey would be arduous so they spent years training and stock piling the best gear to aid them  with their ascent.  During this time of preparation they, through excited conversations with friends and acquaintances, added many to their numbers.  By the time of departure their group numbered over fifty.

As they set out the air was thick with excitement.  Taking the traditional southern route, the climb began in the small town of Namche Bazaar, Napal.  Yaks and dzopkyos were loaded heavily with supplies.  Sherpas and porters were hired.  The travelers would spend the next 8 days making their way to the Everest Base Camp at a 17,700 feet.  By all accounts the trek, even in its early phase, was far more difficult than they were ready for.  Even many of the most physically fit members had a difficult time adjusting to the thin air.

On that 8th day they finally made it to the Khumbu Glacier which is followed for the final part of the trail to the Base Camp.  The icy path was treacherous for the crew, each footstep was placed firmly to ensure safe passage.  After this obstacle they reached the location where they would rest and acclimate for two weeks.

'Tents, Everest Base Camp' photo (c) 2007, Andrew Eland - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/Tents were pitched, a makeshift kitchen was setup, and the sojourners settled in.  When the winds weren’t whipping too hard they would gather into small groups discussing the journey so far and planning for the next section of the journey.  There were a few core members of the team that were widely recognized as the leaders.  They talked at length with each other about methods for keeping the others following the straight and narrow.  Each afternoon the leaders would call the group together as a whole to go over safety strategies and outline their plans.

Over the first week at base camp other climbers also arrived, setting up their makeshift settlements nearby.  A few of the leaders would go to chat with the newcomers, always reporting back to their own group that the others were inexperienced, ill-prepared, and had little business being on such a dangerous mountain.  Occasionally they would try to convince some of the other groups to come and follow them up the mountain.  Their sales pitches claimed that the only way they would be guaranteed a safe summit was if they learned from them and obeyed their instructions.  Some actually did agree to abandon their own teams to study at the feet of the leaders and to follow them to the mountain top.

Each time a new convert was brought into the group the training sessions would begin again.  Though the delays disappointed the original crew, the leaders explained that it was for everybody’s safety that the recruits received a full and robust training.

The two-week acclimation period passed, then another week, then another.  With each passing day the instructional lessons became more detailed, more rigid, and more strict.  What was a 1 hour informal gathering had now turned into a 2 1/2 hour class taught daily.  Each now had a title and corresponding theme.  One was called “7 Practices of a Highly Effective Climber”, another “Mountaineers in the Hands of an Angry Mountain”.

Eventually some of the members of the crew became disheartened at the postponements and the increasing fanaticism of the leaders.  The mountain grew colder, windier, and more frightening with each passing day.  A group of 5 asked a couple of the sherpas to escort them back off the mountain so they could return home.  As they began to hike away from the camp and down the glacier they could hear mocking from the distance…something about being quitters, being weak, being lost.  From that point on the classes would also contain a section on the failures of back-sliding down the mountain, of sliding down the slippery slope.

'Everest Base Camp Tent' photo (c) 2008, ilkerender - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/There was one young woman in the group, named Amy, who had dreamed of this journey since she was a small child.  The walls of her room as a teenager were filled with posters of Everest.  As an adult her coffee table had been littered with mountaineering magazines for years.  She had taken smaller journeys across many of North America’s most famous peaks.  When she heard of this expedition Amy had convinced her fiance, Brian, to take this trip with her.  Brian had not dreamed of this trip since childhood, but Amy’s enthusiasm proved quite contagious.

Now she was forced to sit impatiently on the side of the mountain, so close…and so far away.  To Amy, the classes being taught each day were little more than pep talks and repetition of lessons she had learned years earlier.  She began skipping the lectures, instead venturing to nearby camps to express her vexation.  She dared not speak her doubts and frustrations among her own team lest they shame her for being on the verge of the slippery slope.

Eventually the quicksand of this base camp became overwhelming for Amy.  She had been thinking about turning back, going back home to return later.  There was one particular group she had been venting to for the past couple days.  When she told them that she was thinking about leaving they offered to let her join their expedition.  Upon hearing the invitation Amy glowed.

She quickly rushed back to Brian and told him they finally had a way to continue on their journey.  Brian was hesitant.  He wanted to join Amy and this new team, but the training was echoing through his thoughts.  The other groups are “unsafe”, “unreliable”…how could he put himself and Amy at such risk?  And of course he knew the shaming would be imminent.  He certainly didn’t want to be a back-slider.

There was one thing, though, that he felt more strongly than any of those fears.  He wanted Amy to be happy.  Brian told Amy he would love to join her and the new climbing team she had found.  As they packed their gear some concerned companions came by to convince them that they should not leave.  They expressed that they were worried for their safety.  Brian and Amy thanked them for their concern but also conveyed that they were going to continue the climb and didn’t believe they could do that with the original expedition.

'Depuis le sommet du Kala Pattar (5545m)' photo (c) 2012, Jerome Bon - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/As they finally began their long-awaited trek out of the base camp they could hear murmurs behind them.  The words they had expected finally came as somebody mentioned the “slippery slope” Amy and Brian were on.  They smiled at each other because now they knew that not all slippery slopes are a descent…some are a long, hard climb towards your dream.

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Spiritual Principles I Learned From Food Network

I have a confession to make…I love the Food Network and spend far too much of my time watching, what many would consider, pointless cooking competition shows.  From Iron Chef to Chopped to Cupcake Wars (do I lose a manly-man point for that last one?)  I find myself glued to the flashing screen in front of me.

In a never-ending attempt to prove to myself that I am not just “wasting time”, I have been contemplating the spiritual lessons I have gleaned from these shows.  So without further ado:

1. Tension and balance are essential.

Many a chef has been “chopped” when a judge utters the criticism that their dish was “one note”.  If there is a secret to making amazing grub, it might just be providing contrasting yet complementary flavors and textures.

Corn Ice Cream w/Habanero Tequila Caviar

Corn Ice Cream w/Habanero Tequila Caviar

If you are going to make a sweet dish, it is a good idea to add a sour or spicy flavor to create an interesting tension.  Likewise, if you are going to make a soup you had better include a piece of crunchy bread to contrast the textures. A meal without contrast is a recipe for a boring dining experience.

This is also true of our spiritual journeys.  If we think faith is all about believing what we were taught to believe and never about doubting then we can only go so far.  It becomes predictable and repetitive.  However if we truly embrace belief yet are authentic in acknowledging our doubt it usually provides a deeper more robust spiritual experience.  This can also be true with grace vs. justice, metaphysical vs. physical, and truth vs. mystery.  Finding the tension between the two is where the magic happens.

2. Deconstruction of the classics can lead us into a deeper understanding.

Bagel and Lox - Deconstructed

Deconstructed Bagel and Lox

Take for example the dish to the left.  It is a deconstructed version of the classic bagels and lox.  The chef has abstracted each of the components: bagel (in crumb form), cured salmon, cream cheese, onion, cucumber, and capers. In this the diner can experience this meal, with a long history, in a new and fresh way.  In so doing they can more easily understand what each component adds to the dish.  The bagels add the starch and crunch.  The cheese adds the creaminess.  The fish adds the smokey savoriness.  The capers add the tart sourness.  I think you get the point…  In addition the eater can play around by tasting a couple of the components in tandem to see how those flavors play off of one another.  The whole experience leaves the diner with a  far greater understanding of the meal they have eaten.

Similarly deconstructing our doctrines and theologies can lead us into a more robust comprehension.  It is easy to let our spiritual ancestors fight through all the questions and arguments for us, consuming whatever is placed before us.  It is a worthwhile effort to dig into them to find out who they were, why they made the decisions they made, what influenced them, and what impacts it has had.  When we truly understand the components that our dogmas emerged from, perhaps we can imagine them in a new way that will bring life to ourselves and those around us.

3. Exposure to diversity can produce creativity

Sea Urchin Carbonara Noodle Bento Box

Sea Urchin Carbonara Noodle Bento Box

Culinary lines have long been fought over.  The French will claim their cuisine is the best in the world, the Italians theirs, the Japanese theirs, and so on.  Purists from any tradition will often scoff at the rest of the inferior lot.  If you, like me, have watched the original Iron Chef program, Iron Chef America‘s Japanese predecessor from the 90s, you will have noticed that each of the chefs came from a specific cuisine (French, Chinese, Japanese, Italian).  Many times challengers would enter Kitchen Stadium from opposing classical schools.  Most of the time the chefs would stick to their specialized flavor profiles, but occasionally a spark of creativity would come over them as they “stole” an ingredient or flavor from the rival tradition to elevate their dish.  Over the show’s 7 year run this practice increased as it became known as a winning formula.  The Iron Chef who showed this type of creativity more than any of the others was Masaharu Morimoto, who eventually crossed the Pacific to join Iron Chef America.  In the American version of the show almost every Iron Chef and challenger follow this tradition where they “bring together the pungent flavors of east and west”.

I have found spiritual parallel here as well.  There are a great many spiritual traditions in the world.  For the longest time I saw them as rivals, as an inferior lot.  As I have opened myself to hearing what is important and meaningful to them, I have found inspiration for my own faith tradition.  Many times I have felt myself fall into a rut…thinking the same thoughts, doing the same things, falling into the same patterns.  Having a real appreciation for spiritual diversity (including the agnostics and atheists I know) provides me with the spark of creativity it takes to get out of those ruts…and I’m truly thankful for that.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Masculine Christianity: A Cup Half Empty

Earlier this week popular reformed preacher John Piper addressed a crowd of conventioneers at the annual Desiring G-d 2012 event.  His message was entitled “The Frank and Manly Mr. Ryle – The Value of Masculine Christianity“.  Read it here.  It is a fairly long address, so allow me to highlight a couple of pieces (with some intermittent responses.

“God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son.” – Piper

First I’d like to point out that Piper knows his Bible inside and out.  He knows full well that the logic of the first couple of sentences is misleading at best.  G-d is “revealed” in the Bible in the feminine as well as the masculine.  In addition the church is referred to in the feminine many times.  For example: G-d is likened to a mother in Numbers 11:12, Isaiah 49:14-15, Deut. 32:18, Hosea 11:1-4, Psalms 131:2, Job 38:8, and 1 Peter 2:2-3.  G-d is likened to other human feminine images in Psalm 22:9-10, Nehemiah 9:21Luke 13:18-21, and Luke 15:8-10.  God is liked to other non-human feminine images in  Psalm 17:8, Psalm 57:1, Deut. 32:11-12Matthew 23:37, John 3:5, John 1:13. The hebrew language has a gender-based linguistic system, much like Spanish.  Certain words are masculine, certain words are feminine.  When the Hebrew scriptures refer to the Spirit of G-d the word used is “ruwach”, which is a feminine noun.

Now the point here isn’t to have a biblical tit for tat with Piper.  It’s simply to point out that when we use terrestrial language to speak of the divine we are always speaking in symbolism.  When we attempt to explain our hopes regarding the nature of G-d we use analogies.  We use something that is familiar to us personally to express something magnificently mysterious.  Asserting that G-d is literally male, a “father”, or a “king” is no more appropriate than using Jesus’ analogy of a mother hen gathering her chicks to assert that G-d is a chicken.

Piper continued: “God appoints all the priests in Israel to be men. The Son of God comes into the world as a man, not a woman. He chooses twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men; and that in the home, the head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33)…From all of this, I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel.”

Many of the prophets consistently uses the feminine Hebrew pronouns (zo’th & shilyah) to refer the nation of Israel.  In the New Testament Jesus and the apostles refer to the church in the feminine metaphor as bride.  There are a lot of powerful women in the Bible.  Most scholars will let you in on the fact that Jesus had female disciples.  Paul, yes that Paul, was discipled in part by a woman named Priscilla.  She and her husband were both pastors of a church in Ephesus.  The women Euodia and Syntyche worked with Paul to teach the gospel.  We could go on and on, but the assertion that only men lead or are called to lead in the Bible is obviously false.

If we move past antiquated chauvinism we will surely enjoy a much more robust and meaningful Christianity. Chauvinism restricts the analogies we can use to express the divine into a subset of what it could be.  If we refuse to see G-d in the feminine then we have lost half of our means to express our hope.  Our symbolic cup does not “runneth over”…it remains half empty.  A Christianity that embraces the feminine metaphors doubles the tools we have to express the divine.

Now what is interesting in this particular speech is that Piper eventually admits that women can do pretty much anything that a man can do (something I doubt to ever hear Piper’s macho-church companion, Mark Driscoll, admit).

The reason we call such courage “manly” is not that a woman can’t show it, but that we feel a sense of fitness and joy when a man steps up to risk his life, or his career, with courage; but we (should) feel awkward if a woman is thrust into that role on behalf of men…

The point is not that women are unable to lift the weight or bear the pain of the reality of hell. The point is not that they are unable to press it into those who don’t want to hear. The point is that one of the marks of mature manhood is the inclination to spare her that load and its costs….

Again the point is not that a woman is not able to speak this way. The point is that godly men know intuitively, by the masculine nature implanted by God, that turning the hearts of men and women to God with that kind of authoritative speaking is the responsibility of men.” – Piper

This is what is truly unfortunate about this theology.  There is no doubt in my mind that Piper believes that women will be happier living in submission to masculine authority.  What he doesn’t realize, blinded by doctrine, is that most women are not happy in that place.  His view does not match reality.  He doesn’t realize that women too sense a fitness and joy when they “step up to the risks of life, or career, with courage”.  He does not realize that they passionately desire to lead others and help them to make the world a better place.  They too have a nature to turn the hearts of others to the divine.

In teaching that leadership, careers, and individual divine calling are strictly for manly men, he robs women of their freedom to be fulfilled.  In this view, the only life they have been “blessed” with is one of perpetual cheerleading and baby-making.  He doesn’t even realize what he is doing…but this is the 21st Century, ignorance is not acceptable.  We have millions of examples of successful and fulfilled female leaders.  You don’t need to look far to find them.  We can easily observe all the diversity in life.  Men don’t always fit the masculine cliches, nor do women fit the female cliches…no matter how much Piper and Driscoll try to tell us everybody should fit into 2 predefined boxes.

 A couple of weeks ago author and blogger, Rachel Held Evans, was in Phoenix speaking at a couple of events.  She reminded us of a biblical story that receives little attention.  The story of Jephthah and his daughter can be found in Judges 11.  To sum up the story in short: Jephthah is called upon by the elders of Gilead to fight their enemies.  If he is successful they agree to make him their permanent chieftain.  During the battle Jephthah cuts a deal with G-d:  If he is given the victory he promises to sacrifice “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return”. He wins the battle, returns home, and his daughter comes out to greet him.  He is distraught, but Jephthah knows what G-d “requires” of him.  His daughter pleads with him to allow here to spend two months mourning in the countryside before her future and her life are sacrificed to meet the expectations of G-d.  He grants this postponement but at the end of two months “did to her according to the vow which he had made”.

The danger of Piper’s theology is that it asserts that G-d wants us to sacrifice the individual initiative, hopes, and dreams of women.  Many women are currently wandering in the wilderness mourning for the lives they wish they had, if it had not been for this “promise” we made to doctrine.  The good news is that they are not yet sacrificed…though “Masculine Christianity” seems anxious to light the pyre.  We can come to our senses and realize that this is a sacrifice that G-d neither requires nor wants.

For continued conversation check out the flood of responses over at Rachel Held Evans’ blog.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Divine Favor & Tebowism

In the history of the NFL we have seen many openly Christian players.  It’s not unusual to see a finger pointing towards heaven after a big play; we’ve heard dozens (hundreds?) of appreciative sentiments offered to G-d in post-game interviews…especially after a championship.  Notably Kurt Warner, the highly decorated Super Bowl MVP (and winner of a participant ribbon on Dancing With The Stars), has always been very open about his faith.  The Christian community has always had a fondness for these sports figures.  It’s pretty normal to cheer a little louder for a player we identify with.

However, something is different this year with the emergence of Tim Tebow.  The buzz in the Christian community is bigger than its ever been before.  Even non-Christians are paying attention.  Many Evangelicals who never before found interest in the sport have started watching games specifically because of Tebow.

Tebow has always had a bit of a following among Christians.  He began to rise to fame in college while famously wearing bible verses on his eye blacks.  But Tebow Time became a national sensation about mid-way through this current NFL season.  Week after week he led the Broncos to a number of late game comebacks to secure a place in the playoffs.  And then it began…  Social media became abuzz with mentions of G-d’s favor on Tebow.  Some Christians started inferring that G-d was involved in what became known as “miracle” victories.  Tebowism reached a climax after an overtime playoff win over the Steelers.  Only 11 seconds into overtime Tim threw a great pass to Damaryius Thomas to score an 80 yard touchdown, securing the victory.  Within minutes Facebook and Twitter were flooded with messages claiming the play was some sort of immaculate reception.  Something new popped up this time though.  Christians started using numerology to interpret a heavenly message from G-d using Tebow’s passing statistics.  Tebow passed for 316 yards in that game which predictably they assigned to John 3:16.

I should say at this point that Tim has publicly stated that he does not believe G-d is supernaturally pulling strings to give him and the Broncos victories. Unfortunately this is the one message that his admirers (worshippers?) have not heard. A poll taken after this game revealed some interesting results. View the results here. An amazing 43% of respondents who were familiar with Tebow answered affirmatively when asked if his success was the result of divine intervention. This theology is quite troubling for a few reasons, but suffice it to say (for now) that if G-d is performing miracles for multi-millionaires while billions are suffering and dying in extreme poverty something is very wrong. In addition, if Tebow’s success is a result of G-d’s favor what does last week’s loss say?  Has G-d abandoned him?  This might deserve some more discussion, but we will save that for another time (or the comments).

So is our theology really this poor? Is G-d really that arbitrary and/or callous? I would suggest that something else is going on here. Perhaps the issue doesn’t say much about Tebow or about G-d, but rather says a lot about us. A very common belief among many religions (especially those from ancient societies) is that if we do something (pray, offer sacrifices, perform a ceremony, are nice to others, are obedient, etc) then a divine being will be inclined to give us what we desire. I believe Tim Tebow has become for many American Christians a symbol of this desire. Tim has a trait that we, as Christians, believe he shares with us, his faith. If G-d gives him success as a reward for his belief, then hopefully he will do the same for us. Could it be that Tebow is just a projection of our own longing for miracles in our own life?

At this point I would redirect us. I personally don’t find it all that beneficial to continuously attempt to find the right combination of variables in order to manipulate the favor of G-d to achieve success. I do think Tim can still symbolize something of importance for us though once we move past supernatural game rigging. Tebow has worked incredibly hard for many years to achieve success. Reportedly he is consistently the first one to practices and the last one to leave. He seems to always have a good attitude, supports and encourages those around him, and has a generous disposition. Tim is successful because he earned success. I can respect this form of “Tebowing” regardless of how I feel about football players taking a knee with head bowed after a good play.


idk why…I just found this picture and felt I needed to share 😉

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Satan and Christus Victor in the 21st Century

First, I must apologize for the past couple months of absence from blogging.  Life has been busy through the holidays.  I have found a moment to catch my breath and as such now have time to write a bit more.  I currently sit overlooking an ice covered lake with a backdrop of snow blanketed mountains.  Perhaps this post will find a somewhat more positive tone then the previous…although we should start there to address this topic.

If you haven’t had a chance to read my last post please take a second to do so: An Abusive Relationship with G-d.

This last post was a reaction to a particular doctrine that I formerly affirmed, namely Penal Substitutionary Atonement (I’ll refer to it as PSA for convenience throughout the remainder of this piece).  I felt it necessary to express my frustration with this commonly espoused atonement theory to perhaps point out some of its short comings and the damage that it can do to us personally and our relationship with G-d.  However, it certainly isn’t enough to tear something down and walk away with the dust of the rubble falling off my boots.  So then, I offer an alternative for consideration.  Please keep in mind that what I will present is just another theory.  I am not advocating that this is the final and true atonement theory…only that it is perhaps a better alternative to the popular PSA.  I wouldn’t suggest anybody simply take this explanation and build a rigid doctrine around it, but rather use it as inspiration to continue the journey of finding new ways to experience G-d, love, and life with each other.

Let’s start by taking a step back in history, considering where PSA came from and why it emerged.  Throughout most of the first millenium of Christianity the atonement was understood by a vast majority of followers through either of 2 metaphors.  The first would be the Ransom theory. It teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom, paid to Satan, in satisfaction of his just claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. The second is closely related and is known as Christus Victor.  This theory sees Jesus not used as a ransom but rather defeating Satan in a spiritual battle and thus freeing enslaved mankind by defeating the captor.  In the 11th Century the established western church officially rejected both of these theories in favor of the Satisfaction theory at the direction of Anselm, then Archbishop of Canterbury.  Satisfaction theory eventually emerged into PSA under the Reformers 500+ years later.  As a reminder, PSA argues that Christ  was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so G-d can justly forgive the sins.  So here we are in present day…dealing the the Mark Driscolls of the world telling us that G-d hates us and that we need to feel guilty because we aren’t holy enough for him, that G-d demanded a human sacrifice to appease his wrath against us.  If such an assertion came from any other religion we would immediately be able to identify how dangerous such an understanding of G-d would be…but since it comes from our own tradition we seem to be generally quite blind to it.

I’d like to pose this question:  Why did Anselm send us down this path?  Why did he see it necessary to change the path of a millenium of Christians before him.  It is reported that Anselm rejected the ransom theory because he had discerned that Satan, an actual spiritual being, could not have possibly had any just claim to G-d’s creation, thus eliminating the legal requirement for a ransom to be paid.  For Anselm a similar dilema was posed by Christus Victor in that it portrayed Satan as such a powerful being so as to be able to enslave G-d’s creation against His will.  Anselm contended it was much preferable to see us (humanity) as enemies of G-d, through our sin, then to assert godlike power to the spiritual being of Satan.  I wouldn’t argue with Anselm on his identification of a problem, but I would obviously have some contention with his resolution (again, see my previous post).

In the tradition of this blog I would approach the resolution of the criticisms of Christus Victor by exploring the metaphorical interpretation.  We have already established that it is fairly unattractive to view our condition as a subjection of humanity to the literal spiritual power and authority of a being that is not G-d, namely Satan.  If we do this we effectively create another god who is just as powerful as, well maybe just a little less powerful than, the main G-d, in so doing we become polytheists.  So what if Satan is a metaphor for something?  Is there some problem, power, set of issues that humanity faces from which we would need a savior, a hero?  If there were, then perhaps the analogy of the spiritual battle of Christus Victor could still be maintained, albeit slightly modified.

In searching for the villain, our Satan, in the narrative of Christus Victor I would introduce us to, or for some remind us of,  another atonement theory that has seemed to exist in some form or another throughout the history of Christianity.  This atonement theory is known as “moral influence“.  It teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection.  If we let moral influence inform our decision on choosing a metaphorical definition of “Satan”, then it would appear that immorality, as defined by Jesus, would be the villain in our narrative.  If we review Jesus’ teachings it appears that our Satan, the one he came to defeat, is/are the systems and individual interactions that are unloving, those that cause alienation and oppression, those that ignore or perpetuate poverty and need, etc.

This way of approaching the question gives us something real and tangible to work with.  We are no longer fearing and struggling against some lower diety who is manipulating our life events (I hate it when Satan hides my keys on Sunday mornings to keep me from getting to church, but Jesus usually overcomes the attempts of the Devil by helping me find them! PTL!).  Rather we move into addressing real world problems by practicing “The Way” (for those who don’t already know, early Christians identified themselves not as “christians” but rather as followers of “The Way”…that way of course being the one Jesus taught and demonstrated).  We are trying to solve issues like poverty (locally and globally) with generosity and compassion, we try to find ways to create and maintain peace by rejecting the cycles of violence and retribution, we seek to have relationships that are healthy, beneficial, and that demonstrate authentic love regardless of race, class, religion, or sexuality, etc.

If we see the reason for Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in the context of this collision of Christus Victor and Moral Influence then we effectively resolve Anselm’s problem with these traditional atonement theories while simultaneously avoiding the afore mentioned pitfalls and abuse of penal substitutionary atonement.  I see this approach as much more beneficial, hopeful, and as calling Jesus’ followers to a higher responsibility in the narrative of life and existence in the universe.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: