#24 Atonement theories drive me crazy, so maybe they are not necessary.

It's Good Friday.  I don't work at a church.  It is a little strange to be in this place.  Usually, I have to be prepping talks about the cross, and I am not a fan.  Let's face it.  The cross doesn't make sense.  It seems like stupid violence that we have glorified over other more important themes.  Or we use the cross to make us feel guilty because our sins put Christ up there.  Or we are told that the gospel is summed up by the cross.  Is the good news that Christ was executed by the state in a horrific and public display of violent might.  You cannot stand against Rome.  Then, worse of all, we get told that it was the Jews who killed Jesus, who was Jewish, when they had no power to crucify.  Let's not blame and scapegoat the Jews just because the author of John's Gospel does (probably in an attempt to distance his community from Jews, who had revolted and weren't held in high esteem by the Romans, who, you know, could kill you next).  

In short, I hate the cross.  I hate the violence.  I hate the way it gets construed and used to hate other people, or to make us all feel guilty.  I hate the atonement theory that becomes confused with the good news of Jesus Christ.  You know the one where God hates humans because we sin and only blood will satisfy this God to forgive us.  Oh, and the only blood that will do is the blood of God, which means that God both is perpetrating the violence upon Godself.  Which makes no sense.  So penal substitution theory goes that God murders God so that God can forgive us.  Then, God comes back from the dead and is totally cool with us now.  Yikes!  (I know that might be an unfair assessment of the theory, but this is the way it ends up coming across to me). 

I took a class on atonement theories in Seminary.  It was an awful class because no theory makes a whole lot of sense.  It is interesting to note that the early church didn't seem to worry to much about atonement theories.  The creeds don't say how God saves humanity, or redeems/reconciles humanity.  It is just assumed that atonement happened and that seems to be enough for the early church.  Isn't it funny that incarnation is what is mainly fought over in the early church councils?  It was more important to them to figure out who Jesus was than it was to figure out how God forgives sins or atones for sins.  The Gospel for them had more to do with who Jesus is and the whole God-human being thing than anything else.  I think Gregory of Nazianzus said that what is assumed in the incarnation is saved.  Thus, what comes into contact with God is what is saved.

So maybe the cross has less to do with redemption and more to do with humanities one last bow to the powers of the world to use violence as a means to rid ourselves of true connection with God.  Then, we made the very act of state sanctioned murder and called it redemptive.  The myth of redemptive violence is the predominate belief in our world just watch any action movie.  So after violence doesn't work, God gives us the gift of an empty tomb and life lived differently from the ethos of the Empire, which is still alive today.  Maybe redemption has more to do with the life before and after the death instead of the actual death.  Maybe the death is exactly from what we need to be redeemed.

I advise all of you to go check out Homebrewed Christianity to see some different ideas on atonement and look up Girard's mimetic theory, or read Walter Wink (he's fun). 

#23-Listening to voices that are not in your camp is a hard but worthwhile experience.

I have a confession to make.  I am a theological snob.  I turn my nose up at any theology that doesn't fit my approved set of standards.  I turn my nose up at theological writings that I assume are going to be way different from what I believe.  Like I turn my nose up at super conservative, young Earth creationist ways of thinking.  I don't think they will ever actually convince me that the Bible is a science book.  But maybe there is a nugget of wisdom in there somewhere that can be helpful.  I usually just completely avoid people who make these kinds of arguments, but is that the right thing to do?  Or if I do read them it is in a dismissive sort of way that is just about seeing how wrong they are.  This can't be the best way to go about it.

I have been thinking about how I can enter into these writings and think critically without being dismissive and snobby towards other people's thinking.  I think it all has to come down to grace.  As I read a piece on homosexuality or any other hot button issue, I need to enter into this reading with grace.  I believe a certain way and the author of the piece believes a certain way.  Instead of tearing down the person who wrote the article,  I need to ask questions of the text.  Questions about whether or not I agree sure, but also questions like what is the motivation of this article.  Where does this person come from when writing it?  What are the points that are made that are wise?  What can I learn from this piece that isn't just what are the points I need to tear apart, but what can I learn to be more understanding of this person's camp?  How can I learn to be more empathetic to other people's worldviews?

I believe that the only way to actually change someone's mind or point of view is through real authentic relationships.  One time I watched a video interview with an evangelical radio host and Rob Bell.  The conversation was around the issue of homosexuality.  The radio host kept to the evangelical party line about homosexuality and Rob Bell talked about changing his mind on the issue.  Do you know what it was that had changed Mr. Bell's mind?  It was not a well reasoned argument, nor a certain hermeneutical flavor of Biblical interpretation.  Rob Bell changed his mind because of real relationships with real people who are homosexual.  Relationships are better than arguments at changing our ways of thinking.

Therefore, as I think about ways to respond to articles that are contrary to my way of thinking, I am going to try to be empathetic and try to enter into a dialogue with the author (using the text) to better understand myself and this other person.  It does no good for me to dismiss their thinking because it is different, but it also does no good to hurl insults.  The best way to become a better person is to read this article with grace as the lens through which I come up with a response.  This is what I am working on.  How to read and have conversations with people from other camps to become a more understanding person and to understand what wisdom is there that I may dismiss otherwise because it is nestle in thoughts I don't agree with.  In other words, I am trying not to be offended and reactionary, but empathetic and questioning.

How do you go about doing this?  Do you only read things you agree with, or do you branch out?  How has reading outside your comfort zone helped you grow as a person?

#18 Something about Nouns and Verbs.

I have been thinking quite a bit lately about the interaction between belief and action.  I often say that in order to change a way you do something you need to change your beliefs.  So if you change the way you think about something it will change the way you act.  For instance, if you believe that all of creation is precious to God then maybe you would treat that creation differently based on that belief or assumption.  But if you hold the belief that God created the rest of the world for us, and in the end it is all going to be burned up or something, then you might treat the environment as something to consume.

But I have been wondering how do people actually change their beliefs.  Sometimes it takes a really persuasive argument, but in all actuality that is rare.  Most people don't change their beliefs because someone made a really valid and interesting point, but because of the relationship and integrity of the person who made that point.  It is in the doing of the relationship that beliefs are changed.  So maybe changing belief requires that you do something that is out of the norm.

Instead of arguing about the nouns of our faith we should be doing the verbs and let the nouns have meaning in light of the verbs (check out this HBX for more on that).  Indoctrination is the specialty of most religious movements.  But maybe we go about it all wrong.  I used to teach Confirmation at a pretty large affluent church.  This was always a really great experience because I love talking about our faith and laying out the various beliefs of the church.  I tend to take an approach of laying some various beliefs in front of the students and allowing them to wrestle with them.  Because I think you come to faith through wrestling with meaning not through being told what is the right way to believe.  I think I was doing it wrong though.  We spent almost the entire time talking and discussing the beliefs of the church and we spent almost no time actually doing these things.  We did a mission project, but we should be continual mission projects.  We should be always doing the verbs of the faith.  Go, preach, baptize, love, pray, give, clothe, visit, eat, etc.  These are the things that show what you actually believe.  These are the things that change what you actually believe.  These are the things that bring meaning to the nouns of the faith like Christology, Eucharist, Eschaton, etc.

Belief and action are wound together so tightly that they inform each other.  Belief doesn't always dictate our actions and actions don't always change beliefs.  But intentionally revising both based on the other seems like a great way to form your faith.  It is kind of an action reflection model, only with the awareness the sometimes it is a reflection action model.  Verbs and nouns inform each other.  They create meaning for each other.  They make more sense when placed together.  Also, don't forget about the power of the prepositional phrase and punctuation...

#13 NPR makes Me Cry (Is this an assertion?)

I was in my car on my way back to work after lunch, when I turned on NRP to see what's going on.  I caught the end of Here and Now, which is produced in Boston.  It was incredibly emotional as people told stories and talked about tragedy and heartache that happened in a city they love.  When signing off Robin Young, the host of the show, had to compose herself before finishing her sign off.  I lost it.  I've never been to Boston.  My home town has never been bombed.  I have never really felt that heartache for my city.  But I bawled because a moment that was supposed to be filled with joy and inspiration was quickly turned into a horrible moment of pain and despair.

Then, I have to juxtapose this feeling with the thought of all the people who moved toward the pain and suffering.  The people who cared enough to reach out to the stranger and help stop the bleeding, or move someone from harms way.  The EMT and Police Officers who are trained to react in way to help and protect in this moment. Here is a great piece to read about this from comedian Patton Oswald, it is amazing and well worth the read.

Many people after moments like this can say where is Christ in this?  Where was God?  Why would God allow this?  This along with thousands of other tragedies that unfold all throughout the world, such as earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and homicide on the street corner, cause people to think critically about who they believe God is in the face of it all.

Some will stick to old party lines that God ordained this and is somehow using it for God's purpose.  Where is the love in that?  Or some will say things like God doesn't cause this to happen but God can bring good out of it.  This is better, but if God has the power to stop it then why doesn't God.  This is a classic question of theodicy.  And one that almost always leave us wanting for a better explanation.  If this interests you, then check out Tony Jones blog, where this weeks "Questions that Haunt Christianity" is about just this.  Leave a comment and see Tony's response on Saturday, I think.

Here is how I come down on it, but again, I don't know that I have anything useful to say: I believe that God is loving to the extreme meaning that God limits God's power because love requires choice.  You can choose to love, to hate, or to be indifferent, but regardless it requires choice.  Giving us choice means we can choose to do absolutely awful things to each other.  It is a side effect of the opportunity to love.  This love that God has chosen for us led God to become incarnate, enter into the mess we have made, then suffer and die under our rule only to overcome it through resurrection.

The question posed earlier was where is Christ in all of this?  My thought is that you can see Christ on every suffering face.  You can see the crucified Christ in every victim of pointless acts of violence.  You can see Christ face in every moment of death and despair.  But you can also see the Rise Christ on the face of every person who turned towards his/her neighbor and helped.  You can see Christ Resurrected in every person who is offering love and grace in the midst of grief.  You can see God's Kingdom intersect with ours when a person steps out of his/her normal role and expectation to risk loving in the face of pain, suffering, and injustice.

Let's not try to make sense of the senseless.  Instead, let's live a life where we know that God reveals love and grace through both Good Friday moments and through Easter Sunday moments.  From the pain and suffering of the Good Friday comes the new creation of Resurrection.  This is the Hope of the Christian faith. My prayer is that we can live resurrection in the face of despair for others and can see the Resurrection from the help of others in the face of our own struggles, pain and despair.

#11 Church is the new scapegoat.

Have you ever heard someone say, "I'm spiritual, but not religious."?  I have been really close to saying it myself except you know I'm a seminary trained employee of the church, which means I am the poster board of religion.  I grew up in it, and I have pretty much never strayed.  Even during my period in college of searching out other faiths to see if one fits better, I was almost Buddhist you know, I still attended a church and my campus ministry.  So, ummm...I'm religious, but not spiritual.

When people say that they love Jesus and his ideals, but they don't like the church or the term Christian, I get it. My reasons for looking for a new faith community were the same reasons people have today.  People have done absolutely awful things in the name of Christ, from war to cheesy t-shirts that co-opt a corporate logo and give it a pseudo-Christian spin.  The Church has a 2000 year laundry list of mistakes, but does that mean it is evil?

In today's culture, people are suspect of the organized and established religion.  I can't blame them.  We love to blame other people and organizations for the struggles of the world.  Today, with Catholic sex abuse scandal, Westboro Baptist "Church," and crazy people saying things like God ordained natural disasters to punish us for homosexuality or whatever "sin" they think is the worst at the time.  Therefore, we have decided to use Christianity/the Church as a scapegoat.  If the church hadn't gotten involved in politics the nation would be in better shape.  If Christians would butt out there would be less wars because Just War Theory is bogus.  If the church was more like Jesus we would absolutely be involved with it, but it isn't.  It's actually the reason for all of the ills in the world.

You know what is amazing about the church.  It is a mix of people who meet together as broken, awful, sinful, wounded, and unloved people to hope for a life of fullness, grace, and love.  The Church has done awful things because it is made up of broken people.  We do awful things when we forget that we are in fact people who are capable of being wrong and horrible to each other.  Let's stop blaming the Church for our problems and start trying to authentically do our faith with other people who are hurting.  Then, we should call that the Church.

#10 Being God-forsaken brings meaning to the Resurrection.

Whenever I hear the song "I'm Yours" by Jason Mraz, I want to, and often do, rant about how he says that it is our God-forsaken right to be loved, looooved, loved.  I didn't realize that God had in fact forsaken our right to be loved.  I think he probably meant God-given or something like that, and I can't believe none of the producers asked him about that line.  Whatever, we all have words we misuse, so I don't hate Jason Mraz or even think he's stupid, just made a very public mistake.

The song always makes me think about that idea of God-forsakenness (there is red squiggle under forsakenness, which I do not agree with at all).  Does God really forsake things?  I mean I've driven through Kansas on I-70 and it is boring and as much as I hate to say it there is still beauty and God in it.  If God hasn't forsaken Kansas, then God is not going to forsake anything.  See what I did there.

It's Holy Week so it seems the time to think about forsakenness some more.  I am reminded of Jesus' haunting cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!"  It is a moment that should bring a little confusion to anybody who believes in the Incarnation.  How is it possible for God to have forsaken Jesus, since Jesus is God?  It's the kind of question that makes my brain hurt.  How does God abandon Godself?

In reality, does God really abandon anyone?  Jesus on the cross is having a real feeling of being abandoned.  In his being, Jesus does not feel like God is moving or in this situation at all.  God feels exactly what the rest of us feel from time to time.  God feels like God is not present and does not care.  God feels forsaken.  We all have those moments of feeling like God has left the building and doesn't give a flip about the awful, excruciating, and all-consuming pain and grief that we are feeling.  Does that mean that it is okay to feel that way from time to time?  I mean Jesus did.  Obviously, most of the time we aren't dying a horribly painful death when we shout the open of Psalm 22.  Usually, it's because the peanut butter has run out, or something equally as horrible.

In that moment when Jesus felt forsaken and we feel forsaken, it might be good to realize that God is present.  God is present in the junk as well as the joy..  God is present in suffering.  God is present in Kansas. God is present in our abandonment.  God is present.  I believe that God is present all around us, and that Good Friday and Holy Saturday are the days when we are to feel with the disciples that feeling of abandonment or forsakenness.  We are to face our own fears, failures, suffering, and grief.  Then, see the Crucified God present in the suffering and participating in our suffering.  The power of the Resurrection and God's invitation to you in it will become significantly more meaningful if you force yourself to face your reality of pain and rejection and empty peanut butter jars.  Because we are never truly forsaken, but we have to face the pain we cause and feel before we can experience the joy of new life in Resurrection.

Did I just write a sermon?  What are your thoughts on forsakenness and Jesus' cry from cross?

Although I didn't cite anyone in this post, I do want you to know that I have been heavily influenced by Jurgen Moltmann and Peter Rollins on this idea.

#9 Protestant Christians suck at Rituals.

I've been thinking a lot about rituals.  You may not know this about me but I love the ritual of Holy Communion.  I think it is a moment when we intentionally enter into a reality that is always around us.  It is beautiful and mystical and most of all meaningful.  Rituals are ways that we are intentional with our rhythms to help participate more deeply with the world around us.  Here's what I figured out recently: Protestant Christians suck at ritualizing our faith.  In fact, I think we are scared to be too ritualistic because we fear we'll become Catholic (how about the new Pope, huh? Added hits with that comment).

I don't know if fear of becoming Catholic is really it because the Lutheran church kept most of the rituals and the Episcopal church has definitely keep up with rituals.  Do they have meaning?  I don't know I'm not really in these denominations.  And of course every local church has its own rituals.  For instance, I once heard a story of a monk who would bring his cat to lead morning prayers.  He would hook the leash on the lectern while he led the prayer time.  The same place still has a hook on a new lectern for the cat's leash because it became part of the tradition.  The monk had moved on to a different ministry setting, and on a visit asked why they had the hook on the lectern.  The answer was that they just always had, and it was part of how things worked there.  This act of bringing his cat to morning prayer created a culture that continued long after the man had left. (Side Note: I have no idea where I heard this story, if I retold it correctly, if this is remotely true, or why he kept his cat on a leash).

We have rituals that build just based on where we are that take on new meaning or are empty of meaning but we keep them out of comfort.  I think we have some work to do in the Protestant Traditions to bring our rituals home with us.  For instance, did you know that Jewish families celebrate most of their religious traditions in their homes more than at the synagogue.  The Sabbath has a set of rituals that happen in the home.  It's not just don't go to work instead go to church so that the pastor has to work on the holy day of rest but the rest of us don't kind of thing.  It is a ritual to remember our rhythms and set a pacing for our lives that centers around God.

I believe that we need a religious ritualization of the home.  I think we should set up a time to be in community as a family where we talk about how God works in this world.  It could be turning off the TV and  reading something together.  It could be talking to your teens about your faith and having them do the same (even God forbid your struggles with belief).  It could be flannel board hour at home with your two year old where you tell Bible stories.  It could be lighting a candle at sundown while saying a prayer together.  But we need a ritual at home to help make faith more than something that is done for an hour every Sunday and if your ambitious another hour on Wednesday.  Let's do church, religion, faith at home with the people see most.  Oh and atheist, you can even do this and talk about whatever your brand of atheism believes; science is the new Catholic, or humanism is the new Protestantism, or Nietzsche is the new Jesus, or whatever (I think I lost all the atheist with the first line, so if you made it this far, congrats, we must be friends).  Regardless of your belief, if you make a meaningful ritual out of it, then it becomes part of how you participate in a greater reality on an ongoing basis.