Points of Agreement

Mark Driscoll posts abound on the internet these days. I don’t usually “beat the bandwagon drum”….and instead often opt for topics that might have been the latest news….a few years ago.  But Driscoll has piqued my curiosity. 

Last night I listened to a dozen or so of his You Tube videos..listening to  him talk about the Twilight series, The Shack, Thomas Kincaide paintings, TULIP, how to know if you are one of the elect, yoga…the movie Avatar. You won’t find his videos on God Tube.  He is a bit too….ahhhhh…..irreverent for God Tube.  

in spite of myself, I found myself actually liking him.  Believe me I was all set not to based on the quotes I read beforehand... some were included in my last post. 

The guy has a gift for public speaking…for preaching.  He is hilarious.  If his career as a preacher ever falls through, he is shoe in for stand up comedy.  I was entertained by most of what he had to say.  And challenged.

Challenged because I disagree with him on  many points.  Eternal conscious torment, penal substitution, God hating sinners, his opinion of The Shack as bordering on demonic immediately come to mind. 

Although I would rather look for points of AGREEMENT, the points of DISagreement are, oftentimes, what clarifies what I do believe and why I believe it. 

Did I find any points of agreement?  Well in a roundabout way I did….

In a sermon about why God is just and hell is right….

We are all hypocrites.  We all want to receive mercy and give justice.

Yep. 

And sometimes I hear them declaring…buried within their sermon..(what I believe to be) truth….in spite of themselves….

In another sermon, while explaining the gist of the 5 Points of Calvinism versus the 5 Points of Arminianism…concerning Irresistible Grace, Driscoll says this:

if God wants to love you, God wants to save you, God wants you to meet Jesus....you can fight and argue but eventually he's going to change your heart and you will meet Jesus.

Is that not the heart of Christian Universalism? If God wants you to meet Jesus…you will meet Jesus. Eventually, he will melt the hardest heart, bend the stubbornest knee….and every tongue will (joyfully) proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord. 

A Sufficient Realization of Love…..

I’ve been sorting through (and compiling) a lot of old files and writings that I have stashed on various programs here and there and everywhere.  On my computer…..flashdrives…in Zoho Docs and Zoho Notebook…on this blog (published and in draft form)…saved in Evernote and Mozilla Scrapbook….and my most recent favorites, Springpad, Dropbox and Sugar Sync.

(My ultimate goal is to write an E-book…more on that in an upcoming post)

One of the benefits of going through old stuff is finding lost treasures that have new meaning, especially when combined with snippets and excerpts and original thoughts from more recent eras. 

This post is a compilation of just such a mish mash.  And it deals with the atonement.  One of my pet topics….

God may thunder His commands from Mount Sinai and men may fear, yet remain at heart exactly as they were before. But let a man once see his God down in the arena as a Man--suffering, tempted, sweating, and agonized, finally dying a criminal's death--and he is a hard man indeed who is untouched.

- J.B. Phillips, "Your God Is Too Small

Not untouched….nor ultimately unchanged. So unlike the substitutionary/penal satisfaction view of the atonement that declares a sin- offended God must extract his pound of flesh before he can forgive us. 

But God was in Christ…reconciling the world…

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends

and…..

…a sufficient realization of love breaks down all barriers and melts the hardest heart…... 

Love Will Conquer
There is no difficulty that enough love will not conquer;
no disease that enough love will not heal;
no door that enough love will not open;
no gulf that enough love will not bridge;
no wall that enough love will not throw down;
no sin that enough love will not redeem . . .
It makes no difference how deeply seated may be the trouble;
how hopeless the outlook;
how muddled the tangle;
how great the mistake.
A sufficient realization of love will dissolve it all.
If only you could love enough you would be the happiest and most powerful being in the world . . .
Emmet Fox

A sufficient realization of love will dissolve it all….

Happy Easter….

At a a ministry resource website….buried within a collection of devotions, called 56 Devotions on Short Notice, I happened to click on this one the other day. I tucked it away, especially for Easter.  I am at my mom’s for Easter…just me….the rest of the family stayed put. At my mom’s, the only  internet access I have is at the local McD’s.  I’ve been using their free wifi for an hour or so.  What a deal. The place is virtually deserted.  The coffee…any size….is a dollar.  There are free refills….

So even though Easter Day is half over…this is a good message year round.  And no matter what your view of the atonement is or the scope of what you think was accomplished there, this still fits. 

Across the barriers that divide race from race,

Reconcile us, O Christ by your cross.

Across the barriers that divide rich from poor,

Reconcile us, O Christ by your cross.

Across the barriers that divide people of different faiths,

Reconcile us, O Christ by your cross.

Across the barriers that divide Christians,

Reconcile us, O Christ by your cross.

Across the barriers that divide men and women, young and old,

Reconcile us, O Christ, by your cross.

Amen.

2nd Corinthians 5:

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

 

The Harrowing of Hell

I haven’t forgotten that I have a “part 2” to write in the post birthed from reading the article “What Jesus Did Do” but….running late this a.m. and I have the following post all set to go…living in the queue at blogger. 

I found a post “stub” (as wikipedia refers to incomplete articles on their site) that has been gathering dust for quite a while in my Evernote files. I found it today while poking around in my “database.” With all the talk about Rob Bell recently and the “is he or isn’t he?” debate…I thought it might be a good time to dust the cobwebs off of this and actually post it. 

During the time consuming and tedious process of "migrating" my blogs out of the new Bloglines, (“new” meaning not nearly as good as the old bloglines and now, a really crappy RSS reader) and saving them all in Google Reader… I came across many blogs I’ve earmarked over the past few years. One of these was

λογοι  Words on existence 

Not sure of the pronunciation of the title…but an interesting blog. And an interesting quote from an interesting post about universalism from that blog….

I’m not a universalist, but I hope God is.

This is a sentiment I have heard and been tantalized by since I was old enough to understand what grace is.

I had a youth leader growing up who once described his hope for Christian Universalism by saying, “Maybe when we get to heaven, God looks to hell, looks back at everyone around him, and says with a huge smile on his face, ‘Let’s go get ‘em!’”

Sort of what scripture declares Jesus already did when he descended into hell to preach the Gospel to the souls in prison?  (1Peter 3:19–20 and 1Peter 4:6) He does hold the keys after all…the keys to death and hell. 

 

 

According to Wikipedia, Jesus’ descent into hell is often referred to as the “harrowing of hell.”  Different faith traditions view it differently. (Surprise!!) It is included in two creeds…The Athanasian Creed and the Apostles Creed.  Some denominations omit or alter the “descended into hell” clause.  The Methodists for instances, render it:

was crucified, dead, and buried. 

Catholics -

was crucified, died, and was buried.  He descended to the dead

But the Orthodox celebrate it.  For them it dwarfs the significance of the empty tomb.  Easter is celebrated by the icons that depict Jesus’ descent into hell. From Wiki:

The icon shows Jesus, vested in white and gold to symbolize his divine majesty, standing on the brazen gates of Hades (also called the "Doors of Death"), which are broken and have fallen in the form of a cross, illustrating the belief that by his death on the cross, Jesus trampled down death. He is holding Adam and Eve and pulling them up out of Hades. Traditionally, he is not shown holding them by the hands, but by their wrists, to illustrate the theological teaching that mankind could not pull himself out of his ancestral sin, but that it could come about only by the work (energia) of God. Jesus is surrounded by various righteous figures from the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.); the bottom of the icon depicts Hades as a chasm of darkness, often with various pieces of broken locks and chains strewn about. Quite frequently, one or two figures are shown in the darkness, bound in chains, who are generally identified as personifications of Death and/or the Devil.

 

The Orthodox view is intriguing, reflecting the Christus Victor view of the atonement…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

              The gates of hell will not prevail (Matthew 16:18)

A quote from the Jesus Army...

I digress....

It started with Greg Boyd's latest blog post...delivered to my inbox sometime between when I turned my computer off last night...and when I turned it on again this morning.  I love how things just show up in my inbox...via a process that can only be described as "computer magic".... a term I've stolen from the guy who does the ads for the Red Roof Inn.  He was specifically talking about the free wifi now available at the Red Roof Inn and how you can connect to the internet via computer magic...but I think the term magic applies to just about everything to do with the computer. (and black magic when it doesn't work the way it should)  But anyway...back on track...

Two things of interest stood out in the post.  One is that he is still feverishly..obsessively working on his latest book about Old Testament violence.  He describes it as his:

close-to-insane obsession with explaining Old Testament violence (working on my forthcoming book, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God)

I am..for sure...going to purchase that book when it becomes available. 

And the other point of interest in the post was his review and opinion on another book written by another author...The Naked Anabaptist by Stuart Murray. And of course from there I went exploring.

The link in Greg Boyd's blog post led to a website called the Anabaptist Network...a UK based site that is all about Anabaptists...their beliefs, their traditions, their history.  Very interesting site.  I want to explore it further...but don't have the time this morning. 

I did do a little exploring there, however...and came across a short writing by Murray about his view of the atonement...which is not penal substitution.  Anabaptists...for the most part....do not see the atonement that way.  And, according to Murray, neither did the early Christians.  A quote from the article:

For nearly 300 years, these Christians were committed to taking Jesus seriously, not only as their saviour but as their teacher and example. In the Alpha or Christianity Explored courses of their day, enquirers and new converts were taught, not just the meaning of Jesus’ death, but the meaning of his life and his message.

For nearly 300 years, these Christians were uninterested in developing theories of the atonement. They knew Jesus had died to save them, they preached ‘Christ crucified’ and they celebrated his resurrection triumph over the spiritual and political powers that oppressed them. They drew on various images the New Testament uses, but they did not insist on one formula or explanation. Certainly not penal substitution, of which there is little trace in the early centuries.

And as I clicked around here and there on the website, I came upon a testimony written by a guy in the Jesus Army...not to be confused with Joel's Army.  I went to the site...clicked around a bit and came upon a quote I liked that fit very well with the above quote.  It was on the Jesus Army blog...written by someone named "daydreamer."

When we look at Jesus, we see what God is like. Jesus said “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”. He shows just how committed God is to rescuing us. His sacrificial, non-violent, willing death shows the lengths God will go to, to soak up evil. His resurrection shows that death itself is no match for God.

I think this quote captures one of the main aspects of the atonement that the penal substitutionary theory misses...or negates to almost trivial.  Rather than the view that Jesus pays for our sins on the cross...this excerpt declares that that purpose of his death was to "soak up evil."  A good description of the Christus Victor theory of atonement.  And I have a lot more I could say, but I've gotta' go get ready for work. NOW!!! Ugh...TGIF. 

Oh...but before I go...one more quick quote..kind of unrelated..from another entry on the Jesus Army blog...a quote from Rick Warren...

“Many have amputated the hands and feet from Christ’s Body and kept only a big mouth.”

 

Some loosely related thoughts....

Over the course of our week away, at the conference..... traveling to and from the conference….from several different (very far flung) sources I came upon unique ways of expressing some key concepts I’ve talked about on this blog.  The first one came from a sermon preached by David Levister. The conference focused almost entirely on the “finished work” of the cross so Jesus, his death and resurrection were a constant theme.  

I’ve often heard Jesus referred to as the mediator between God and man….but tweaking it just a bit in his sermon, he referred to Jesus as “the connector.” That fits with an example used in several of the sermons I heard (don’t ask me whose…I listened to 10 sermons in 4 days) In the example, Jesus reaches up and grasps God with one hand and reaches down and grasps mankind with the other.  Thus…the perfect connector.  An example that is not really contradicted by any of the standard theories of atonement. 

And another little ditty that stuck in my mind was from a song by the Lake City Christian Fellowship Praise Team.   David Bunch writes most of the music for the Praise Team and the lyrics reflect the beliefs of the church….the finished work of the cross.  You can check out some of the lyrics and even listen to the full version of about 10 or so of their songs here.

In a song called “The Tongue of Life” the lyrics talk about speaking life through Jesus Christ….and the finished work of the cross. It mentions one of the things that was accomplished at the cross which was:

Learned behaviors and second natures
Were swallowed up at Calvary

Learned behaviors and second natures.  Kind of an interesting way of describing the egoic mind/carnal nature, don’t you think? Which leads me to another idea that stuck in my head over the course of the week….

And it came from the Koran.  Yes…I did leaf through a book entitled The Essential Koran during the drive there and the drive home.  The book is a compilation of excerpts from an English translation of the Koran... translated into English by Thomas Clearly.  I base my faith on what I find in the Bible….but it so expands my view of God’s magnitude when I hear concepts from scripture in the sacred writings of other cultures…in contemporary literature, in movies and secular songs.  I love to hear his voice in unexpected places.  It really drives home the OMNIPRESENT facet of God’s nature. 

In several verses in Cleary’s translation, he refers to “satan” as the Obsessor.  Is Satan an actual being?  Maybe....but I know many times when scripture refers to satan it is talking about the egoic mind/pain body/adamic man/carnal nature. Since my egoic mind doggedly dwells on and obsesses about my problems, issues, worries, concerns, the term Obsessor is so fitting!

Just a few loosely related thoughts about a few loosely related words...

More on Scapegoating Revealed in Scripture....

I closed the last post by saying that according to Girard the Bible is the only sacred writing that exposes (rather than hide) mimetic rivalry and scapegoating.  
From Genesis to Revelation, it becomes clearer and clearer with each book of the Bible...with each progressive chapter...with the turning of each page. And it not only exposes it, it provides an answer to the problem. The answer? Have this mind in you that was also in Christ Jesus. Put on the mind of Christ.
Lately, I've been reading through some articles about mimetic rivalry that I have saved on my computer.  I came upon the following quote from Mark Heim

Modern sensitivity to victims, which now makes people uneasy with the Bible, is rooted in the Bible.

He goes on to say that we would not be able to criticize the Scriptures of encouraging victimization(blood sacrifice/"holy wars"/scapegoating) if we had not already been converted by them. There are a whole slew of examples in the Bible that subtly....then more blatantly with the the crucifixion...reveal the scapegoating mechanism, the sacred violence human societies were founded upon.  There are many examples of mimetic rivalry and the turmoil it causes.  I will touch on some of those in upcoming posts.  But for now...I am sick, sick....very sick....with this kick ass cold that has had a grip on me all week.  I've spent most of my time....coughing, sniffling, sneezing and whining.  We are planning on going on vacation next week, to a conference at Justin Phillips church in Lake City, TN.  Hoping I am on the mend by then...and that I haven't passed this plague on to Keith.   

Converse vs. Convert

Last week on EU, we talked about a discussion that was taking place on another list between one of our members, Dena, and someone who had taken it upon himself to correct Dena's theology. Joan, another "EUer" posted the following

let him know that if he wishes to 'converse' that you are all ears; yet if he wishes to 'convert' that you have an indwelling Spirit who is more than capable to lead into all truth.

Those two words, convert and converse caught my attention. On EU we converse. We do not always agree but we disagree agreeably. It is truly a conversation. There need not be a victor and no one feels the need to correct anyone else. There is no fighting that goes on there. In fact, that is our main rule..pretty much our only rule. Play nice. The moderators have only had to moderate once or twice.

This whole idea of conversing vs. converting reminded me of the Sunday School Class I am presently attending. Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White. So far, I like the atmosphere of the class. The members seem interested in listening to other points of view. They are looking to find points of agreement rather than points of disagreement...to learn from someone different than themselves. To perhaps enlarge their perspective, to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, to understand.

As Stephen Covey advises in his well known 7 Habits of Highly Effective People:

Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood

Henry David Thoreau said:

The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought, and attended to my answer.

I missed the class on Sunday because I was in Uniontown. They discussed the chapter Faith and the Presidential Elections. The upcoming class is Chapter 6 entitled "Shhhhhh, Just Listen." If I glean any helpful insights reading the chapter or attending the class, you will be the first to know.

More From Uniontown…..

Once again, greetings from the Fairfield Inn, Uniontown.  Yep…straight from the bathroom.  Feet propped up on the porcelain throne (which I acknowledge triggers a certain degree of the ewwwww factor but we make do with what we have, no?) My much needed coffee is sitting on the counter by the sink. I told Keith yesterday that there is something that seems kind of vile about brewing coffee in the bathroom! What about actually drinking the coffee in the bathroom!! The overhead fan is humming away in an attempt to muffle any noises that might leak out into the main part of the motel room where Keith is peacefully slumbering. 

I woke up thinking about what I wrote yesterday.  I was also thinking of last night’s service with its total emphasis on the cross.  I don’t know exactly what I think about the cross these days.  I used to think I was pretty far out there to even see the atonement differently than the penal substitutionary theory that permeates our churches…and that permeated the sermon last night.   I do not see the atonement as anything penal…or legal…or as payment to an offended God.  I do not see it as balancing the scales.  I remember running across a quote somewhere, in one of the many nooks and crannies I explore on the internet.  I don’t have the source of the quote…nor do I have the exact wording….but it goes something like this

With love, the scale is broken. 

Meaning, to me, that as the well known passage in Corinthians declares….love keeps no record of wrongs.  So does divine love keep a record?  Did God ever keep a record?  Just who are the record keepers?  We are.  I listened intently to the message last night.  Lynn Hiles’ ministry is mainly to the churches…to the religious folk who have been battered and bruised and beat up repeatedly by other religious folk. (which is not my story at all ) His main mission seems to be breaking the chains of religious bondage.  For those steeped in the law, perhaps believing that Jesus fulfilled the law is the first step toward freedom.

(Digressing here a bit) Although I don’t see that Jesus fulfilled the old covenant law…He certainly did not keep every jot of the Levitical law.  Thinking here of healing on the Sabbath, touching the unclean etc. etc.  Or was the Law that Jesus fulfilled his well known summation of the commandments?  Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength and mind and your neighbor as yourself.

The message last night focused so much on the cross that when it was over Keith mentioned that it must have rubbed me the wrong way.  “No, amens from you.”   There was a lot in last night’s sermon that I did not agree with…but I always glean something from just about every sermon I hear.  If nothing else (as I’ve said here before) just hearing that which we do not believe clarifies what we do believe. 

The legal view of the atonement just doesn’t do it for me.  It does not resonate.  But while I disagree with the legal view…the how….I do agree with the supposed end result ….that we have access to God, we are accepted into the Beloved, we are part of the body, there is no condemnation, our sins are forgiven.  I do certainly agree with all that….and I don’t think Jesus had to “take the beating we had coming” to accomplish all of that.  The breach between mankind and God is in our minds.  God has always been conciliatory toward us.  It is only when we heed the instruction to be ye reconciled to God do we reap all the rewards and benefits of the relationship. 

I am not downplaying the atonement.  While (as I said above) I do not have it all figured out, I do embrace it as an event of unparalleled significance….that by going to the cross he set creation free, (etc. etc) defeated sin and death, bridged the breach and showed us the way to our Father. I just don’t think he did that in a spiritual court of law. 

And lest this drone on and on and on….this seems as good of a place as any to end the meandering.  Your thoughts, of course, are always welcome…..

Union by Fusion

I ended yesterday’s post with a quote from Francois du Tuit

 Not a saved man and a glorious God. But man fused into God and God fused into man, one divine creation. One in heart, one in mind, one in soul, you and God as one.

When I read this it reminded me of a writing by Preston Eby that I’ve been meaning to read. Union by Fusion. What exactly is that…union by fusion? Knowing the theology of Preston Eby, I was pretty sure it had to do with processing. Preston Eby is big on processing...and it usually involves something quite unpleasant and painful. I still have not read the entire two part series from start to finish but I read parts of it and found the following excerpts

It is a joining, a blending, an intermixture, a merging, an amalgamation, a unification of two or more items. It is more than an adhering. It is different from merely gluing something together. It is a commingling of the elements. We have come today to participate in an event of spiritual fusion, whereby we are told that we, being many separate individuals (atoms as it were), are fused together into one in Christ Jesus. "For we being many are one bread, and one body..." (I Cor. 10:17). "And the glory which You gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one..." (Jn. 17:22-23).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah – Christ is in us today – but where is He within us? In what part? It is abundantly clear – Christ is in our spirit. There is no need to be vague and say, "Oh, the Lord is in you and the Lord is in me." The last verse of II Timothy 4 definitely states that Christ is in our spirit. "The Lord be with your spirit." The preposition "with" is from the Greek SUN which denotes "union." The Lord is in union with our spirit! There is a mighty working taking place within God's people – no more to have that duality – our spirit, His Spirit, but to be so fully merged into one with Him that HIS Spirit is mine, and my spirit, quickened by His Spirit, is swallowed up into His. "There is ONE SPIRIT," says the Lord (Eph. 4:4).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The One Spirit is my spirit and God's spirit in union. There is one spirit, just as there is one body. God is combining. God is joining. God is fusing. God is creating! God is mingling the elements in His heavenly laboratory, making a New Creation in Christ Jesus the Lord – something that never was before!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The principle was set in motion with the first man, Adam. Adam had to fall into darkness, sin and death, not because he was inherently evil or rebellious, but because all that is contradictory to God must be stirred up, experienced, faced, understood, repented of, overcome and eternally put to rest in man's will before the image of God can shine safely and eternally through him

The one spirit is not just IN you – it IS you. The one spirit is not merely God in you – it is God and you joined in union.

So then…according to Eby, 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. Sometimes, as in the case of our union by fusion with the Lord, 1 + 1 equals 1.  One new creation man...a hybrid....

The Mirror Image of an Invisible God...

I came across a site…quite by accident…which is how I usually come across sites, called Mirror Reflections…which has, as it’s theme, this union between man and God. On the site’s home page it begins by saying…..

Jesus Christ is infinitely more than an historic Hero; He is both the mirror image of an invisible God, and at the same time the reflection and blueprint of every person's original design.

The site is owned by a man by the name of Francois du Toit, from South Africa….author of quite a few articles available to download as word documents on his website. Among them:

Books (MS Word format)

• God Believes in You
• Divine Embrace
• Done!
• The Mystery Revealed
• The Logic of His Love
• The Triumph of Friendship

• Mirror Word
• Throne Room Thoughts
• Anticipate The Future

He has authored a paraphrased translation of several of the books in the New Testament that mainly deal with the new creation man.They are also available on his site.

Some excerpts from his writings….

Man exists to be in union with his Maker; in his very make-up he is the God-kind, created for Divine companionship and encounter. Mankind is God’s love dream. Eph.1:4, 5. “I say ye are gods, all of you are sons of the Most High, why would you die like mere men?” Psalm 82:6,7. “You were unmindful of the Rock that begot you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth.”

The central theme and revelation of the Bible celebrates a relationship between God and man of the highest order, a union of absolute integrity, with no hint of distance, inferiority, guilt, condemnation or suspicion. The sacred moment, when for the first time in the history of the universe, the invisible Creator reflected His image and likeness in a fragile vessel of flesh became the reference of a presence and purpose in the earth that would dominate human history and destiny.

From The Divine Embrace

And from The Mystery Revealed:

You and the glorified Christ as one are the divine manifestation of God. Come up to the throne, dear ones. Let the throne life and the throne love and the throne power and the throne spirit possess you, and your tread will be the march of the conqueror, your crown the crown of glory, and your power the power of God. Not a saved man and a glorious God. But man fused into God and God fused into man, one divine creation. One in heart, one in mind, one in soul, you and God as one.

More to come....

The Hybrid....

On Heart 2 Heart, the message board on Gary Sigler's site…in a thread entitled “reincarnation” ....a poster who goes by the name RonSigler made a statement that captured my attention:

as God {man} evolves, a hybrid is in the making. This hybrid then, will be able to see all things from both the human and the divine perspectives

It’s funny how a very simple statement can sometimes tie up a lot of loose ends while…at the same time leading to more questions. That was the case with this statement.

I looked up the word hybrid on Wordsmyth. One of the definitions (among other less politically correct words like half breed, mongrel…and worse) was the word “cross”. Of course…I’ve heard that used many times. About dogs…a peekapoo is a cross between a Pekingnese and a poodle. A tangelo is a cross between an orange and a grapefruit.  A mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey. And the new creation man is a a cross between mankind and God.

I find it striking that the place where the supernatural event of the greatest significance in this union of man and God took place on a cross. That event…the crucifixion…on an old rugged cross somehow bridges the gap between man and God. The atonement…the at..one…ment. A cross between mankind and God.

There are many theories about how this actually works. I think that some of those theories, like penal substitution, are a travesty to the character and nature of God….yet, I don’t have it all down pat even though I’ve posted about the atonement quite often on this blog. But something of great significance happened there to break down the walls, open blind eyes, rend the veil…bridge the gap.

More on this in my next post…..

Another Passion of the Christ

Not the movie....but an essay of the same name, on the God Quest site. Not too far into the article the author declares

And he (Jesus) did not undertake his sacrifice to shield us from a “wrathful” Father.[ This is the intimidating, threatening, and centuries-old claim of conventional Christianity. A fraud so well conceived that it has prevented millions of honest people from entering into a loving relationship with the Creator.

---

But then he takes an unexpected twist in the section titled, "Is God Entirely Guiltless?" in which he ponders the question of God's guilt in allowing evil into the world. He quotes Jack Miles in Christ, A Crisis in the Life of God expresses it this way:

The pathos of those artistic enactments—those masses and oratorios, passion plays and memorial liturgies, and above all those paintings and sculptures in which the unspeakable is left unspoken—is inseparable from the premise that God is inflicting this pain upon himself for a reason. ‘The real reason’, as Albert Camus wrote in his haunting novel The Fall, ‘is that he himself knew he was not altogether innocent.’”

Now there's a pretty heretical thought...God is not altogether innocent? John G says says something similar in one of his writings called a Legal Mentality....

When Christ died for us He was not paying dues to the law but, with love beyond measure, meeting us where we were in our mentality that said, "We demand justice. You let the serpent in the garden. You penned us all up in disobedience. The buck stops at your desk. You should pay" (Rom. 11:32). And pay He did.

The Passion Essay goes on to say:

The cross is the expression of God entering into his own story, meeting the terms of justice for the divine responsibility of letting evil loose within the universe.

and later:

The passion of the Christ is, ultimately, self-inflicted. That is, for a greater purpose and good, God has chosen to do it this way. The one true and wonderful God has ordained that all should suffer and die, including himself.

or as my friend Roy says:

Then, Christ came. God in the flesh. Man had always blamed the Father for the fall. Inwardly the blood rage is there.

God has never shirked his responsibility regardless of what religion teaches. Search the scriptures and see. Man tries to take responsibility for this fallen creation. But, ultimately, God has never shirked responsibility for anything He has done. He balanced the scales in Christ.

He came as Man. He said, "You rage against me? You want justice? You think I should be punished for all you have suffered? Here, take out your rage on me. Here is the blood you have been searching for, longing for. It is laid down freely. Rage on me. I won't lift a finger to stop you."

And, He took responsibility for all the evils that have befallen man that day. He gave His life. This has never been adequately appreciated by religion. It needs to be appreciated.

As I post these very diverse thoughts on the atonement here on my blog, perhaps it will become apparent that the PSA view is certainly not the only view that makes sense...and is not the only view that is supported in the scriptures.....

Wayne Jacobsen's View of the Cross

Technorati Tags: Atonement

I stumbled upon Wayne Jacobsen when I was researching different atonement theories last year. The Cross as Cure Not Punishment came up in the google search results. It is part 4 in a series of talks called Transitions. He also talks about this in his book He Loves Me.

....the unanswerable questions should invite us to reconsider our distorted view of the cross. Since Adam’s fall we have come to picture God not as a loving Father inviting us to trust him, but an exacting sovereign who must be appeased. When we start from that vantage point we miss God’s purpose on the cross. For his plan was not to satisfy some need in himself at his Son’s expense, but rather to satisfy a need in us at his own expense.

And it was not his plan to satisfy the requirements of the Law...nor is the atonement about the fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system. Later on in the book he says....

But I am deeply bothered by the thought that in some way God was able to separate himself at the cross. The popular understanding of the cross seems to be that God the Father executed wrath on God the Son while standing at some discrete distance.

Such thinking not only denies the essence of God’s nature but then distorts what happened at the cross. Paul wrote that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ…” God was no distant observer, but a participant. He didn’t send Jesus to do what he would not do; but God himself acted through Jesus to bring about our redemption.

Some have taken Jesus’ cry that his Father had forsaken him to mean that at the darkest moment, the Father had to turn his back on the Son. God cannot bear to look on sin, they argue, so that when our sins were laid on him, God had to turn his face away from his Son.

God has never run from sinful humanity. He didn’t hide from Adam and Even in the Garden. They hid from him as he sought them out. It is not God who cannot bear to look on sin, but that we in our sin can’t bear to look on God. He’s not the one who hides. We are. God is powerful enough to look on sin and be untainted by it. He has always done so. He did so at the cross.

I could not agree with this more. God was IN Christ reconciling the world to himself. Kind of hard to turn his head away if he was (as the Amplified renders it) personally present. And is not our great God omnipresent? Is there anywhere he is not? How is it then that he could not look upon sin? Even if I make my bed in hell, behold, he is there? He has been looking on sin throughout the ages. He personally (in the incarnated Christ) walked among sin on a daily basis.

God is not a wimp...he is not too delicate to look upon sin. He does not have to turn away from sin and in fact there is no hell hole too dark, no evil place too wicked...nowhere that he will not go to rescue his children. The Cross should show us that....

He didn’t just deal with our sins, but with the very nature of sin itself. By allowing sin to touch his person through the Son, he would be able to prevail in himself over that which we were powerless to fight. Through the physical body of Jesus, sin came face to face with the power of God, and as we shall see, God prevailed over sin completely.

He goes on to talk about God's wrath as a type of chemotherapy which was vented against Sin (the disease) and he see the cross as the antidote for Sin. Also check out his God Journey site. There are lots of resources there and a bunch of podcasts of conversations between Wayne and his side kick Brad Cummings. The podcasts are a hoot...and very edifying. He has an emergent church kind of spin on things. Oh...and he is not a universalist....but that one little detail is just a matter of time :)

Sharktacos View of the Atonement

On Derek Flood's site, The Rebel God, there is another really good article that espouses a different view of the atonement called Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor. It is a long article that deals in depth with the Christus Victor view of the atonement and how it compares with the PSA view. It has been a while since I read this article and if I get a chance this weekend I just may go back and read it again. After all the reading I've done about the atonement and the discussions I've been a part of, it may have a stronger impact than it did the first time around. If I do, I may post some thoughts I have.

There are several other writings on this web site that are well worth reading. Human Suffering and the Silence of God is an article that takes a look at the age old question of theodicy. How can there be such intense suffering in the world if there is a good God ruling over it? One of my favorite "quotes" comes from that article, although it may be too long to qualify as a quote...an excerpt perhaps...

I am posting it below with my thanks to Derek Flood (Sharktacos) who is the author of the following thoughts......

Since the question of Theodicy is essentially a question of the character of God, we are going to look at Jesus who is the embodiment of the very heart of God. It is my prayer that as you read this and meditate over it, that the truth of who God is as seen in Christ will go beyond mere concepts and theories and become a living reality in your heart and life. So I would ask that you would open your heart to God to encounter you, and that you would read on prayerfully.
We find in the gospel account of the resurrection of Lazarus profound insight into the nature and character of God in our lives in times of silence:

Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."

It is clear from the text that Mary knew that Jesus loved her and her brother. It tells us that she is the same Mary who washed Jesus' feet with her tears, and in the letter the sisters refer to Lazarus as "the one you love", so the familiarity and trust between them is quite evident. But Jesus chose to remain where he was for two days. He only conveyed the message "This sickness will not end in death".

When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

Jesus did not come. Her brother died. Mary was absolutely devastated.

When she has most needed God's help he was inactive, and his promise that the sickness would not end in death turned out to be, in Mary's eyes, false. She felt abandoned, alone, helpless, and without hope. Even if we know that God loves us as Mary did, silence is crushing.

Four days after Lazarus' death, Jesus came. There were people all around who had come to comfort the sisters in the loss of their brother. Mary fell at his feet in tears and said to him "Lord if you had been here, he wouldn't have died".

Partially because we know the story and its outcome already we half-expect Jesus to respond by saying something like "Oh ye of little faith did you not know that this is for the glory of God?". But he doesn't. His response is extraordinary and offers great insight into God's character.

When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.

The Greek word translated in the English as "deeply moved" means to make the snorting noise of a horse. In other words he was so overwhelmed with the sorrow that it literally knocked the wind out of him. It was the kind of pain where you can't catch your breath. Christ's second response is to be "troubled", the Greek word translated here conveys a feeling of outrage or anger- in his heart Jesus was instinctually insulted at the injustice of suffering. To anyone familiar with grief, these two reactions: on the one hand shock - an intellectual and spiritual numbness, and on the other hand anger at the evil of suffering - are exactly how we feel. And at the same time it mirrors God's heart as seen in throughout the Old Testament in the prophets. Jeremiah writes,

My grief is beyond healing, my heart is sickened within me, because of the plight of the daughter of my people from the length of the land to he breadth of the land. For the would of the daughter of my people is my heart wounded. I mourn and dismay has taken hold of me. Declares the Lord.

This all culminates in what Jesus does next: two powerful words:

Jesus wept.

Even though he knows that in a few minutes Lazarus will rise from the dead, the next thing he does is to weep. Not some pious controlled socially appropriate tears, but hot honest choking tears. He is deeply and intimately involved with us in our pain. God suffers with us, feels every anguish, knows every doubt. Being infinite does not mean merely infinitely large, but infinitely small as well, so that he understands and experiences our silence, our pain with us, not just in a theoretical way, but deeply and completely. Sometimes in our suffering, in the midst of silence we have the wind knocked out of us, and there is nothing left to pray with. God knows this, and you can be sure that he is at that moment praying for you.

Penal Substitution - The Core of Christianity??

I have been posting on the Tentmaker message board from time to time since August. It is a busy place with lots of interesting, thought provoking threads. One could spend a lot of time there reading and responding. I usually restrict my posting to Emerging Universalist because of real time responsibilities (like work, and kids, and chores...if "unlimited"internet access only came with unlimited time to access it, I would be a happy girl indeed) So because of real life intruding, I usually only pipe up when one of the following topics are discussed--the atonement, the OT sacrificial system, free will/determinism, the OT atrocities.

A month or so ago, someone started a thread called Who Jesus Is/The Cross and its Effect. It is in the Member's Section so you will have to joint to access it. The thread was based on a writing by Stephen Jones on the God's Kingdom Ministries site called The Cross and its Effect. I have heard of Stephen Jones before. I think I may have watched bits and pieces of a DVD sermon by him at an Inclusion Conference. I don't know enough about him or his writings to make any kind of overall judgement but I do seriously and adamantly disagree with this article. He begins by saying:

In the beginning, the book of Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve sinned, and as a consequence, were cast out of the garden. History, then, has been the story of man’s re-instatement into the position and calling that was his from the beginning.

But to do this required dealing with the offense against God. There was a lawful procedure by which this had to take place, and any other procedure was ineffective. It had to be God’s way to have merit before God. False religion, then, is “false” specifically because it attempts to restore a right relationship with God in an unlawful manner.

This sets the tone, it seems, for the whole writing. It assumes that God views us through the eyes of a judge...in a legal way...or as John Gavazzoni declares in his writing "My Dad, God" it takes God out of the family room and puts him into the courtroom. And God has never, and will never (in my very adamant opinion) view his children through a legal lens. Which the article goes on to proclaim:

Those who equate sin with ignorance are attempting to resolve the problem in a classroom, rather than in a courtroom. But teaching people not to sin does not resolve the root problem. Sin must be dealt with by the blood of sacrifice, not by passing a written or oral examination.

There are many scriptures that boldly declare God did not want sacrifice. God does not need a pound of flesh to forgive us...he does not need the blood of bulls or goats....or his innocent son to flow in order to be able to have a relationship with us. He does not have to get the requirements of the law out of the way before he can get on with the business of being our father. We are the bloodthirsty ones...not God. We are the ones steeped in a legal mind set...our bellies full of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We have the tit for a tat, eye for an eye legal mind set...not God. It is that legal mind set that made up 613 or so intricate, tedious, impossible to keep laws...when Jesus summed it up simply with love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.

He goes on to say:

The core of Christianity—and the reason it is different from other religions—is that it views sin through the eyes of the law and resolves the problem by the law. All false religion tries to resolve this legal problem through teaching and education, either by teaching men correct behavior or teaching them correct (usually "positive") thinking.

and again:

When we come to the core of biblical Christianity, it comes down to the manner of one's defense before God's bar of justice.

The core of biblical Christianity is this. God is light and in him there is no darkness. The core of biblical Christianity is that God, in the person of Jesus, came and dwelt among us..the Word made flesh....to show us the heart of the Father. To tear down the walls of alienation (in OUR minds.) Jesus did not show us a harsh judge. Jesus did not show us a Father who must have his sense of justice appeased in order to forgive us. On the cross, among other things, I think Jesus showed us the depths, and breadth and width that God will go to in order to reconcile his lost children. It is an unfathomable love to me. It is the beginning of the release from the fear of coming to him, naked, defenseless, trusting.... knowing that he will do as he said in Genesis...he will make man in his image and likeness. That begins not in the courtroom...not with legal jargon and requirements of the Law...not with Jesus as our attorney...pleading his innocent blood to his father, God, the judge....but within our Father's heart. Before anything else, he is our Father....

John Gavazzoni (whom you may have noticed is a favorite kingdom minister of mine) says it this way:

One thing stands out clearly to me when I compare my father's relationship with his children to the way our Heavenly Father is presented in conventional orthodox theology. It is simply this: Lou Gavazzoni's relationship with me was paternal, not legal. Whatever factors came into play, all was built on a familial, not a forensic foundation. There may at times have been a friendship element, associate-in-business element, fellow-musician element, boss-employee element, even lord-servant element and yes, the element of judgment came up as well. But, I never stood before one who was essentially a judge, who might, after legal matters were settled, then allow himself to be fatherly.
I stood before my father who might, as necessary, act in a firm, unyielding and corrective judgment as part of his love for me. Yet, it seems clear to me, that most of Christianity assumes that a relationship with God is only possible after legal matters are settled. Our minds are so entangled with what we perceive to be legal, judicial and forensic necessities that we miss the Father-heart of God.

Praise God for his Father-heart....

Non-Violent Atonement

Preaching Peace is a web site I stumbled upon while researching Rene' Girard's mimetic theory...sometimes referred to as the Anthropology of the Cross. This is the website of a nonprofit organization based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In the Introductory section there are articles that give a basic overview of the works of Girard. In the Occasional section there are more in depth articles. About a year ago, I ordered the series of DVDs from their 2006 Atonement Conference. Sharon Baker was one of my favorites speakers. It was a conference...and not a sermon, so the style was a bit dry. Many of them "read their papers" and some did a better job than others. The question and answer sessions at the end of each DVD were the best part.

On the website, the DVD's from the 2007 conference are available for purchase. Also, the following 20 or so minute presentation samples are available. They all deal with different aspects of "non-violent atonement" which is a phrase coined by J. Denny Weaver from his book called....The Nonviolent Atonement (link leads to Google Books with a fairly extensive review of the book with sample sections and related articles)

Session 5: Nonviolent interpretive methods - Tony Bartlett
Session 6: A Biblical anthropology - Micahel Hardin
Session 8: Passion accounts in the Bible - Tony Bartlett
Session 10: How do we apply this - Greg Boyd

Greg Boyd's talk was my favorite. Lofty ideals and abstract concepts are often hard to put into practice...but he briefly gives his views on how to apply this understanding. He is probably best known for his writings on open theism. His blog is called Random Reflections.

Preaching Peace is definitey worth a visit. You will find lots of off the beaten path views of the atonement, peace church theology and links to other sites that see things from the same perspective.

The Atonement

Since this is the week leading up to Easter, I thought I would perhaps try my hand at another series of posts...this time on the atonement. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the traditional view of the atonement (penal substitution) has never seemed right to me. Even as a new Christian, I found myself questioning it and seeking the guidance of other more mature Christians. After all, I was just a milk drinking baby Christian...and I turned to all those who had graduated to the real meat of things to explain it to me. I sought out several pastors I respected but their explanations rang hollow to me. It just did not feel right. My first glimmer of truth came from an article I happened upon by John Gavazonni called The Great Misrepresentation. In it, he said:

True divine justice does not take an obstinate stance of condemnation until it gets its pound of flesh. True divine justice justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). Why? Because at the heart of the message of the cross of Christ is the truth that God takes responsibility for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (II Cor. 5:19). God in human form permitted us to murder Him to convince us that He is resolute and steadfast in His love for us. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate friend of sinners.
In the old covenant, we begin to see the meaning of the blood when Jehovah says to the Israelites, "I have given you the blood upon the altar" (Lev. 17:11). We need the blood, not God! The Lord spoke these words to me as He unfolded the meaning of reconciliation. he said, "I am not the god who demands blood. I am the God who gives blood" Oh, precious words!

There are ways of understanding the atonement other than what is often referred to as penal substitution. There is Christus Victor, Moral Influence, the Governmental view, Recapitualation. Rene' Girard's anthropology of the cross. There are bits and pieces of truth in all the different views….it is just that modern Christianity has adopted Anselm's view of the atonement almost exclusively. To disregard that view casts one into the "not Christian" category in the view of most believers. As a universalist, I know so well that just because "everyone" believes something that does not necessarily make it so.

In my next post, I am going to talk about a writing by Stephen Jones that declares the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is the core of Christianity. I could not disagree more. In the Great Misrepresentation, John Gavazonni goes on to

"emphatically declare my allegiance to the great cardinal tenets of the historic Christian faith. I have held them and will continue to hold them dear to my heart. I hold nothing more precious than the Christ of whom they speak. I am one in conviction with you if you affirm the true deity and humanity of our Lord; His virgin birth; the necessity of His sacrificial death for the reconciling of the world; His bodily resurrection from the dead; His glorious appearing to judge the living and the dead and to the God-breathed normative record of this good news given to us in holy scripture!"

I agree with the sentiments expressed. I do not discount the blood of Christ in any way. It is all the more precious to me because "God was in Christ" and willingly endured the worst that humanity had to dish out. Was that a payment to himself? Does that make sense? Did the atonement change God's mind so that he was able to finally forgive us? Was it God who needed the OT sacrificial system…or was it mankind who needed it? These are just a few questions to ponder when considering the atonement.

Bloody sacrifice is in OUR heart….as proven by the history of human sacrifice. The Mayans, the Aztecs, the worshippers of Baal and Molech. The children of Israel sacrificed their own children in a sick, perverted ritual to Baal. The need for blood sacrifice…the need to appease an angry deity is in the heart of man…NOT the heart of God. God makes that declaration in many places throughout the OT. He did not desire sacrifice…nor did he require it and he says he abhors it. He did not feed a bigger, better sacrifice into the sacrificial machinery to end sacrifice once and for all. Blood sacrifice is the antithesis of what God desires from us.

It is not possible to even scratch the surface of the atonement in a single post, It is something that needs prayerfully explored and studied. John Gavazzoni has written several short writings on the crucifixion and the meaning of the atonement. They can be found on Serious Seminal Samplings on the Greater Emmanuel website. I suggest you begin with The Great Misrepresentation. Among others that you might want to check out are:

My Dad, God

A Legal Mentality

The Necessity of Christ's Death

The Atonement

The Good News Tour

While checking out my favorite blogs on Bloglines, I came upon "Washing Osama's Feet" on Gregory Boyd's blog, Random Reflections. The post tells about The Good News Tour and the stir that resulted when the organizers of the tour (Heavenly Sanctuary) contracted with several Seattle Malls to hang posters advertising the tour. Angry calls began to pour in shortly after the posters were hung....the malls canceled their contracts and took the posters down. Sadly, most of those complaining were Christians. The Christian college where the tour was supposed to be held also canceled and the organizers had to find another location to hold the conference. Following is the picture that caused all the outrage and the description of the tour:

The Good News Tour is an ongoing conference that is entirely about God. The message about God’s kindness is open to everyone who desires to listen. The Creator of The Universe has revealed Himself in many ways, but most clearly in the life of Jesus – God in the flesh.
Despite Jesus’ revelation, God’s character has been tainted and misunderstood by many throughout the last 2000 years. We desire to make Him known and make public the beauty of His Person - His kindness, His humility, His never-ending forgiveness.
The Good News is entirely about God - that He is just like Jesus in character. This Good News has the power to transform those who are willing to listen. His kindness is the power that can change human beings into a people who are free to experience unity - a people who have God’s law of love and liberty written on their hearts.

Gregory Boyd says:

"What the protest reveals is that many Christians have tragically allowed their patriotism to co-opt their faith. They have allowed their American citizenship to take priority over their Kingdom citizenship --"

He goes on to say that:

Obviously, the protesters believe that Jesus would not wash Osama Bin Laden’s feet. But Jesus died "not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world" (I Jn 2:2) -- and this obviously includes Osama. So if Jesus died for Osama, how are we to imagine him being unwilling to wash his feet?

You can read the post in its entirety at "Washing Osama's Feet". Any comments about the picture?

annie's view on the atonement and life of Jesus Part 2

In response to the following question:

annie...this is wonderful....but how do you think the shed blood of Jesus actually works and empowers us? What and why is the power in the blood?

annie...my best buddy, chum cyber pal...who has been my confidante and advisor in many very trying personal issues...always an open ear....and an open heart. I find it almost shocking that we see things so much alike!!! I know we are all part of the body of Christ..but she and I must be located right next to each other since our view of things so closely matches. Most of the time, she forges the spiritual path and I find myself following along saying...."yes, yes..yes....that's the way I see it too!!!" Her thoughts bearing witness with my spirit....putting to words what I know in my heart.

aisi, "the blood" (metaphorically, not literally) is the perfect cure, the "vaccine" against sin. tempted as we are (in his humanity, exposed to sin, the "antigen"), yet without sin (immune, the "antibodies"). i am one who accepts the duality of Jesus, as God incarnate - no less divine because of his humanity; no less human in his divinity. if he had been only divine, he would not have been our "high priest who is not untouched by the feelings of our infirmities". if he had been only human, he could have sympathized, but would have been powerless to help. as the "first adam", merely a living soul, incapable of imparting life. but, as the One who died and rose again, conquering death, paul wrote in 1 corinthians 15 that he became a "Life-giving Spirit", able to indwell and empower - "Christ IN you, the hope of glory". the "seed that fell into the ground and died" does not remain alone, single, but produces an abundant harvest of souls. the "eternal" life that he now imparts to us has more to do with the quality of that life than merely the duration. i don't believe it was Christ's physical death that was so important, but rather, his dying to self. the physical death only proved to what great lengths that full submission would go - that there was nothing he would hold back, that he would give all. and his physical death was for us in that he blazed the trail as the "first-born from among the dead". he had to die in order to be resurrected - for us. he didn't die to PAY for our sins. Jesus died that he might conquer death in his resurrection and deliver us, not from the experience of physical death (duh - we still die. even lazarus, whom Jesus raised went on to die), but from the fear of death and the power of death. in our minds, death is so permanent. God's design has always been for death to be temporary - it will one day be "swallowed up". the book of hebrews offers some keen insights into Christ's work of at-one-ment, helping to answer the question, "why did Jesus have to die?" let me quote a few verses with a bit of commentary on each.


1.1 God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us IN HIS SON, whom he appointed heir of ALL things, through whom also he made the world, 3 and HE IS THE RADIANCE OF HIS GLORY AND THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS NATURE, and upholds ALL things by the word of his power. when he had made PURIFICATION of (not payment for) sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high....
2.8 for in subjecting ALL things to him [Jesus], he [God] left nothing that is not subject to him, but NOW we do NOT YET see all things subjected to him (the "now and not yet" expressed in 1 john 3.2) 9 but we do see him who has been made FOR A LITTLE WHILE lower than the angels, namely, Jesus BECAUSE OF THE SUFFERING OF DEATH, crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God, he might taste death for EVERY one. 10 for it was fitting for him, for whom are ALL things, and through whom are ALL things, IN BRINGING MANY SONS TO GLORY, to PERFECT THE AUTHOR OF THEIR SALVATION THROUGH SUFFERINGS, 11 for both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are ALL from one Father, for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren.


this is UR in a nutshell - Jesus the heir of ALL things, fulfilling one of his purposes, to be the express revelation of God upon the earth. wanna know who God is? scripture falls short of describing him - but we can see him fully manifested in Jesus. "perfect" in 2.10 doesn't mean that Jesus was screwed up and had to be fixed. it would better translate "complete". without suffering on the earth, incarnating into the human experience, Jesus as Savior, would have been incomplete. the writer goes on to explain more:


2.14 since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, that THROUGH DEATH HE MIGHT RENDER POWERLESS HIM WHO HAD THE POWER OF DEATH, THAT IS, THE DEVIL (consistent with 1 john 3.8), 15 and might DELIVER those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives... 17 therefore, HE HAD TO BE MADE LIKE HIS BRETHREN IN ALL THINGS (including death), that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation (rescue, not payment) for the sins of the people. 18 for he himself was tempted in that which he has suffered, HE IS ABLE TO COME TO THE AID OF THOSE WHO ARE TEMPTED.


what was he "tempted" to do? his own will of course. tempted to save himself as the onlookers at the cross taunted him to do. yet, he chose to "trust himself to the One who judges righteously". frankly, i think most fundamentalists are too hung up on the blood of Jesus. my faith is not "in the shed blood of the Lamb", but rather in the PERSON of Christ. his blood was not payment for sin, but rather a testimony to the impotence of death over the One who IS Life. paul, in 1 corinthians 6, called Jesus our "passover Lamb". the blood on the doorposts that caused the "death angel" to "pass over" was not in payment for any sin, but rather a testimony of deliverance from death.


more from hebrews as to what was accomplished in Jesus' death:


5.7 in the days of his flesh, when he offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and who was heard because he was a Son, 8 although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; 9 and having been made perfect, he became to all those who obey him the SOURCE OF ETERNAL SALVATION.


and "ALL those who obey him" will indeed one day be ALL, for EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father (philippians 2). how else could one experience obedience/submission without having to submit their own will to something that is in opposition to that self-will? God granted to each one of us self-governance with the intent that we learn to set aside and give back to him that independence - to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, even as Jesus did (romans 12.1-2).


the rest of hebrews focuses on the idea that since Jesus has already done his part, let us, as co-creators with him, do our part to fulfill/complete the circle. here's where i have a beef with "the finished work of the cross" folks. it's good theology to help deliver folks from a mentality that they just never quite measure up to what God expects, those who still think God is mad at them and need to be reassured that Jesus bought him off so that they are fully forgiven. but, that doctrine rather misses the point. it still stinks of the penal substitution, taking the focus away from God's original purpose and ongoing process of the creation of man in his likeness. when Jesus said, "it is finished", HIS work was finished, not ours. otherwise, why would paul exhort us to "forget what lies behind" and "press onward to the goal of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (philippians 3)? in fact, the writer of hebrews expresses this same idea:


6.10 for God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward his name [nature], in having ministered and still ministering to the saints, 11 and we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises".


in hebrews 9, it can get confusing, if one previously has a mindset that God demands blood payment for sin. the significance of the blood is not payment, but rather the death of the old covenant. it was not offered as PAYMENT, but rather as a TESTIMONY.


9.7 but into the second (holy of holies) only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance, 8 the Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, WHILE THE OUTER TABERNACLE (the flesh) IS STILL STANDING, 9 which is a SYMBOL for the time then present, according to which both gifts and sacrifices are offered WHICH CANNOT MAKE THE WORSHIPPER PERFECT IN CONSCIENCE... 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse YOUR CONSCIENCE from dead works to serve the living God?


nothing here about paying God, but rather, the cleansing of our conscience, our soul, our heart and mind. and here's where most folks will only quote the last half of 9.22, but it reads:


and according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.


hmmm.... "one may almost say". sounds more rhetorical/metaphorical to me than a good supporting scripture for blood payment of sin. also, note that it is "according to the Law". another note: it speaks to the "remission" of sin. "forgiveness" here would also be an accurate translation if tradition hadn't distorted the intent of forgiveness.... God's "forgiveness" has nothing to do with letting folks off the hook for the PENALTY of sin and everything to do with providing deliverance from the POWER of sin (and death). i think 9.14 very much speaks to a girardian view of the atonement, reinforcing the truth that it was never God who needed to be reconciled to US, but rather WE who were at enmity with him and needed to be reconciled IN OUR MINDS, IN OUR CONSCIENCE. it took the death of the Innocent to deliver us from our self-justifying deceptions. i know it might sound bizarre (blasphemous to some), but the work of at-one-ment is truly all about metanoia, about what's going on in our soul - the mind, will and emotions. our spirit never needed "saving". it is the essence of God within us. our flesh is disposable and won't be saved. truly, we have never been outside of God, for it is in him that we live and move and have our being. our alienation from him is in our MINDS, our independent self-will. God never left us. again the "separation" has been in OUR minds, with the manifestation of the resulting poor behaviors. like proverbs says, "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he". Christ's atoning work awakens us to who we really are, delivers us from deception and death, and turns our hearts back to our Father. Jesus said that we would know the truth and the truth would set us free. that's the "power of the blood" - it is a testimony to the truth that sets us free from our deceptions. james points out that sin is conceived in our minds... it is the deception of self-protection/self-provision "apart" from God and his perfect will.


long explanation... and i don't think i've adequately explained it yet... but, you could have cut Jesus' finger 2000 yrs ago, smeared his blood all over yourself and it wouldn't have done a thing except draw flies. it's not the literal blood of Jesus that is the point, but rather the "death of the testator" to which the blood testified. "power in the blood" is a better song lyric than doctrinal truth. it was only the evidence of his loving, sacrificial obedience. it is Christ himself, not his blood, that is "able to save us to the uttermost" because "as he is, so are we in this world" and he is the "first-born among many brethren". in revelation, those who overcome do so by "the blood of the Lamb (the testimony of Jesus), the word of their testimony, and that they LOVED NOT THEIR LIVES EVEN TO DEATH. just as Jesus gave up his life, so must we lose our lives in order to find our [true] life which is "hid in Christ". the "now and not yet" of our at-one-ment will not be fully manifested until we are transformed, all one in the One.


was any of this what you were getting at? if there's something specific i've forgotten, please add it. it's hard for me to address "atonement" like it's a separate issue. all of creation (aisi) is our journey "out" from and back at-one with God (though we never truly "left"). love that is forced is not love, so there had to be freedom to "perfect" it. God set us free, even to hate and mistrust him, with the intent that we one day reciprocate that love in pure uninhibited fellowship, oneness, with our Father/Creator. the power is not in the blood, but in the Love. -annie