Faith Meets World

Reflections on faith in a messed-up but beautiful world

Category: Cross (Page 4 of 7)

My thoughts on the “Monster god” debate

Monster god debateTwo days ago, International House of Prayer (IHOP) in Kansas City, USA hosted a debate titled “Monster God or Monster Man”. On one side, Dr Michael Brown ably explained and defended the widely accepted penal substitution theory of the atonement; on the other hand, Pastor Brian Zahnd skilfully refuted this theory and put forward an alternative view of what happened at the cross and why.

Having watched the video of the debate earlier today, I’d like to offer some thoughts.

First, I commend IHOP and its leaders for their courage in hosting a public debate on such a central and potentially controversial topic, and their willingness in making the audio and video publicly available free of charge. (To go to the full audio and video, just click on the screenshot above.)

Second, if you believe that the penal substitution view (on which more below) is the only viable view of what happened at the cross, or if you are desperately seeking a meaningful, biblically concordant alternative to penal substitution, I urge you very strongly to watch the video from the debate. In it, you will see and hear a crystal clear presentation and defence of penal substitutionary atonement (which I will henceforth call PSA), together with what I believe is a far more compelling view of Christ’s work on the cross that is far more honouring and glorifying of the true nature of God.

Read More

On Jesus’ death and freedom from shame

26/365 - Such ShameToday I’d like to say a bit about one particular aspect of how the way we understand Jesus’ death affects our ongoing perception of ourselves and of God.

The most common understanding of how Jesus’ death achieved our salvation goes something like this:

– Because of God’s holiness (which we narrowly interpret as his moral purity), our sin separated us from God.

– Because God is just, sin needs to be punished.

– Rather than allow the just punishment of death to fall on us, God arranged for Jesus to take this punishment in our place.

– Because Jesus paid the price for our sin, we are thus no longer separated from God.

(I should also mention that, within most evangelical paradigms, this reconciliation with God only actually takes effect if we accept Jesus as our personal saviour.)

In theological terms, this framework for how Jesus’ death bought us life is most often referred to as penal substitutionary atonement (PSA for short): penal because it involves punishment for sin; substitutionary because Jesus is our substitute, taking our punishment in our place; and atonement because the result is that we are no longer separated from God (think at-one-ment). I no longer find it a helpful framework; in fact, I find it positively unhelpful, mainly because I think it perpetuates a picture of God as a cosmic tyrant obsessed with balancing the scales of justice and needing blood in order to do so.

My purpose today, however, is not to delve into all the details of why I find PSA problematic. Rather, I’d like to focus in on one particular consequence of believing that salvation hinges on this type of arrangement.

Specifically, I’d like to talk about shame.

Read More

Getting God wrong

Abraham sacrifice

I’m convinced we’ve often got God wrong.

Now, given that we are small, finite creatures and God is the infinite creator, this should come as no great surprise. However, I’m not talking about getting God wrong in small and relatively inconsequential ways; I’m talking about getting him so fundamentally, utterly wrong that the God we think we understand and worship is as different from the real God and Father of Jesus as chalk is from cheddar.

You may think I’m coming on rather strong here, and I am. But I feel entitled to do so, because this is personal: I have myself got God wrong for a great many years. (Again, I’m sure I continue to get him wrong in many ways today — to claim otherwise would be arrogant in the extreme; but hopefully the ways in which I get him wrong now are less grievous than the ways in which I’ve misconstrued him in the past.)

One of the main ways in which I think we get God wrong is by thinking that he required the life of his son Jesus as a sacrifice in order to forgive and redeem mankind. This is, of course, often taught as a (if not the) central tenet of the Christian faith, so to question it may seem shocking to you. But let’s let the scriptures speak for themselves and see what they tell us.

“For you have no delight in sacrifice; if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.” (Psalm 51:16, NRSV)

In this verse from David’s famous psalm of repentance, we see that David, who is referred to in Acts 13:22 as “a man after God’s own heart”, seems to have understood that sacrifice was not something God required, approved of or was remotely pleased by.

It seems to me we have two options here.

Read More

On Jesus’ death, communion and scapegoating

GoatIn church last Sunday we took communion. As I was sitting holding the bread and wine (well, okay, the bread and juice) and thinking about the meaning of the eucharist (literally “thanksgiving”), a thought came to me that I’d like to explore a little today.

If you’ve been reading along here for a while, you’ll know that my understanding of Christ’s death on the cross has evolved significantly in recent times (see this post in particular). Specifically, I no longer buy into the notion that Jesus died to endure God’s wrath in my place – a notion I’ve come to see as little more than a Christianised version of a pagan sacrificial cult to an angry deity. Rather, I believe that Jesus died at the hands not of an angry God but of an angry mob, and that in his death he decisively demonstrated the all-enduring, all-forgiving love of God. (There is much more that I believe about Christ’s death than this, but this brief account goes some way towards explaining the core of the shift that has taken place in my understanding.)

One of the things that has shaped my thinking in this area is the work of French Christian anthropologist René Girard. Girard has written many books in his ninety plus years of life, and one of his central themes is the foundational role of scapegoating in human culture. An essential thesis of his is that human societies typically form, cohere and sustain themselves by identifying an enemy “other” who is then blamed for various evils and sacrificed (whether literally or metaphorically). In sacrificing a victim (which may, in practice, be an individual or a group) in this way, cultures are able to unite against a perceived common enemy and purge themselves of evil. (There is much more to Girard’s understanding of the foundations of culture and religion, but this will do as a basic introduction.)

It seems clear to me that, in his death, Jesus functioned as a scapegoat. The High Priest Caiaphas understood that it was better for one man to die for the people than for the whole nation to perish, while Pilate and his Roman cohorts undoubtedly saw Jesus’ death, at least in part, as a way to assuage an angry mob and thus defuse a highly charged atmosphere that was dangerously close to veering into open revolt. When we stand back and take a dispassionate look at the events surrounding Jesus’ death, then, it’s not difficult to discern this scapegoating dynamic. And, in discerning it, it’s not difficult to name it and condemn it as evil.

Read More

Which voice?

MegaphoneWhat the world says to us and what Christ says to us as he expresses the heart of God on the cross are two very different things.

To the lonely and the depressed, the world says “Cheer up”, but the cross says “I am with you”.

To the marginalised and the excluded, the world says “You don’t belong”, but the cross says “Come to me”.

To the wounded and the hurting, the world says “Pull yourself together”, but the cross says “Let my love heal you”.

To the guilty and the ashamed, the world says “You get what you deserve”, but the cross says “I forgive you”.

To the fearful and the traumatised, the world says “Toughen up”, but the cross says “Don’t be afraid”.

Which voice are you hearing?

And, more importantly, which voice do you sound like?

[ Image: miuenski miuenski ]

A new day

This is the final instalment of a special three-part Easter series (you can find parts one and two here and here). I hope you enjoy it.

New day

It is another morning, this time far from the hustle and bustle of the city. Uncertain of what the future held, we had gravitated back to the comfortable familiarity of Galilee. Once here, not knowing what else to do, it had not been long before we were back in our boats.

We spent the whole of last night trawling the lake, and came up with nothing to show for it. And then, just as we were drawing in the nets and preparing to come in, he called out from the shore and told us to try the other side of the boat. Now, the bulging net lies on the ground beside the boat, and we have just finished a hearty breakfast of fish and bread. A breakfast cooked and served to us by him.

Having got up to begin cleaning away the remains of breakfast, I find myself alone with him, a few yards away from the others. This is the third time I’ve seen him since he rose, but the first time we’ve been face to face. Although I am close enough that I could reach out my hand and touch him, something holds me back – there is a distance between us that cannot be bridged by mere touch. There is no doubt in my mind that this Jesus who stands before me now is the very same man I saw die a criminal’s death; God has raised him to new life, just as he said would happen. Which means I cannot escape the conclusion that everything he said about himself is true, that he really is the Messiah, the chosen one, the Son of Man who is Son of God. This – though it defies all logic and human experience – this I can accept, for there are no alternatives that remotely explain the facts.

Read More

Deeper magic

“But what does it all mean?” asked Susan when they were somewhat calmer.

“It means,” said Aslan, “that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.”

— C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Page 4 of 7

All content on this site is copyright © Rob Grayson 2013-2021 unless otherwise indicated