JULY 2013
This blog post is
my response to four short essays on 'Atonement Talk- Fine Tuning' by my
friend and conservative New Testament and Historic Christianity
scholar Edward Fudge. As I look these over I find I have described
four of the most important religious/spiritual/psychological themes
which I have come to highly value the past three decades. My
response to each is above Edward's essay. All
of Edward's words are in italics to make clear who is writing .
These can be read as four stand alone essays or taken as a whole.
These fundamental views are not just my own but all have been
formulated in various ways and places throughout Human history,
especially in humankind's religious endeavors. I credit Carl Jung as
most helping to connect these themes from their many sources. They
are all consistent with the Vision-like experiences I had, especially
strong beginning Mid August 1985 and persisting for several years.
The four themes
in this order are:
1. The Imperfect
Aspect Of God 2.God And Human Mutual Need For Each Other and An
Important Role Of ancient Gnosticism 3.The Manifoldness Of The
Word Of God 4.The Importance of Jesus Not Being Viewed Humanity's
'One And Only' Literal Sacrifice.
1. The Imperfect
Aspect Of God
Hi Edward. I hope this finds you
with minimal pain and many of moments to enjoy. I think
there is plenty of room in scripture for your arguments. But
there is also lots of evidence in scripture that make, from the
common folk's perspective, 1,2,4 being very Biblical and
very much foundational in Historic Christianity's teaching. The
general concept of Christ as 'atonement for our sin' is very
problematic for more and more thoughtful people I think. Maybe
similarly as how people came to question the concept of a
literal Hell , an image that has been fully assumed by nearly all
believers, from taking the New Testament literally. We know that from
a human , and a parent , perspective the 'atonement
concept' is not a healthy way of relating or of reconciling
differences. One can argue, if they wish, that atonement dogma was
generated primarily by the later church and I think there is
much truth in that. But the gospels do have Jesus saying, ' The son of man came to give his life a ransom for many.' But to read the record of Jehovah's dealing with
people in the Old Testament and say that he was not a generally angry God and not
pleasant or secure to be around is an understatement.
Yes, like even many
an out right brute, we can hope Jehovah wanted to be better , had
his good moments and people were glad to appease him by making grand statements about
his faithfulness, forgiveness and kindness. I surely believe such
character has been and is the goal that the Ultimate Sacred set for
itself and humanity but just like our own personal
moral development and collective psychological/spiritual human
development, it is a long time coming. One does not have
to look hard to find Jehovah not coming across according to his own
high ideals in his relationships with humans. Often a more
conscious human is seen cajoling him into being in fact
the high moral image that he has set for himself. Like
Abraham pleading with him to not destroy Sodom or Job asking him
to reconsider his temper outbreaks and outright wrong judgment and immoral treatment of Job. This darkness of Jehovah is what led Gnostic thought to see him not as
the Ultimate God but a god who had forgot his origins and assumed he was
more ultimate than he could possibly be. Also images of God should
always be seen as how a people at a given time viewed and experienced
God. That need not and should not be our image of God today in our situation. Many
people have noticed the monumental change in moral character between the
Old Testament Jehovah image and that of God incarnate in Jesus of the
New Testament. This correct observation needs to be taken seriously if
we are to move closer to an image of the ultimate God. Edward, I think you overstate your case
and try to talk people out of realities that they know from
repeated experience and story is how the Biblical Jehovah has come
across. His nature would demand someone to be slaughtered for him to accept those he is suppose to already faithfully love. People are just now letting such Biblical reality become more
conscious. Most have excused and rationalized such obnoxious behavior coming out of God. We have not let it register consciously the way we would if a social leader treated us or someone else that way. This development process is not unlike how we finally let the faults of our
earthly parents become hard fact for us. We love them none the less
for it but much more honestly and hopefully mutually. When
people are under the impression that the Bible and Christianity teach
1,2 and 4 they are not, I think, misinformed to
have those reservations. Thanks for your messages. God bless you
always. Wish we could have coffee still. The mature shaded pond has
appeared in my backyard just when I have needed it most. Jim H.
|
ATONEMENT
TALK--FINE TUNING (1)
|
Sometimes
Christians hesitate to speak to others about Jesus Christ because
they think they know too little. However, we share testimony, not
theology, and God gives the words. But our theology shapes our
testimony and is shaped by it, making it worthwhile for us to note
four theological details that are widely-held but actually are
unbiblical.
1--UNBIBLICAL:
God was angry with sinners until Jesus came and died in their place,
but then his wrath turned to love.
TRUTH:
God loved the world before Jesus ever came, and that love motivated
God to give his Son to rescue sinners (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9-10).
2--UNBIBLICAL:
God "punished" Jesus instead of punishing sinners.
TRUTH:
The Bible nowhere says that God "punished" Jesus. It does
say that Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross (1 Peter
2:2), that he was made to be sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), that he was
made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13), and that the chastening for our
well-being fell upon him (Isaiah 53:5).
3--UNBIBLICAL:
God was angry with Jesus while he was bearing our sins.
TRUTH:
The Bible nowhere says that God was ever angry with his beloved Son,
with whom it repeatedly said that he was well pleased (Isaiah 42:1;
Matt. 3:17; 17:5).
4--UNBIBLICAL:
The death of Jesus satisfied God's wrath.
TRUTH:
The Bible nowhere says that God's wrath was "satisfied" or
that it needs to be. It does say that Jesus rescues us from the wrath
to come (1 Thes. 1:10; Rom. 5:9).
2.God And Human
Mutual Need For Each Other and An Important Role Of Ancient
Gnosticism
Edward, by denying that historical
Christianity teaches 1,2, and 4 you take practically
all the emotion that has driven Christianity
historically out of the story as taught for all these centuries.
Unfortunately a large part , certainly not all, of that emotion has
been fear and anger and pride. Any story of salvation must have
a driving emotion or it fails to grip the whole person. I
gladly grant we can look at these passages non literally and
insist they do not teach what 'Christianity' as understood by
Christians from 100 CE on. But is that what you are really willing to
say, that you are now at odds with dominant Historical Christianity
and its atonement teaching?
That is what I have eventually
become willing to say regarding the literal Idea that God can only fully
accept the individual human by Christ specifically dying 'for
him/her.' And I have also arrived at the reality that the Sacred was
not yet perfected in the Trinity Godhead but created
humans out of It's own deep need for increased moral consciousness so
lacking in the Old Testament Yahweh. At the Creator's impulse and
need historical humanity was the only place sacredly
conceived where the initial imperfection and flaw in the
Sacred could be first perceived, then encountered and
potentially redeemed in human history. This could only be achieved in
the Sacred's judgment by 'God becoming man' and this is ,
to my knowledge, a best explanation for the story of
Jesus' suffering and his truly sacrificial death. And for his
awareness of the human experience of being 'forsaken' by
the dark undeveloped aspect of God. But in that experience
God also became far more conscious.... a giant step in consciousness
development in the Sacred was taken is how I can
best comprehend it.
But that was not the 'one and only and
final' redemption of God and man. Conscious human suffering
today is accomplishing this same continuing redemption of God
and ourselves. God's Incarnation is a continuing process
in us humans- not a story 'once and forever' told. It is
forever a truly cooperative opus of a consciously
suffering God and Humans at the most intimate level.
God and Human need and must have each other mutually yet it is
correct to understand that this whole process was a necessary aspect
always present in the undifferentiated consciousness that was the
nature of the ultimate beginning of all that is and can be.... that
is the Sacred before any human ego and thus any human
consciousness in which to suffer in behalf of God was present. God
was truly and totally unknown before human consciousness appeared.
To not be in consciousness is equivalent to not existing.
This becomes a very mature no blaming or finger
pointing explanation for all conscious suffering, for the
Christ story and for our present and collectively
dangerous historical situation on our planet. This is an
explanation that provides the highest motivations, with emotions all
accepted and experienced(not repressed) and most respectful, empathic
and mutual relationship between God and human that I have ever come
to imagine or partially experience. This preserves the
integrity, while not denying the imperfections, of the Sacred ,
of every human and of all creation. And as well it
proposes to generate a higher , broader and more inclusive
consciousness in both God and Human. These ideas of God and Humans
are what I experienced in the 'vision' experiences beginning in mid
August of 1985 and persisting strongly for a least two years. And
have continued to be in harmony with my experience ever since.
And (this explanation) is in
full accordance with the higher plane of the NT regarding the
fullness of love potentially coming into being, such as Paul's
ode to the priority of love in I Cor 13. Edward, at some point just
as protestant Historical Christianity has finally rejected a
literal Hell, with your self-surprised intellectual support, as
not consistent with a mature and morally conscious and loving
God, neither is an image of God that blames all the suffering and
evil in the world on the created Human. We abhor such self
serving and blind blaming in human behavior. Yet we are
told to be imitators of God. There are times when the creature has
had to prove himself more moral than some aspect of God for God's own
sake is what I am suggesting and seeing it in the overall Bible
story as well.
I suspect you will say of my
brief statement , "Jim has become Gnostic." No
I have not become any collective 'ic' or 'ism', but
acknowledge that some of the so called 'Gnostic'
interpretations of the O.T and of Jesus were sincere and
as legitimate and 'revealed' as those whose interpretations
which gained the power to erect Historical Christianity,
including the synoptic gospels. (It is important to me that much
of what I am saying can be supported strongly by the canonized
scriptures not taken primarily as history but as spiritual
texts, especially John's gospel. We have just historically ignored
these implications that do not fit the majority rule.) Some
'Gnostics', this became a pejorative term used by the church
fathers much like 'anti' was in my youthful experience, were
also quite misguided in some of their literal mindedness as were
those on the other side of the argument. Historical Christianity has
hidden this genuine debate of reality. And well it had to in order
for a institutional religion to have been built up. Christianity owes
much to Gnosticism in that it was its war against it that produced
the powerful institution it became. It is only through
the painstaking writings of the church fathers that we can now
know what the 'Gnostics' were trying to say. The
psychology they display is parralled in alchemy, all world wide
mythologies, Biblical symbolism as well as present day depth
psychology. In these matters I am never saying, 'What should
have happened instead is......". But what we must do is be
honest in our interpretation of what DID happen in the early
centuries of Christianity's development and what implications and
understandings that brings down to our very moment.
I think the 'Gnostics' were
surely onto something essential in emphasizing that 'gnosis' ,
a knowledge by direct experience rather than by collective
story only, has always been central to the birth of any extended
religious movement. I note that Peter and Paul,
both according to sacred tradition, had direct 'gnosis' as
the basis of their deepest spiritual conversion to a new
and 'transformed mind.' The basis was not in informational
knowledge of 'what they had been told by others.'
The 'gnosis' realty of the history of religion should, but it
hasn't in general, keep us ever aware that nowhere along the line
has the genuine experience of 'gnosis' been somehow ruled out
as the most transformative, essential for religions to
form and religious experience a human being can have. It does
become a question for us all of how to know when one has
actually had such an experience. And I must add that such an
experience would not make that person fully perfect or
whole nor does it protect them against perhaps the greatest
temptation of all ...'to think their personal experience is a one and
only revelation of God.' God help us individually
and collectively in finding our way through the present
national and world Chaos that some are more sufferingly aware of than
others. May the greatest present Human and God
cooperative sufferings be accompanied by the highest meanings so it
can be borne by the small but amazingly strong
individuating human conscious ego. Blessings to you and yours.
Jim H.
P.S. Edward. This is a very
spontaneous unplanned writing. It reminds me that you asked me
soon after my experiences of Aug. 1985 to write down what I learned
from that. That is what I have been attempting to do for 28
years. That is what I have partly made public on my blog the past two
years. This two responses may be one concise way of my answering
your question. Notice there is no mention of Jung for it clearly was
not Jung who taught me through those experiences. But Jung was able
to talk about such similar things in ways that were a helpful tool in
my better understanding what I was being taught by a
truly higher power.
|
gracEmail®
Edward
Fudge
ATONEMENT
TALK--FINE TUNING (2)
|
Biblical
texts such as Romans 4:25; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 20-21; and
Galatians 3:13-14 are sometimes thought to teach the four following
statements that I have called unbiblical:
1--God
was angry with sinners until Jesus came and died in their place, but
then his wrath turned to love.
2--God "punished" Jesus
instead of sinners.
3--God was angry with Jesus while he was
bearing our sins.
4--The punishing of Jesus satisfied God's wrath.
Although
the four passages I just mentioned do not teach the four things I
called unscriptural, they do teach us two very important truths.
First, that we humans sinned, and that our sins resulted in Jesus
suffering and dying on the cross. Second, that Jesus' life and death
resulted in our forgiveness and many other spiritual blessings. In
these texts, Paul reasons on the basis of three principles from
everyday life that enable us to regard the action of one person as
the
action
of another. Those principles are cause and effect, representation,
and identification.
Friend
Jim,
Thank
you for sharing your heart to me as one invited into your inner
circle. Thank you for your good wishes concerning my health.
As
we each come to the threescore and ten year marker in our
lives, each in his own way is evaluating his own life, his
relationship to ultimate reality, and his relationship to those
closest to himself by nature and by choice. I wish you only the best,
and, convinced as I am of the validity of orthodox Christianity in
its most inclusive and ecumenical form, I pray that God will in the
end see the humility and obeisance of Abrahamic faith in both our
hearts and by the atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ keep us for
himself through all the timeless eons that never end.
Cordially,
Edward
3.The Manifoldness Of The Word Of God
Dear friend Edward. I expect
that I have been much a pest in recent years. I desire so
strongly that your health is improving and that your pains and
physical discomforts are minimal.( I have just received word that
my brother George in Florence is failing rapidly. After he leaves
there remain two of us brothers. I am grateful for the important role each of my brothers has had in my life.)
I'm wish to express some things here and will also attach
some pages from a commentary on Jung's final scholarly work Aion. He
was I think 73 years old. I hope you may find time to read the pages at the bottom. The order is pages 90-94 followed
by pages 75-79 with pages 90 and 75 being partial. (These pages are copied in this order at the end of this blog post.) The book is The
Aion Lectures, Exploring The Self In Jung's Aion
by Edward F. Edinger. I share these readings not that they are
unusual or all that special for me personally but as
very typical of the
manifold ways and places that depict what I think I have experienced
as a matter of personal spiritual development. Though very
appreciative of my religious heritage I'm generally let down or put
off by conservative orthodox Christian teaching in that it suddenly, and I think
very unnaturally and dogmatically, restricts and cuts off
the human from the manifold places the 'Word of God' is free to
approach us from.
It seems most reasonable to me to expect a manifold
of sources that together continue to express a common
pattern in what
matters most, how the human is most profoundly confronted by and
encounters God. This is a significant disposition of Jung
which is often at variance with Christian orthodox teaching. He
was open and intentionally searching in all those places in human
history where the brightest and most sincere minds were seeking to
find meaning in the human situation and also were often convicted
that there is indeed an 'other' that we are prompted to seek and
hopefully find. Sometimes people without those credentials have
been a mouthpiece unknowingly in such matters. In general
the 'other' , God , the Self or the 'Collective Unconscious' is
seeking to make itself more conscious through the wide full range of
human culture and experience. Jung did not probe into just any
areas but those that were authentic, patiently practiced and had, in
time, offered the most meaning to significantly large parts of
the human community. He does not fully separate , as any orthodoxy
nearly always does, the so called 'secular' from the 'religious.'
It is all a part of Sacred creation and development and
together holds the secret referred to in more than one place as the 'pearl of great price', the 'narrow path', a 'treasure hid in a
field' and arriving at a perception of having a 'single eye.' How could it be otherwise that the God of creation would make itself known in manifold ways and places to human consciousness? Thus we find Jung drenched
from youth with the canonical Biblical materials but he
surely was not a 'sola scripture' person for he found in human life
that God is obviously not 'sola scripture' but His manifold
voice is found in a multitude of sources. But Jung was demanding in
his search to find the major
underlying patterns
that all these sources reflect in their unique way. Also at
variance with orthodoxy one's actual experience, both inner and outer
but especially for Jung inner, is a continuing, vast and acutely reliable source for finding the fundamental
patterns of human development
with regard to its connection to the other, to God. So this is why
we find Jung quoting and examining the common patterns in
scripture, Apocrypha, Kaballah, Christan mysticism, church fathers,
alchemy, gnosticism, Greek -Roman and many other mythologies
and Astrology, as it was found and used by the finest minds in
the ancient world, to name a few. His range and thoroughness
of resources is mind boggling to most any serious reader.
This, though mine more limited to explaining my personal experience and
never with the scholarly and academic standards employed by
Jung, has been the nature of my path for 30 years.
It does make the search far more daunting but I think also
eventually more full. It seeks to truncate nothing from life's
history and experience. My central task in life or fate is very different than his. My under-girding search, at work long
before I had significant consciousness of it, has to do with human
love, at the personal intimate level and collectively with how
such personal love is the potential redeeming experience
to put humankind on a new, long yearned for and renewed path
of hope I can only imagine. But the patterns
of development that
Jung finds in all these manifold places have matched the pattern of
my own personal experience, more and more as time passes. So his work
has been a primary and essential (It can be said that all other
influences have been also essential. Each conscious raising experience has its effect on the whole of life.) tool in my holding
together in an ever surprising measure psychologically and
spiritually. This has required a most unexpected
and still to me mysterious state of mind and psychological functioning.
In my dealings with family and outside world I think any difference
is barely noticed but I sense that my inner reality is not typical, but it is uniquely the one needed to
under-gird my specific life challenge. A simple example of such functioning is my spontaneously composing such a detailed letter as this to you. This, as
with much of my behavior, is motivated from beyond any rational
purpose or goal.
 |
| Dr Jim Pancrazio |
 |
| Dr Joe Bohlen |
I received significant personal professional counseling support in 1984 from professor-counselor Jim Pancrazio. My only formal 'analysis', a word frequently mentioned in the book pages below, was near the beginning of such experiences twenty eight years ago with therapists, Dick Dayringer, my long time supervisor-counselor, and Eugene Qualls, a Jungian
counselor I fortunately worked with for three months. My work with Dr. Qualls immediately preceded my
nearly overwhelming direct 'discovery' of the reality of the
objective Collective Unconscious. (Edward, this is when
you attended me in mid August of 1985, the most
stirring way I think our paths have or likely ever will
cross.) I also found consulting with Dr Joseph Bohlen was most helpful at times when I was assimilating Unconscious contents.
 |
| Dr Richard Dayringer |
I find it
synchronistic that here you make reference to Christians being
like 'fish in the river.' This is likely what motivated me to write you.
I had just read these copied pages below where a church father is
quoted using the same symbol from a dream in about 500 CE.
But Jung explains in Aion the development of the 'fishes symbolism' did not stop
there. For then Jung shows another Christian dream, about 1500
CE that shows the individual Christian not being like a
'fish in the river' but like one who 'carries the water' describing
a significantly less collective, more developed, individuated, psychological position
than the earlier idea that you are still interpreting as
being most 'up to date' and completely applicable. The
apocryphal 'fish' story, bottom of page 92..ff , included the three fold process of
such an encounter with the 'other' which is stated as 'capture,
extraction and transformation.'
 |
| Dr. Eugene Qualls |
Edward, You were with me at a
stage that may slightly precede these. The 'fish' was
compellingly and surprisingly discovered by my conscious ego. I
guess the fact that I could express to you anything then was the
beginning of me both being 'captured' yet also managing to begin
'capturing' something myself. It came to me like a giant ocean
Leviathan with me being like a gnat on the shore as it
came bursting out of the water to give me the first glimpses of
its gigantic spiritual/psychological proportions. When you saw me I
was mesmerized and in danger of being engulfed by the shear difference
in my smallness and its largeness. It was obvious that I and my
conscious ego were a creation of 'it' , not the other way
around. Yet it was my feeble ego doing the apprehending and comprehending of the
'other' which was an ecstatic exhilaration. Thus is my experience of
your 'God is God and I am not.' In the months and years
that have followed I have experienced my own stages of 'capturing,
extracting and transformation.' Unlike orthodoxy of any kind,
which always degenerates into a 'conventional wisdom' where ones
group all confess like 'fish in a river', this process I'm convinced
is experienced mutually by 'me and the large fish' or God. Each of us
is being 'captured, something precious and needed is extracted
from each, and each is being transformed' in a natural harmony with
the needs of both the human and the Sacred. An example of this psychological/spiritual process is laid out in the Bible story of Jacob 'wrestling with the Angel.' There both 'the Lord' and Jacob experience 'capturing, extracting(Jacob a blessing for himself and the Lord a wound to Jacob's privates) and transformation.' Each party we can assume was significnatly more conscious of the other after the horrific encounter.
These paragraphs may say
all that is on my mind for this communication. And it sounds
and feels like a final one of this type to you. Please take the
readings I forward as primarily only an example of how
'manifold' the ways of God are in that, it seems to me is most
reasonable, the ' patterns of development' in an ordered world
are presented in seemingly numberless ways throughout
creation. Especially through the finest
developed minds and most spiritually developed hearts of God's
humanity over the course of recorded history does the manifold nature
of the Sacred come into sharper focus. This view of the
manifoldness of 'Gods voice' is what is most at variance
with my personal religious heritage and any collective orthodoxy that
I have become familiar with, including much of Western Christian
which I also claim now as my heritage.
Edward, in closing, I maintain that as
important as intellectual formulations such as this may be , as a
partial intellectual expression of whatever is the ultimate reality,
that friendship freely and responsibly exercised does transcend
any differences no matter how painfully felt.
Blessings always
to you and yours, Jim
|
gracEmail®
Edward
Fudge
ATONEMENT
TALK--FINE TUNING (3)
|
Paul
uses at least three principles common to law, logic, and rhetoric to
describe how Jesus' life record can count for us as if it were our
own. He uses the principle of cause
and effect
when he says that Jesus was delivered up "because of our
transgressions," and that he was raised up "because of our
justification" (Rom. 4:25). Scholars agree that the Greek text
of this verse says "because of" both times, but the second
statement is not immediately easy to understand and the New American
Standard Bible is apparently the only major version to translate it
literally both times in Romans 4:25. Yet, as surely as our sins were
a cause of Jesus' death, just that surely God's declaration of our
acquittal was a cause of Jesus' resurrection. Just as Jesus' death
proved that we were sinners, so Jesus' resurrection proved that God
had declared us righteous.
The
principle of representation
involves a proxy or other authorized representative who is empowered
to act in the stead of another. An illustration of representation is
Paul's statement that Jesus died "for all" and therefore
"all died." Jesus died as the representative or proxy "of
all," and when the representative died, in the eyes of God all
whom he represented died as well (2 Cor. 5:14-15). Paul has an
ethical purpose in his logic. Since the "all" who died now
live again only through Jesus' representation, they are morally
obligated to live for Jesus their representative and not for
themselves.
We
see the principle of identification
at work in the statement that Christ became a "curse" for
us by hanging on the cross, so that "in Christ Jesus" we
Gentiles might receive "the blessing of Abraham" (Gal.
3:13-14). Paul is noted for his vision of believers as living members
of the spiritual body of Christ, which means we are "in Christ"
just as a 'fish is in the river.'(quote marks are mine J.H.) And just as a purified river means
that the fish will be purified as well, in the same way whatever is
true of Jesus Christ can be truthfully said of everyone who is "in"
him.
It
appears that the principles of representation
and identification
both are at work in the statement that God made the sinless Jesus "to
be sin on our behalf," in order for us to "become" the
righteousness of God "in Him" (2 Cor 5:21). Jesus
identified with us so closely that our sin became associated with
him. And we are so closely identified with Jesus ("in him")
that the divine righteousness he so faithfully and perfectly
demonstrates becomes associated with us as well as with him.
When
we read the New Testament, we discover a wide variety of
illustrations of the blessings that flow from the saving work of
Jesus Christ. However, we find no theory of the atonement that
attempts to explain its mechanics or inner workings. Perhaps we
should be content to believe and to say what the Bible says—and to
stop with that. If we did so, we would avoid creating theories and
explanations that are human constructs lacking divine authority.
Indeed, if everyone had used only biblical language, we would not
face the risk today of confusing what God has revealed in Scripture
on this subject with what we or other human beings have thought,
imagined, and passed on to others.
4.The Importance
of Jesus Not Being Humanity's 'One And Only' Literal Sacrifice.
Edward. It's of highest human
spiritual accomplishment and value when a person under the
ethical complications of living the human life chooses to
sacrifice some measure of itself, even if necessary to the point
of dying. This is the great spirit of Jesus of Nazareth. That
very human and courageous decision is screened from full
consciousness when such a divine/human accomplishment is interpreted as an appeasement to ones belief of God's disappointment
or disapproval of the very ones this individual is sacrificing for.
As appropriate as 'obedience' is when freely chosen, a bit of
reflection reminds us that frequently 'obedience' is quite the
opposite of love. Jesus primarily loved, he loved the
world. That is enough to know his motivation for dying. It
is important to recall the gospel speaking of Jesus
'choosing to lay his life down , not responding to
a demand to prove his obedience to a higher
power.'(paraphrase). For that choice to be diminished is
to ascribe 'obedience' as Jesus' highest value rather than love.
This greatly clouds the richness of his choosing to die
and of our aspiring in a practical way to such ethical
character ourselves. I agree it can help to keep in mind the idea of 'Jesus being God as human incarnate' makes such
sacrifice one that is made mutually by both God and Human suffering together.
This can be true potentially of any Human person. Human nor
Sacred integrity is attacked in that view when it is kept clear that Jesus and God is one. Eventually I think we will understand that God and All, including us, is one. Then it will become clear that saving sacrifice is a mutual participation, not the action of just one human. I think most words
that Jesus likely said stop here and I think that is where we should
stop if we are not going to give homage to an aspect of God or
Human that carries some evil self grandiosity. There is an
aspect of the God Image, especially demonstrated in the Old Testament, that is
precisely this negative and destructive. But with increased awareness
and consciousness post-modern Christians can and really must stand
against demanded sacrifice as a model of moral conduct. Any source, human or Sacred, that
says in essence 'One must die in order that 'I' can fully accept the
one being died for' is not a source we should give our obeisance too.
It is surely a source that is not fully individuated itself. It is a narcissistic source. It is a continuing of the powerful and violent archetypal energy that inspired literal human sacrifice in some of the most ancient religions.
This is the kind of
soul-searching work today's believers might pray to have the
consciousness and courage to do if we would be like Jesus and desire to stand by Humanity which even God depends on for God's
own redemption. Man and God mutually needing, working and
sacrificing together is the picture of religious realty needed
today and I think that is what we can see in the Jesus story if we so
responsibly choose. Thank you for this stimulating
series on the idea of Atonement. May all
Jesus followers continue to explore our deepest heart for
how it is that God and Human are becoming One. Best to you
Always Edward, Jim
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 03:59:00 -0400 "Edward Fudge"
<
edward@edwardfudge.com>
writes:
|
gracEmail®
Edward
Fudge
ATONEMENT
SERIES--CONCLUSION
|
When
we read the New Testament, we find that all the classic theories of
the atonement have some biblical basis, and also some room for
improvement. We learn that New Testament writers employ a variety of
metaphors to illuminate the atonement, but that none of them creates
a full-bore theory to try to explain its inner workings. And we
discover that the metaphor used most often for the atonement in the
New Testament is the Old Testament sacrifice known as the sin
offering. Not surprisingly, the New Testament author who uses that
metaphor most broadly and who explores it most deeply is the unknown
author of Hebrews (perhaps Barnabas of Cyprus, a Levite no less).
But
even the writer of Hebrews works with multiple metaphors and similes.
He likens Jesus' atoning work to the activity of a divine rescuer who
engages the tyrant who previously held them and their ancestors
captive, then defeats him man-to-man (Heb. 2:14-17). Jesus is like a
wealthy man who leaves his riches to his brothers and sisters as an
unqualified inheritance (Heb. 9:16-17). He is the runner who first
completes the marathon, but instead of going home remains at the
finish line to encourage the other runners to cross it and enjoy
their own prizes (Heb. 12:1-3).
Most
conspicuously, Jesus is the high priest who, having once lived and
then offered a human record of unbroken faithfulness consistent with
every divine wish, was exalted and invested by God as king and high
priest in heaven in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1, 4). There he lives
forever, serves forever, and saves forever (Heb. 7), dispensing grace
and mercy to his people as needed (Heb. 2, 4). As high priest, Jesus
was chosen by God from among those whom he represents (Heb. 5). He
was chosen with an oath as to his perpetuity (Heb. 6) because he was
chosen on the basis of his unchanging flawless character (Heb. 7).
One day he will return to gather his people and to give them their
full reward in new heavens and new earth (Heb. 11-13).
By
definition, any theory of the atonement is commentary, not canon. For
that reason, when we create theories and explanations beyond the
Bible’s actual words we should always make it plain that they are
only as authoritative as our human logic. And we should regularly
remind ourselves and others not to confuse what God has revealed with
what we or other human beings have thought, imagined, and passed on.
