The Meaning of the Cross

This week I want to continue my exploration/musings on theological issues.  I know it is the dog days of summer and my mind should be on a murder mystery or other cottage reading rather than a theological mystery.  However, that seems to be where I am there days.  Perhaps it is because I am writing a sermon regularly as I help out in the parish here.

In any case rather than a murder mystery by Sue Grafton or Agatha Christie, I would like to explore the ultimate murder mystery of the cross i.e. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.  One of the principle ways of understanding this event is “substitutionary atonement” i.e. Jesus died for our sins.  In effect, God required ‘His’ only begotten son to be sacrificed on the cross as a way of redemption for humankind.  God’s greatest creation, made in ‘His’ own image could only be redeemed by sacrificing ‘His’ son in the most horrible way imaginable. 

This has not been the only way of understanding the events of Good Friday as noted by Richard Rohr recently drawing on Marcus Borg:

Theologian Marcus Borg (1942-2015) points out that the substitutionary understanding of Jesus’ death “was not central in the first thousand years of Christianity.”  Borg explains:

[The] first systematic articulation of the cross as “payment for sin” happened just over nine hundred years ago in 1098 in St. Anselm’s treatise Cur Deus Homo? [Why Did God Become Human?] Anselm’s purpose was to provide a rational argument for the necessity of the incarnation and death of Jesus.

Unfortunately, this became the primary lens through which the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament were read. The substitutionary atonement “theory” (and that’s all it is) implies that the Eternal Christ’s epiphany in Jesus is a mere afterthought when the first plan did not work out.

The “substitutionary atonement” understudying of the cross is not one that I can accept.  It makes no sense on so many different levels and one I cannot resolve with my belief in a Loving God.  I must concede that I have no assurance that my particular belief is the absolute truth any more that we can know that the “substitutionary atonement” theory is correct.  It is one in which makes sense within my overall understanding of God and my relationship to God, who in case you didn’t pick up on the earlier hints I do not understand to be solely a masculine father figure. 

So I’m sure you are now eager to know what my understanding of the crucifixion is.  First, I believe that it was a willing sacrifice by Jesus as shown in the Garden of Gethsemane.   Jesus did ask his Heavenly Father (which admittedly the way he primarily thought of God) to remove this cup from him.  However, that was not a question of God demanding the sacrifice.  Jesus throughout his life became aware of who he was created by God to be.  He was for us a model of a person, indeed the Third Person of the Trinity, who showed us what it means to live fully and completely the life he was created to live. 

For Jesus to fully realize who he was and is i.e. the person he was created to be meant that he would inevitably be murdered by the authorities of this world.  To be true to who he was meant that he could not do anything else.  As he told his disciples he must go to Jerusalem that knowing that meant he would be executed by the Roman authorities with the collusion of the religions authorities.  He did this willingly knowing he could do nothing else if he was to be true to who he was—the unique person fully human and fully divine. 

That is my challenge and calling i.e. to discover and be as fully as possible the person God created me to be.  That is something I know I will never fully succeed in doing or being but it is my lifelong quest of my journey; Blessings on your journey.

Describe Yourself - If You Dare

One of the pleasures I have discovered in that last two summers at the cottage in PEI is the mystery novel.  I have never been a fan of this genre — at least in print form having enjoyed the TV adaptations — particularly of the British variety such as Midsomer Murders  or Inspector Morse.  Of course there is the original fictional detective Sherlock Holmes in his many incarnations. 

In the past two summers (or should I say Midsomers) I have found the detective mystery to be the perfect light reading to complement my more serious exploration of Spiritual Direction books, books on dream interpretation, alchemy, and Jungian psychology liberally (small l) mixed with the bible. 

One of the series I have discovered is by Sue Grafton who has written a alphabetical series (A is for Alibi, B is for Burglar down to W is for Wasted) dealing with the exploits of her female Private Eye Kinsey Millhone.  One of the things that makes Sue Grafton’s writing so engaging is the descriptive nature of how she writes.  The scenes and the characters are written so graphically and vibrantly that I have no difficulty picturing the scenes in the stories and the characters which inhabit them.

I would like to give you some examples of the writing but unfortunately all our copies of the books are back in Ann of Green Gable’s home province and so I must limit the examples to a few I found on line:

Beverly Danziger looked like an expensive, carefully wrapped package from a good but conservative shop. Only her compulsive chatter hinted at the nervousness beneath her cool surface. It was a nervousness out of all proportion to the problem she placed before Kinsey Millhone.

He was young—maybe twenty or so—and he must once have been a good-looking kid. Kinsey could see that. But now his body was covered in scars, his face half-collapsed. It saddened Kinsey and made her curious. 

The question I would like to put to you today is, “if Sue Grafton was to put you into one of her novels, how would she describe you?”  This of course could be both the outer appearance as well and the inner person. 

Thinking about what I would write was more daunting that I first thought it would be.  It is a bit like what would I put in my obituary if I were to write it but makes it more immediate.  In effect how do you think other people see you?

Well here is my preliminary effort.  In outward appearance Gregory (Greg) Little is a tall (6’2”) somewhat overweight (215 lbs.) senior citizen (now 65 years old).  You could not describe Greg as tall dark and handsome despite his height.  He is fairly attractive but his years are beginning to show.  He does wear his age quite well but not as well as he thinks.  He is certainly no longer dark as the thinning hair is showing a lot of gray as is his full beard.  Greg peers at the world through myopic eyes and does not see a lot of the physical colours in the world being somewhat colour blind to go along with his short-sightedness.  Greg is, however, very interested in the nuances of people and what makes them tick. He is a person who likes to see the connections with things beyond the physical world however; he doesn’t always make the connections about others as well as himself as he thinks he should.  Greg is not a detail oriented person as anyone reading his emails can attest.  He puts this down to his personality type which is INFJ on the Myers Briggs scale and a 9 on the Enneagram scale.  However he is more attentive to detail than he used to be.  Greg also has a good sense of humour and likes seeing the ironic and paradoxes in life. 

I could go on but I think I will leave it at that — for today in any case.  So how would Sue Grafton describe you on the inside as well on the outside? 

 

I have just finished reading "I" is for Innocent by Sue Grafton.  The is a well written mystery of the page turning variety.  I definitely recommend it and it is part of a series that works its way through the alphabet so lots of potential there.  Wikipedia notes that "W" for Wasted is due out in September of this year.  These all feature private investigator Kinsey Millhone.

 

The protagonist in these stories is an interesting character - and this is where the assumptions come in. I had made the assumption that  our hero is a man (the name Kinsey doesn't give any clue either way).  It wasn't until well into the story when our hero is interviewing a character in prison that it began to dawn on me that Kinsey is a woman.  The clue to my clueless wrong assumption was when the male prisoner made a pass at our now revealed heroine.  Initially I was surprized that the male prisoner would be making a pass at another male visitor. I thought to myself that this was an interesting twist from the usual and wondered why Kinsey just didn't discourage him by telling his he was straight and not interested.  Ah yes assumptions!

 

I reminds me of the puzzle that was popular more than a few years ago: A man and his son are in a car crash. The father is killed and the child is taken to hospital gravely injured. When he gets there, the surgeon says, 'I can't operate on this boy - for he is my son!!!' How can this possibly be?

 

Of course this puzzle was popular before it was possible for same-sex couples to adopt so the answer was not 'the patient had two fathers'.  No I won't leave you hanging.  If you haven't guessed the surgeon was the patients mother. 

 

In any case it is good to remember we are all products of our times and experiences and we all make assumptions all the time which colour our attitudes towards many things and people.   

 

Enjoy the rest of the summer - it doesn't seem so endless at this point - and read something that isn't intended to improve your mind - even though it may just do that anyway.