What’s a Christian to believe (2)?

 Last week, I began to explore the critique of Richard Rohr by Alisa Childers, who is strongly opposite to the Christianity expressed in Richard Rohr’s writings.  The blog may be found at https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/heres-why-christians-should-avoid-the-teachings-of-richard-rohr in case you wish to read it.  Childers is a self-described Christian fundamentalist who believes “scriptures are internally coherent, without error, and infallible.”  I critiqued that view of scripture; this week I want to explore the theology of substitutionary atonement – that understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross which is affirmed by Childers and is seen as a foundational belief by fundamentalist Christians among others.

 Childers’ understanding of Jesus’ sacrifice is in line with what she maintains is a traditional one, “Historically, Christians have believed Jesus died on the cross for our sins, taking our deserved punishment upon himself.”  She maintains that Richard Rohr holds what she implies is a heretical theological understanding of substitutionary atonement and quotes Rohr to prove her point:

I believe that Jesus’ death on the cross is a revelation of the infinite and participatory love of God, not some bloody payment required by God’s offended justice to rectify the problem of sin. Such a story line is way too small and problem-oriented.

Although Childers does not site the source of this quote or others by Rohr, this certainly is my understanding of Rohr’s theology of the crucifixion.  Let me, then, try and unpack what I understand as the problem with the theology of substitutionary atonement which Rohr is addressing and which, to be clear, I agree with. 

To say that Jesus died for our sins is, for me, true.  However, what follows from this?  To maintain that the only way that God the Father could redeem us was through condemning his only begotten son to a horrible death is, for me, put limits on a God of unlimited possibilities.  An all-loving God would not do that unless God had no other options.  God, who is beyond limits would not have required this of his beloved  son - what loving father would? 

What then is a different understanding of why Jesus made that journey to Jerusalem and what he knew would be the consequences of that act as he states in the Gospel of Matthew, “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”  Jesus knew fully what he was called to do and be if he was to fully live out who he was as the only begotten son of God the Father.  To be true to that he must go to Jerusalem knowing full-well what the consequences of that would be.  To do other than that would be to surrender to the temptation which Satan offered him in the wilderness.  Jesus made clear in his rebuke of Peter which directly followed his declaration noted above, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”  He would not yield to the temptation offered by Satan to avoid the awful road ahead and go a different path and deny who he was.  To be true to himself as the incarnate God-image and yet fully human, he must go to Jerusalem and accept what would inevitably follow. 

If that is what Jesus did, how is it dying for our sins?  Jesus showed us and is the perfect model of what it means to pick up our cross and follow him.  To do otherwise is to yield to the temptations offered by Satan in which we want to turn stones into bread to feed our earthly desires, or to tempt God by demanding proof of God’s power and favour, or to succumb to the terrible temptation of earthly power in whatever form it takes for each of us.  To pick up our cross as Jesus did is to be certain that we will be crucified by this world in small and large ways.  To do other is to fall into sin.  However, because to the willing sacrifice of Jesus we are assured of forgiveness.  That is the forgiveness offered to us by sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. 

Blessings on your journey wherever it takes you.

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.