photo credit: wuestenigel Night view of Antigua, Guatemala from "Cerro de la Cruz" via photopin (license)
I'm continuing in my personal deconstruction of the doctrines I grew up with: The Eleven Doctrines of The Salvation Army. Please refer to my previous blogs for the first 5.
What's wrong with us? Christianity tries to answer this question. Most religions are concerned with this question, too: How can we have a better life? The sixth doctrine of The Salvation Army addresses this, but requires tons of definitions with the Christianese it uses.
This is the sixth doctrine:
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.
in 1997 I went to Germany as part of a requirement of my Master's degree to serve overseas in a missionary setting. I was invited by one of my friends to go with him to Switzerland for a youth congress he was participating in. On the bus ride to Switzerland, there was a young man who wanted to practice his English on me. He asked me which denomination I attended, in German I replied, "Die Heilsarmee" (The Salvation Army). He stumbled a bit on that and asked me, "What type of army is that? What is a 'healing army?'" This young man literally translated the word "Heil" from the German word, "heilen," which means "to heal."
In some ways, I appreciate that better than the word, "Salvation." Language is an ever-evolving thing. The doctrine here states that there is wrong in this world and the healing of this world is made by Jesus because of his suffering and death.
I agree with the first part, that Jesus came to bring healing, but I disagree with the second part, that it was accomplished by his suffering and death.
Why did Jesus die? That's a very easy question to answer. Jesus was executed for treason: for breaking the law, for being in direct opposition to Rome as a pretender to the throne. The fact that he was a descendant of David did not help matters. On a religious side, he made claims amounting to divinity, which got the religious community in an uproar.
Have you ever sought meaning in a tragedy that happened? Why did a love one die? Why did a child die? Why did a natural catastrophe happen? It's easy to impose our own meanings to tragedies after they have happened.
I am convinced that the Early Church was trying to bring meaning to the meaningless death of Jesus. In all honesty, there was nothing special about his death. Jesus died by crucifixion. It was so common that Josephus recorded roads being lined with people executed on a cross. Even the Bible stated that Jesus was crucified between two other criminals.
It only makes sense then that the Early Church sought to find meaning in an event that already occurred. Jesus' death was ignoble. It was intended to shame and humiliate his followers. In order to counteract such a despicable death, the Church began to invent its own story as to why Jesus died.
The writer of Hebrews compared Jesus' death to that of a Passover Lamb. That symbolism works just a little bit and would resonate with a Jewish audience, but have little to do with non-Jewish people. The symbolism doesn't work completely, though, because the Passover Lamb was not a lamb of atonement. In fact, the animal that was set aside for atonement wasn't a lamb at all: It was a goat. The goat was the animal where the sins of the nation were set upon on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Even then, it wasn't sacrificed, but forced to be abandoned in the wilderness. (See Leviticus 16:7-10.)
In more recent soteriology, many Christians love the idea of "penal substitution," the theory that Jesus had to die to take away the sins of the world and without his death, we couldn't be saved. God's wrath demands a sacrifice and it is only appeased by blood.
I reject that notion. I reject the idea that God needs blood in order to satiate God's wrath.
So I reject outright the idea that Jesus even needed to die for my sins. He did not. Such a notion makes God into a bloodthirsty deity with no regard for grace and mercy. God's "wrath" does not need to be satisfied. Let us think about this rationally: If all we needed to do was to sacrifice Jesus, logically, the quickest and easiest way (and the most barbaric way), would be to do it when Jesus was a baby. If God demanded a blood sacrifice from a human (which goes against the Torah) (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31), this would be the most expedient way. However, the idea that Jesus had to be sacrificed to appease God's wrath is illogical.
If that's the case, where does salvation come from? Where is healing in this world? Jesus gave it to us already. When Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God, it was something that was meant for this world, not some afterlife. God's kingdom was meant for now, not later. The examples given by Jesus of what the Kingdom of Heaven was like was something that we did. The Kingdom of God is how we treated each other. The Kingdom of God was showing love and mercy. The Kingdom of Heaven was found in the relationships we had with each other.
Salvation is not attained through a gruesome blood sacrifice.
Salvation came to us through the incarnation of the Christ.
This is the mystery that I am wrestling with now. If Jesus as the Christ, as the anointed one, was/is also divine, then our salvation comes through his incarnation.
Then what about his death? It was a tragedy, but I don't believe it was a necessity. It was definitely a sign of evil that we would put to death something that was so pure. We humans don't tend to learn, either. We continue to sacrifice pure things with no success. We sacrifice the children of Newtown, Connecticut. We sacrifice the Tutsis of Rwanda. We sacrifice the Jews of Europe.
Blood does not bring atonement. Blood does not bring salvation. I don't need a bath in blood to make me pure. I don't need to have my clothes washed in blood.
God is not a vampire. As the psalmist said, "You don't want sacrifices. If I gave an entirely burned offering, you wouldn't be pleased" (Psalm 51:16 CEB).
So, in rewording this doctrine, I might say:
I believe that Jesus brought healing into this world through his incarnation and life and is available for anyone who follows his teachings.
What's wrong with us? Christianity tries to answer this question. Most religions are concerned with this question, too: How can we have a better life? The sixth doctrine of The Salvation Army addresses this, but requires tons of definitions with the Christianese it uses.
This is the sixth doctrine:
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.
in 1997 I went to Germany as part of a requirement of my Master's degree to serve overseas in a missionary setting. I was invited by one of my friends to go with him to Switzerland for a youth congress he was participating in. On the bus ride to Switzerland, there was a young man who wanted to practice his English on me. He asked me which denomination I attended, in German I replied, "Die Heilsarmee" (The Salvation Army). He stumbled a bit on that and asked me, "What type of army is that? What is a 'healing army?'" This young man literally translated the word "Heil" from the German word, "heilen," which means "to heal."
In some ways, I appreciate that better than the word, "Salvation." Language is an ever-evolving thing. The doctrine here states that there is wrong in this world and the healing of this world is made by Jesus because of his suffering and death.
I agree with the first part, that Jesus came to bring healing, but I disagree with the second part, that it was accomplished by his suffering and death.
Why did Jesus die? That's a very easy question to answer. Jesus was executed for treason: for breaking the law, for being in direct opposition to Rome as a pretender to the throne. The fact that he was a descendant of David did not help matters. On a religious side, he made claims amounting to divinity, which got the religious community in an uproar.
Have you ever sought meaning in a tragedy that happened? Why did a love one die? Why did a child die? Why did a natural catastrophe happen? It's easy to impose our own meanings to tragedies after they have happened.
I am convinced that the Early Church was trying to bring meaning to the meaningless death of Jesus. In all honesty, there was nothing special about his death. Jesus died by crucifixion. It was so common that Josephus recorded roads being lined with people executed on a cross. Even the Bible stated that Jesus was crucified between two other criminals.
It only makes sense then that the Early Church sought to find meaning in an event that already occurred. Jesus' death was ignoble. It was intended to shame and humiliate his followers. In order to counteract such a despicable death, the Church began to invent its own story as to why Jesus died.
The writer of Hebrews compared Jesus' death to that of a Passover Lamb. That symbolism works just a little bit and would resonate with a Jewish audience, but have little to do with non-Jewish people. The symbolism doesn't work completely, though, because the Passover Lamb was not a lamb of atonement. In fact, the animal that was set aside for atonement wasn't a lamb at all: It was a goat. The goat was the animal where the sins of the nation were set upon on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Even then, it wasn't sacrificed, but forced to be abandoned in the wilderness. (See Leviticus 16:7-10.)
In more recent soteriology, many Christians love the idea of "penal substitution," the theory that Jesus had to die to take away the sins of the world and without his death, we couldn't be saved. God's wrath demands a sacrifice and it is only appeased by blood.
I reject that notion. I reject the idea that God needs blood in order to satiate God's wrath.
So I reject outright the idea that Jesus even needed to die for my sins. He did not. Such a notion makes God into a bloodthirsty deity with no regard for grace and mercy. God's "wrath" does not need to be satisfied. Let us think about this rationally: If all we needed to do was to sacrifice Jesus, logically, the quickest and easiest way (and the most barbaric way), would be to do it when Jesus was a baby. If God demanded a blood sacrifice from a human (which goes against the Torah) (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31), this would be the most expedient way. However, the idea that Jesus had to be sacrificed to appease God's wrath is illogical.
If that's the case, where does salvation come from? Where is healing in this world? Jesus gave it to us already. When Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God, it was something that was meant for this world, not some afterlife. God's kingdom was meant for now, not later. The examples given by Jesus of what the Kingdom of Heaven was like was something that we did. The Kingdom of God is how we treated each other. The Kingdom of God was showing love and mercy. The Kingdom of Heaven was found in the relationships we had with each other.
Salvation is not attained through a gruesome blood sacrifice.
Salvation came to us through the incarnation of the Christ.
This is the mystery that I am wrestling with now. If Jesus as the Christ, as the anointed one, was/is also divine, then our salvation comes through his incarnation.
Then what about his death? It was a tragedy, but I don't believe it was a necessity. It was definitely a sign of evil that we would put to death something that was so pure. We humans don't tend to learn, either. We continue to sacrifice pure things with no success. We sacrifice the children of Newtown, Connecticut. We sacrifice the Tutsis of Rwanda. We sacrifice the Jews of Europe.
Blood does not bring atonement. Blood does not bring salvation. I don't need a bath in blood to make me pure. I don't need to have my clothes washed in blood.
God is not a vampire. As the psalmist said, "You don't want sacrifices. If I gave an entirely burned offering, you wouldn't be pleased" (Psalm 51:16 CEB).
So, in rewording this doctrine, I might say:
I believe that Jesus brought healing into this world through his incarnation and life and is available for anyone who follows his teachings.
No comments:
Post a Comment