More Active Posts
Front Page
Pastor takes Christ out of Christianity
 |
 103 Comments |
Controversy-laden Canadian pastor Gretta Vosper’s Christ-less Christian theology—in vogue now after the release of her new book espousing it—has met with endless mockery, but not everyone is convinced it’s a trivial matter serious believers should dismiss like a “freakshow,” as Beliefnet’s Rod Dreher calls it.
“Protestantism evolves with every generation,” laments one concerned blogger, Jesse Cone, an Orthodox. “It has already begun to morph into more subtle forms of this monstrosity. This in turn has left thoughtful Protestants with a choice—and it was this pushed me towards Orthodoxy—do I succumb to ‘popular monotheism’ or find a tradition that is stable? Is it about community or Christ?”
Vosper’s Christianity, after all, only differs from Moralistic Therapeutic Deism in terminology—meaning it’s a sort of next step (the final step?) in a progression to build up a church without “a god,” Jesus, any traditions or catechism or moral absolutes. It’s already common among American youth; 61 percent of respondents to this 2007 LifeWay Research survey said the God of the Bible is “no different from the gods or spiritual beings” of other world religions.
In an interview with Canada’s National Post, David Giuliano, who heads up Vosper’s United Church of Canada, considered Canada’s most liberal mainline denomination, said if he were her, he would’ve left the ministry. Predictably, though, he told the paper “it is not his job to condemn,” adding the church “is structured in such a way that complaints have to come from the congregation.” So far, no congregant has complained. (Giuliano did make sure the Post understood he thought the word “Christian”—one that “carries the baggage of colonialism and other ills”—should “probably be phased out” in favor of “Follower of the Way” or “Follower of Jesus.”)
Defending her pro-church stance, Vosper says sticking with one “is extremely important because it can be a transformative element in individuals’ lives and communities”—a role nonspecific to Christianity, played by every religion, including the Church of Oprah, the satirical term for the religious mishmash Oprah embraced after leaving Trinity United Church of Christ (yes, that Trinity) more than two decades ago.
In Vosper’s With or Without God, which was “officially launched” this week, she dismisses Jesus as a “Middle Eastern peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a great posthumous marketing team.” Vosper likewise puts zero stock in the Virgin Birth, the necessity of sacraments or creeds, the veracity of any of the miracles or—the coup de grace—that Jesus was the Son of God.
Vosper pastors West Hill United Church (Web address: simply coolplace.ca). Its tagline: “A place to find yourself.” Short of “Being the Spirit,” the church refuses to say what it believes in for fear of alienating someone. “Jesus Christ” is excised from hymns and replaced with “glorious hope.” In fact, nothing “Christian” seems to remain at all. “There is no single meaning for the word god,” Vosper writes at her blog. “In other words, what do you mean when you ask me if I believe in god? Without knowing what you mean by that word, I simply can’t answer you.”
New York ran a feature in April on the growing squabble among atheists over whether they need to bond communally in order to have the strength and clout of a “church.” Vosper’s gospel must indeed be good news to them.
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, The World |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: , Gretta Vosper, With or Without God |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
It’s time to invade Canada and stop this nonsense! They can’t be trusted to govern themselves. The U.S. should never have given them that privilege. Oh, and if memory serves me right, they’ve got a bit of oil up there, too. You can’t ask for a better reason to invade then that. Plus, we can shut up that crazy Vosper chic. What is she? Some sort of U2 fanatic? Is she dreaming of Bono right now?
A potentially interesting argument if the “jacket” material is to be believed.
I sense possibly a defintional problem here, but if we considered the question operationally rather than definitionally, it might be interesting: short summary - if the behaviors were the same with each model, why does the strict definition matter?
It is best not to attention to whack jobs. I see no reason to make an exception for these Canadians.
Sorry, it should be - pay any attention to
There is precedent for the notion that Jesus would have supported this - The sheep and goat parable of the kingdom shows that he considered explicit acknowledgement of the “Son of Man” to be neither necessary nor sufficient.
From Matthew 25 -
34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
spinoza post 5,
nice reference.
And to muse further, so often the charge is made in this blog that one must be Christian in order to live morally, making a clear inference that Christian and moral are inextrincably linked. If one can show that this “Christ-less Christianity” results in moral behavior, then it would, as your reference would seem to note, be in fact Christian.
I did some quick checking and I was not able to find much more information on this material, so I am left to speculate just based on the dust jacket stuff.
This is not a case of, “Pastor Takes Christ Out of Christianity.”
It is a case of, “Pastor Takes Herself Out of Christianity.”
Michael Martin post 7,
indeed if one takes Christ totally out of Christianity, it would seem that there is a definitional problem.
I believe Vosper, Spinoza and I had asked a slightly different question however:
if the spiritual support system results in idientical behaviors from its participants as if they were Christian, is it operationally Christian?
And of course this open up the deeper questions of how each of us express our Christianity.
So spinoza and arguably Vosper appear to be basing their suggested agument based on behaviors, for Spinoza as referenced in Matthew.
And of course one of the common strains of discussion in this blog is that one must be Christian so one can be moral (there are a variety of forms of this argument).
My personal thoughts are:
1) they do not appear to be Christian (definitonal statement based on the minimal definition of Christian)
2) they may be behaving in a moral and arguably Christian manner
And are we more interested in the words and forms or the spirituality and morality?
Sounds like Unitarian Universalism to me, which is nothing new.
“And of course one of the common strains of discussion in this blog is that one must be Christian so one can be moral”
I’m not sure where you’re getting this, Musing. One can be moral and not be a Christian. One cannot be saved unless they are a Christian. There is no justification before God in morality except through the perfect morality of Christ.
The proper understanding would be that God does not see you as moral unless you are in Christ. Then God sees you in Christ’s righteousness. Without Christ, your morality are but filthy rags. That doesn’t mean non-Christians can’t be fine, upstanding, moral citizens. It does mean that despite all their efforts, they fall far short of God’s standard just like the Christians would if they didn’t have Christ.
#9 It would be new to call it “Christianity”
So, I’m clothed in Christ’s righteousness; not my own.
Sam Kinison (himself a lapsed pastor) once made the observation: “Have you heard about the entertainmt group, Rock Against Drugs? Rock Against Drugs?!! That’s like Christianity without Christ.”
You were quite prophetic, Sam.
#10 - And yet, Matthew 25 illustrates salvation on the basis of helping others… Perhaps this illustrates a fundamental incompatibility between the soteriology of Paul (and modern evangelicals) and the original teachings of Jesus!
#13 So I take it you think Christianity without Christ is a good thing? Or at least better for one’s mental health?
Gretta Vosper and Bishop Shelby Spong should perhaps compare notes, enjoy a dialogue etc. Anything but mate and reproduce!
Spong’s a little old to be reproducing, but it does sound like they are kindred souls. I will maybe check out her book. I generally like Spong. (I’m sure that comes as no shock to anyone here.)
Spinoza,
You make a mistake by assuming that it is the actions that save and not the faith. Faith expresses itself in actions, but it is the faith in Christ that saves, not the response to Christ’s saving work. We are not justified/saved by works.
In With or Without God, her book that was formally launched this week, she writes that Jesus was a “Middle Eastern peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a great posthumous marketing team.”
How True!
#17 - Sure according to Paul, but in Matthew 25 it is literally the opposite. Why is that?
Spinoza,
Matthew 25 is not “literally” anything. In fact, it’s a series of parables; dark sayings if you will.
Regarding your 18th comment, if it were true, Christ is a liar and we should just throw out the whole thing.
Thank God it’s not true. Really, you should thank God; become a Christian. As God’s creature, it’s really your only appropriate response.
And of course this open up the deeper questions of how each of us express our Christianity.
Christians express their Christianity through acts of love (as in the sheep/goats Scriture cited earlier). Unbelievers express the conscience God has put within them through similar acts of love (but perhaps not as frequently, or for different motives.)
Let’s not confuse the EFFECT with the CAUSE. Those caused by Christ to acts of love are showing evidence of true saving faith; those pricked on by conscience are showing only a lingering sense of guilt. The EFFECT is the same: the acts of love; but salvation (and thus Christianity) can be determined by the cause.
Matthew 25 is not “literally” anything. In fact, it’s a series of parables; dark sayings if you will.
OK - but the clear message of this parable is that people who do not serve the “Son of Man” indirectlty in the form of helping others will not be saved. People who do, whether or not they acknowledge Jesus as the “Son of Man,” will be saved. You are simply avoiding the whole message of this passage by calling it a “dark saying,” as if it had a totally enigmatic meaning. Clearly the reason you do this is because you can’t accept the very plain and simple meaning, because it doesn’t fit with your harmonization of the NT centered on Pauline statements. I strongly doubt that Jesus’ contemporaries had any trouble understanding this parable (as they obviously did with some others).
Regarding your 18th comment, if it were true, Christ is a liar and we should just throw out the whole thing.
That doesn’t follow at all - the more logical conclusion is that claims about Christ’s unique divinity, etc., were exagerrated after his death and not actually made by him.
wiglaf post 10,
actually in this blog we often see arguments of the form if one is not Christian one can not be moral since there is no moral authority to enforce or provide this morality.
So I am looking at the morality issue and considering spinoza’s Matthew reference.
I think I tend to disagree with what seems to be your version of Christinaity here, but perhaps this hinges on what you mean by being saved.
wiglaf post 20,
but Jesus was a middle-eastern peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a tremendous posthumous marketing team.
The open question is: was he more. I suggest yes, but spinoza’s statements is indeed factual so far as it goes.
kimberly post 21:
an interesting insight:
“but salvation (and thus Christianity) can be determined by the cause.”
It seems to me, however, that this itself possibly opens an itneresting question: are we Chrisitians in order to achieve salvaton or are we Christians because we believe that is what we ought to be or do?
So lets ask the following question: if Jesus said that we must follow certain precepts because that is God’s law and intent BUT that following them would lead us to eternal damnation, what would we do?
Kimberly - Those caused by Christ to acts of love are showing evidence of true saving faith; those pricked on by conscience are showing only a lingering sense of guilt. The EFFECT is the same: the acts of love; but salvation (and thus Christianity) can be determined by the cause.
Complete nonsense!
Love (not guilt) is a universal value in religions across the board. This is just another twisted way of saying, “My religious tribe is the only one that can have eternal life.” And as far as I can tell, most American evangelicals speak and act almost completely out of guilt with very little “love” in evidence anywhere!
More of the NT disagrees with your claim that one cannot discern the presence of salvation by effect:
I John 3:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
p.s. If I had to use the Matt. 25 or I John criteria to decide who was more with God - the Dalai Lama or, say, James Dobson - I would unequivocally choose the Dalai Lama.
“I strongly doubt that Jesus’ contemporaries had any trouble understanding this parable”
Here’s a prophecy for you: Psalm 78:2 “I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:”
Matthew 13:10-17 “And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given…therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand…”
I recommend reading the whole passage.
To argue that Christians are saved by works/morality is to not understand Christians at all nor the gospel message.
#28 Yes I know the disciples were easily confused - but I don’t think the Matt. 25 parable falls into the category of a “hard saying.” Camel through the eye of needle, maybe, but not the sheep and goat judgment!
In any case, if you are still saying the sheep-goat parable is a “dark saying,” you must not be one of those to whom it “has been given” to understand.
#29 To argue that Christians are saved by works/morality is to not understand Christians at all nor the gospel message.
I well understand that evangelicals swallow the Pauline theology of substitionary atonement hook, line, and sinker and consider this essential to salvation. I used to preach this myself and made many converts who still believe it. But there is no evidence that Jesus taught this.
Having said that, I readily acknowledge the psychological cathartic power in the forgiveness and clean-slate redemption of Paul’s message. He no doubt felt this keenly as a former murderer of Christians. But I don’t think one needs to explicitly believe in substitionary atonement to have this kind of redemptive religious experience of forgiveness or “as is” acceptance by God or the Universe (whoever she/it may be).
Spinoza,
Clearly, anyone can deceive themselves into believing they are having a “redemptive religious experience.” So, you’re right, one does not need to explicitly believe in substitutionary atonement to have such an experience.
Actually, the disciples understood the “camel through the eye of the needle” better than many of us. Calling something a dark or mysterious saying may mean that it is mysterious to some and not others or is mysterious to everyone. It doesn’t mean the caller is saying they don’t understand it. Because you work so hard to misunderstand me, I’m not surprised that you’ve chosen to deceive yourself regarding scripture. I hope you have a change of heart, Spinoza.
wiglaf post 29,
and yet Matthew suggests that without works Christians are not saved either.
I sense a puzzlement.
And perhaps it is even worth exploring what might be meant by believing in Jesus.
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” — John 3:18
wiglaf post 31,
when you comment to spinoza:
” I’m not surprised that you’ve chosen to deceive yourself regarding scripture. ”
I sense that perhaps we might need some specifics here. It is pretty evident that spinoza is very familair with scripture. I sense that he interprets it differently than you do. For a variety of reasons there appears to be much ambiguity in scripture. We can explore the details of the ambiguity, but since there is much ambiguity in scripture, a disagremeent would not seem to me to necessitate that spinoza does not understand.
Perhaps more details, specifics, and perhaps the reasons for deriving this perspective would be useful here?
wiglaf post 33,
which when compared to Matthew 25 demonstrates my observation of ambiguity completely! Nicely done.
I find for myself that xion’s “holographic model” is useful here. Keep dropping out pieces of the Gospel story and examine what is left.
When xion performed this exercise, xion’s conlcuded that the “holographic message” of the Gospel is one of love. If you accept this model, then it would seem that the remaining verses need to be considered in this context of love as the dominant theme and the remaining verses need to be understood in the context of this model of love.
Matthew 25 now becomes very straightforward and clear. Perhaps believing in Jesus then becomes a way of expressing love?
And while one might argue that only believers may obtain salvation (leaving open the question of what is salvation, what is a believer, etc.) it does not directly follow that non-believers are damned.
My sense is that your argument sounds a bit rigid.
Musing 25–The point is moot because God, being a loving God who does not want any to perish!–will not command us to do something that leads us to eternal salvation.
The Christian life is not a static thing but a changing undulating experience, so that one who becomes a Christian merely to be saved may later grow so that his faith becomes less of a lifeboat and more of a relationship with His saviour.
So regarding this point: are we Chrisitians in order to achieve salvaton or are we Christians because we believe that is what we ought to be or do?” …
we are often Christians to achieve salvation and (maybe later) Christians because that is what we believe we WANT (not ought) to be. Christianity is not grounded in rules but in love and in desire for God.
#31/33 Because you work so hard to misunderstand me,
I think I understand you perfectly well, WIGLAF. I just respectfully disagree.
Or, as Victoria would say:
James 2:
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
by works was faith made perfect;
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?
22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.
25 And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?
Musing,
Spinoza said “But there is no evidence that Jesus taught this.” regarding substitionary atonement.
The Lord’s supper is a teaching of substitutionary atonement. John 6:51 is a teaching of substitutionary atonement. All of scripture and redemptive history points toward substitutionary atonement.
Regarding Matthew 25, I’ve tried to explain soteriology to you, Musing. Matthew 25 must be understood in light of that, not the other way around. Have you considered that the sheep and the goats are separated before the judgment even begins? Is this temporal or eternal? Or is it a mixture of temporal and eternal? Is this parable a reference to a real event? Musing, you can come to many conclusions regarding the meaning of this passage. Are you going to base your entire understanding of Christianity on the parable of the sheep and goats AS YOU SEE IT??
Spinoza, and therefore substitutionary atonement is bait for the ignorant masses, because of how you interpret James?
Spinoza 26–
An answer to your arguments:
* “Love (not guilt) is a universal value in religions across the board.”
Is it really? I believe avoiding suffering and achievig Nirvana is THE universal value of Buddhism; Islam is founded on plain obedience to Allah with promise of physical reward in heaven. Mormons want to be become their own gods. Christianity is the only religion driven by love.
* “as far as I can tell, most American evangelicals speak and act almost completely out of guilt with very little “love” in evidence anywhere!” Too true, Spinoza. And many American evangelicals aren’t really Christians. The contemporary Christian church has in many ways lost a true devotion for Christ.
*”More of the NT disagrees with your claim that one cannot discern the presence of salvation by effect”: Scripture warns against wolves in sheeps’ clothing, those who will look like Christians on the outside but really aren’t. Dante (and his translator Esolen) have suggested that in Heaven, we will be surprised by who is there and who is not, because the love shown by general humanity masquerades so well as Christian love. It is hard to tell. But when I said “salvation (and thus Christianity) can be determined by the cause,” that simply means that we have to look at WHY the person seems loving than WHAT exactly they are doing.
For example, it is possible for me to feed a homeless person because a)I want to assauge my guilt or b) because Christ commanded love. And nobody ever know the difference.
My comment is probably more helpful for people to examine their own hearts and not go around questioning other people’s motives.
John 6:51 is a teaching of substitutionary atonement. All of scripture and redemptive history points toward substitutionary atonement.
Academic biblical scholars have shown repeatedly why John’s account of the last supper, written many decades after the fact, is not a historical account of what took place, but a theological fiction concocted to make just the point you’re making.
#40 - I believe avoiding suffering and achieving Nirvana is THE universal value of Buddhism
You are confusing values with eschatology. “Compassion” is the primary value of Tibetan Buddhism. Might as well say that avoiding HELL and achieving HEAVEN is THE universal value for evangelicals.
Wiglaf, Thank you for your efforts with these particular individuals. I understand everything you are saying.
What is YOUR confession of Faith, Musing? In #32- What does it mean to You to beleive in Jesus? We put our faith into words and you deny our statements and question God’s Word, but yet claim Christianity. Nothing you say tells me you are Christian. If I were to name your faith as described in your posts I would say you worship the god “Denial”.
Spinoza, and therefore substitutionary atonement is bait for the ignorant masses, because of how you interpret James?
No - it is wrong for other reasons, not the least of which is that it requires a literal Adam and literal original Sin (As in Adam all die; In Christ all are made alive), and there was none.
What Matthew, Mark, James, and the earliest Christian texts show, however, is that - in all likelihood - literal substituationary atonement was not taught by Jesus, either. It possibly grew out of an early communal meal post-crucifixion, but was not taught by Jesus himself.
“literal original Sin” - I should have probably said “literal Fall through disobedience in the Garden.”
erratum 2 - John 6:51 isn’t precisely the last supper, but presages it.
Now how could one have the “atonement” aspect of Christianity without Christ?
Easy - a communal meal that affirms God’s presence in Christ’s or anybody else’s sufferings together with God’s forgiveness, all the while affirming the need to forgive each other in order to receive that forgiveness, would work just as well (or BETTER) at increasing love in the world than having to say credo to evangelical theology.
Spinoza, your comment number 45 merely confirms my suspicion that you have no desire to actually understand what I’m stating. You really seem only interested in trying to poke holes in my arguments whenever you can whether your criticisms have merit or not.
This really isn’t an appropriate venue for laying out redemptive history, covenants, soteriology, justification, etc. all under one post. So, I’m going to end my comments on this post with this one.
Spinoza … so as is sometimes said, the religion of Jesus has become a religion about Jesus.
Mitcon - 42
I have often wondered, others have asked, and there is never an answer. A straight answer would entail some of the gamesmanship, at least that is my observation.
#47 - I think you are wrong, if that’s what you mean, but I still think I understand you well enough.
re: - laying out redemptive history, covenants, soteriology, justification, …
Heard all that - I think that, for the most part, it is a bunch of selective re-interpretation of the bible aimed at harmonization around a particular theology that does great violence to the intent and meaning of the original writers, who present a diverse and frequently inconsistent point of view.
You are confusing values with eschatology. “Compassion” is the primary value of Tibetan Buddhism.
Actually, eschatology is the study of the end times.
“compassion” is a value of Buddhism, as it leads to achieving Nirvana. “Love”–not compassion, there is a difference–is the value of Christianity, with the goal of love (really: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart.” Notice it does not say, “You shall strive for heaven with all your heart.)
#51 You seem to be differentiating between love of God and love of fellow man (compassion), but the bible equates these. Although I agree the “personhood” of the Christian God makes loving him/her more anthropologically familiar, I still fail to see substantive differences between, say, Nirvana and beatific vision.
Where (or as what) Buddhists or Christians think they eventually end up, whether Nirvana or Heaven, is indeed a matter of final “end times” (used in a very broad sense, admittedly) or eschatology.
Take a look at Seu’s “Time to Tell” post for a revealing look at how goal-directed (rather than “love” directed) at least one World writer is.
“I well understand that evangelicals swallow the Pauline theology of substitionary(sic) atonement hook, line, and sinker and consider this essential to salvation. I used to preach this myself and made many converts who still believe it. But there is no evidence that Jesus taught this.”
Paul’s epistles were written and widely circulated among the churches before any of the Gospels were written. They are the earliest extant historical documents relating to Jesus of Nazareth. There were a great number of people present in those churches, including many of the Apostles and the evangelists who wrote the Gospels who spent time with Jesus and heard His teaching first hand. If Paul contradicted Christ’s testimony they would never have had the support and respect of the early churches. The historical evidence supports a close continuity with what Paul taught about Jesus and what His disciples understood about His teaching.
“In With or Without God, her book that was formally launched this week, she writes that Jesus was a “Middle Eastern peasant with a few charismatic gifts and a great posthumous marketing team.”
How True!
How untrue, unless you amend it to read “postposthumous.” He rose from the grave and is no longer dead!
Good comments, Ken. As far as the “no evidence that Jesus taught [substitutionary atonement]”, I might add the following:
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45; cf. Matthew 20:28)
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” (John 10:11)
For pre-”Evangelical” examples of Christians holding to and defending substitutionary atonement, consider the following resources:
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/category/5/15/52/
http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/dabney_substitute.html#chapter9
I just read Flannery O’Connor’s first novel Wise Blood this week with Hazel Motes and his Church Without Christ and now I see this. You just can’t do satire anymore because nothing is too absurd to be reality.
#5:There is precedent for the notion that Jesus would have supported this - The sheep and goat parable of the kingdom shows that he considered explicit acknowledgement of the “Son of Man” to be neither necessary nor sufficient.
v 37″Then the righteous will answer him,….
How did they become righteous? Were they righteous and the good works were a result of that or did the good works make them righteous?
And yet, Matthew 25 illustrates salvation on the basis of helping others… Perhaps this illustrates a fundamental incompatibility between the soteriology of Paul (and modern evangelicals) and the original teachings of Jesus!
Matthew 25 does NOT illustrate salvation on the basis of helping others. Jesus is not making that point at all. Rather, he is making the complete opposite point of Gretta Vosper.
The parable speaks, not about how we treat each other as human beings, but it speaks about how we treat Jesus and his disciples.
Notice the emphasis Jesus places on himself.
For I was hungry, and you gave Me [something] to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me [something] to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in . . .
The parable illustrates the question: “What do you do about Jesus?” Do you like him or hate him. Do you agree with him or not?
But Jesus was going away and so the question becomes, how do we make sense of that question when Jesus is not physically present with us?
When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?”
Jesus answers by saying that how we treat his disciples is indicative of how we would treat him if he were here.
The King will answer and say to them, `Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, [even] the least [of them], you did it to Me.’
The term “brothers” in this context refers to his followers, as he says elsewhere.
“Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
I well understand that evangelicals swallow the Pauline theology of substitionary atonement hook, line, and sinker and consider this essential to salvation. I used to preach this myself and made many converts who still believe it. But there is no evidence that Jesus taught this.
It’s really hard to believe someone’s claim to have taught the scriptures coming from someone who does not get the Bible’s core theme. This concept is taught throughout the entire Bible using a variety of metaphors: passover lamb’s blood on the door posts, sacrificial lamb, sin offerings, scapegoat, ransom of the first born of Israel, among others. And we read David’s commentary on this aspect of his faith in places like Psalm 32 (true sacrifice is a contrite heart) and Psalm 51 (an appeal for forgiveness in the presence of a just God.) And Isaiah says somewhere,
But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being [fell] upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
The idea of substitutionary atonement did not originate with Paul, and it did not originate with Jesus. This concept was well established before Jesus arrived to fulfill it as the Hebrew scriptures anticipated it, which was the context into which Paul’s statements were made and Jesus’ sacrificial action took place.
God set up the entire Jewish praxis to anticipate this event.
Christians, read your scriptures.
Another thing Christians should learn to do is spot pride when it walks up and introduces itself. The author of this book thinks very highly of her own intellect if she thinks that “glorious hope” is a workable substitute for all that Jesus Christ was and is and will be. Only someone whose mind is overburdened with his or her own importance could think that mere hope - albeit, glorious hope - would suffice for all that Jesus has done for us. He is my Lord, my Savior and everything in between. Nothing else can replace that or do the work that He has done. Let’s not waste time with fooling ourselves into thinking there is anything that is His equal.
Americanee-How true ! This is called the Theology of Glory. This thinking leads us to beleive that we can create our own way to salvation without the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He did it all!! We can do nothing!!
Roger-#58 You are correct as well. God has many pictures of Christ and Substitutionary atonement throughout scripture. Probably the first is in Genesis 3:21 when God made garments of skin (something had to die) to cover them (their sin).
Spinoza 52–
You seem to be differentiating between love of God and love of fellow man (compassion), but the bible equates these.
Sort of … we in Christian circles usually distinguish between the vertical expression of our faith (love and worship of God, expressed in obedience) and the horizontal relationship (compassion to fellow man, for a Christian, a direct response to the vertical relationship; Jesus said to Peter, “If you love me, feed my sheep,” sheep being fellow believers.) The horizontal relationship proceeds from the vertical relationship and is an outward manifestation of the vertical relationship. While compassion for fellow man may exist without love for God, love for God will not exist without compassion for fellow man. (The Apostle John warned against those who said they loved God and then hated their brother.)
I still fail to see substantive differences between, say, Nirvana and beatific vision.
The difference is in the focus of delight: Nirvana involves a personless state of “joy” if you will, while the beatific vision is a vision of God as He allows Himself to be understood. The one is rather like the Nexus of Star Trek fame and often described as extinction or absorbtion into a group, the other an individual expression of a relationship.
Personally, I’d far rather have the beatific vision than Nirvana.
We Christians have goals other than love (love itself, alone, with no obedience involved, quickly degenerates into the free love of the 60s and 70s) but love itself grounds all other goals. (What is the end of man? To love God and/by enjoying Him forever. … also, Thou shalt LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart.)
Thus, the difference lies in the existence of that vertical relationship. Other religions–such as Buddhism–have horizontal relationships that encourage compassion for fellow man, but then there is no higher power, no God for a vertical relationship. Christianity alone suggests that we can actually LOVE a personal God.
Kimberly … I don’t have time to untangle all the errors in #62, but briefly:
I don’t see any indication that Jesus limits compassion to fellow Christians. Jesus also told a parable of a shepherd who left the 99 safe sheep to seek and save the one lost sheep. The image of the shepherd is of one who cares for all the sheep, regardless of whether they currently belong to him.
The repeated claims that “Christianity alone… ” are almost always false. In this case, Judaism and Islam both offer a personal God as an object of love.
Also, you assume without warrant that this is a superior situation.
STEVEG–
“Sheep” does specifically refer to fellow believers, which happened to be the verse I used, but we would certainly be at fault if we turned a blind eye to needy people, whatever religion they might hold.
I don’t see any indication that Jesus limits compassion to fellow Christians.
And I didn’t mean to suggest that.
Judaism and Islam both offer a personal God as an object of love. Well, we discussed in an earlier thread whether Judaism’s God and Christianity’s God are the same.
My take on it is that Jews and Christians worship the same God. Islam is not a god of love … he is a remote god who created the world and then left it to its own devices. He offers little mercy or love, instead leaving infidels in threat of violence and hell (at least in earlier stages of the religion) and its own adherents bound to a strict religious code. Note especially Islam’s treatment of women.
The repeated claims that “Christianity alone… ” are almost always false.
Not necessarily … Christianity itself claims to be an exclusive religion (”Thou shalt have no other gods before me;” and “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me; “He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son has not life.”) Now, we can take that exclusivism and work with it and recognize God’s offer of grace within it, or we can dismiss it and choose our own path. But we must recognize at least that Christianity itself claims to be exclusive, whatever else we may believe. (Note that I am not addressing whether unbelievers have the opportunity to be converted after death … that is an argument for another time.)
I’m not sure what you’re referring to that “this is a superior situation.” If you mean love of a personal God rather than an unconscious state like Nirvana, I thought that was rather self-explanatory. I’d much rather have a real human being as a friend than a an electronic gizmo or one of these “boyfriend/girlfriend pillows.”
If not, then clarify and I’ll re-explain.
Part of the problem with these disagreements is a faulty understanding of “love.” Too often love becomes an ooey-gooey, warm, fuzzy, feeling, but this not a biblical understanding of love. Love is indeed seen in one’s actions toward another (e.g., 1 Corinthians 13), and from a biblical perspective, love implies giving. For instance, consider:
John 3:16 — “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son…”
Ephesians 5:25 — “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…”
Certainly, in both cases, love is demonstrated in actions, which helps clarify the Matthew 25 parable. Also note that in both texts cited, the doctrines of the Trinity and the substitutionary atonement are involved, which goes to Kimberly’s comments about Christianity.
Another faulty contribution from the vanilla definition of love popular in today’s culture is a failure to distinguish in the application of love. I can love my wife, love my neighbor, and love my enemies, but I do not love them all in exactly the same way. It would be foolish (and adulterous!) to suggest otherwise. In the same way, if I am called to love the LORD with all my heart/strength/mind, I can scarcely hope to love my neighbor in exactly the same way, since this would take away from the first great love, but rather I am called to love my neighbor in “different” way, as I love myself. This does not excuse me from loving others, only to point out that there is a qualitative difference involved.
A correct understanding of this last point will do wonders to clarify some of the mistakes made in interpreting the biblical text. For example, Roger was absolutely correct in # 57 to point out the specific mention of “brethren” in Matthew 25 (and Kimberly was absolutely correct to point out similarities in 1 John 4:20).
In its proper context, Matthew 25 actually contains 3 parables (the ten virgins, the talents, the sheep/goats) all of which as eschatological in nature (they deal with judgment, and specifically with unpreparedness, unfaithfulness, and rejection of Christ) and are connect to the previous chapters of Matthew, which deal with the failings of the Jewish leaders (the woes of chapter 22) and the coming destruction of Jerusalem (the Olivet discourse of chapter 23). All these things are tied to the rejection of the Messiah by the religious establishment. In this context, the message of the sheep/goats parable is understood (especially the close-knit family structure of an Ancient Near Eastern context in which the words were uttered) to indicate that the way one treats the members of a family indicates how one really feels about the entire family. IOW, if one mistreats the brethren of Christ (the followers of Christ), that is a pretty good indication of what one thinks of Jesus Himself. This does not excuse Christians from loving others (including those outside the church), but it does reinforce how Christians are to treat one another (and if they are not, then they need to do some serious self-examination!), and it indicates that love and faithfulness are not demonstrated merely in one’s words but are evident by one’s actions.
But there is no loophole in the text to suggest that one is saved apart from Jesus Christ. Rather, it indicates the unfaithfulness of the prevailing Jewish leadership because they rejected Jesus as Messiah; they claimed to love God and follow His commandments, but this was shown to be false in the way they treated Christ and His followers.
#58 et al. - “atonement” and “ransom” are admittedly jewish themes in the OT, but neither of these is identical to the evangelical interpretation of “substitionary atonement” which includes “penal substition” - i.e., punishment is directly applied to a surrogate and, without acceptance of the surrogate punishment, one is left “unsaved” to receive the punishment for oneself. One blatent inconsistency in this notion lies in the fact that Christ allegedly died and was resurrected after only 3 days, whereas evangelicals believe that unbelievers will suffer eternal torment. So there is no 1:1 correspondence between punishments. For the record, many Christian theologies do not hold this view of either salvation or of the manner in which sins are forgiven, including the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican communions. That’s why these still require acts of penance and reparation (not just “faith”) to receive forgiveness.
There is no compelling evidence that Jesus believed either that he was divine or that his death would accomplish penal substition for believers in his divinity.
Spinoza–
Let me address this backwards:
* There is no compelling evidence that Jesus believed either that he was divine or that his death would accomplish penal substition for believers in his divinity.
Whatever we may personally believe about Christ’s divinity, He at least believed He was divine. (”I and the Father are one; You believe in God, believe also in me.; before Abraham was, I am.) Considering that the last comment incited the Jews to stone him, we know at least they took him seriously.
* his death would accomplish penal substition for believers in his divinity.
Actually, this too is a basic Biblical tenet of the Christian faith. Romans (a foundational book, whatever Obama says!) 5:8, “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.)
God is actually quite clear, but since his “thoughts are higher than [our] thoughts,” theology often gets rather lost in translation, so to speak. We have trouble articulating and expressing in human terms what God has given us, which is why, when we are trying to develop a theology, whether we are believers or not, we need to return to Scripture.
And Scripture says that Christ is central to Christianity: you cannot have Christianity’s moral code without Christ, because of course our faith is so much more than a moral code, as I’ve tried to show in my previous posts.
“Apart from me, you can do nothing.”
#67 Quoting scriptures shows only that, decades after the fact, there were Christians who believed in Jesus’ divinity and centrality to salvation.
NT studies reveal the evolution of these ideas. Jesus is most “divine” in the comparatively late Johannine texts, least “divine” in the earliest Gospel of Mark (still written at least 2 decades after the historical events). Paul did not know the historical Jesus; his reflections are not a reliable guide to Jesus’ beliefs. Except perhaps for Luke (also not a historical contemporary of Jesus), the direct writers of the Gospels were not the same men as in the title (earliest manuscripts of Mark don’t even have “Mark” as a title), and they had no historical overlap with Jesus either.
There is a core of sayings that cuts across the synoptic gospels and the gospel of Thomas. This core is probably the earliest record of what Jesus actually said - there are no claims of divinity here and not a hint of the idea of penal substition!
Scripture says that Christ is central to Christianity: you cannot have Christianity’s moral code without Christ, because of course our faith is so much more than a moral code,
I largely agree with this as a statement of what you believe, but the faith of Christianity is a very different animal than what Jesus actually taught!
Christianity alone suggests that we can actually LOVE a personal God.
So Judaism does not suggest this, not even in Deuteronomy 6:5?
Spinoza, you wrote, “There is no compelling evidence that Jesus believed either that he was divine or that his death would accomplish penal substition for believers in his divinity.”
I agree that this is a statementof what you believe. You might not feel that the Scriptures are “compelling evidence” but that does not mean that they are not. I have noticed from other threads that you have a strong tendency to state what you wish to be true as fact. In Scripture Jesus discusses His divinity with His followers and it is attested to by others. If you decide that this is not compelling evidence for you, you have made your decision. But that is far from being a fact.
#71 - Statements of evangelical credo or citations of scriptures are not fact, even though they are routinely affirmed as such throughout WOW.
#71 p.s. - I consider my statement bolded in #66 to be the most probable interpretation (as does most of academic biblical scholarship), given the evidence, not a “fact” in the colloquially used sense.
Evangelical assertions, on the other hand, are interpretations that best harmonize with a pre-existing theology, often in contradiction of the best evidence available.
# 66: I am curious; what exactly would be “compelling evidence”? It has been provided that such language can be found in the NT; it has been provided that Jesus Himself used atonement and ransom language; others have indicated that Jesus spoke of His deity (to the point that the Jews sought to stone Him for it); links have been provided that point to such beliefs in the early church (that would be pre Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical, what-have-you). Given the extent of what has already been posted, what further evidence would be needed? There is a huge difference in not having having said evidence and in not choosing to believe said evidence. If by “compelling” you simply mean “I’ve seen it but I don’t accept it”, then this is another matter entirely. If you are demanding that something exist which cannot and/or could not exist, then this is an unreasonable demand, especially since it would be inconsistent with other things that you would presumably accept as “compelling evidence.”
You comments at the end of # 68 indicate part of the problem: you seem to have been influenced by the writings of proponents of the Jesus Seminar. The fact that you are critical of Mark because of its dating but willing to accept the so-called Gospel of Thomas (most likely written a century after the Synoptics) is one such inconsistency. Paul is not accepted but “Thomas” is — this has very little to do with evidence and far more to do with presuppositions. And it would be quite a stretch to assert that the Jesus Seminar represents the “best evidence available.”
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul states what many scholars — liberal, conservative, and even non-Christian — consider to be an early Christian creed that surfaced within a short time (perhaps only a few months) after the crucifixion of Jesus. That would make these words pre-Pauline in a sense, and certainly pre all those other traditions mentioned above. At the very least they would see to be “compelling” as to what early Christians actually believed, rather than later (19th century and later) re-statements about early Christian beliefs:
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)
Spinoza: “Statements of evangelical credo or citations of scriptures are not fact, even though they are routinely affirmed as such throughout WOW.”
Dude, I hate to keep harping on this, but you are doing it again. You like certain scholarship better than other scholarship [as TJ points out above] but your preference for certain scholarship does not make the conclusions of that scholarship facts. It might be more “accepted” scholarship by some people but other conclusions by other scholars are more “accepted” by other people. Why does your preference trump all the others?
#74 Still no evidence that the historical Jesus believed he was either God or a penal substitute, just that a group of people came to believe this within the following decades. This growth of belief following a founder’s death is common in religion, generally; why should Christianity be the only one in which 2 decades (at least) of oral transmission is suddenly historically reliable? Given the history of religion, generally, the fundamental assumption should be that later statements, especially with miraculous claims, should be viewed skeptically. You don’t really think that Augustus was born of a virgin simply because Suetonius should be taken at face value?
Trivia - Unless I remember wrong (entirely possible), the earliest Gosp/Thomas manuscript is not substantially later for than the synoptics, except perhaps for fragments of Mark. However, it shows amazing overlap with sayings in the synoptics with no evidence of borrowing from or even knowing of the existence of those gospels. I agree with the conclusion, therefore, that it was probably written earlier. But that’s not really important - what is important is the overlap in Jesus’ sayings between Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Thomas, and that this overlap has nothing like the affirmations of Paul or John (including the early credal formula in I Corinthians 15).
What is the attraction with the Gospel of Thomas? Why do you want that to be true?
#75 You like certain scholarship better than other scholarship
Yes, I do - I like good scholarship as opposed to theologically confined efforts to twist Biblical interpretation to agree with prior belief. I used to read only a lot of religious, conservative and non-scholarly biblical commentary. But the overwhelming dishonesty of it became apparent when I began reading more serious scholars, starting with Raymond Brown and continuing on to Crossan (who TJ hates, admittedly).
#77 - What is the attraction with the Gospel of Thomas? Why do you want that to be true?
The Gospel of Thomas is not “true.” It’s early and historically important. Why the fascination with only canonized writings of the period? Why do you want them only to be “true?” I know the answer - it’s not because they are historically more compelling, it’s because they agree with your theology! That’s why they were selected for canonical placement in the NT in the first place.
Spinoza, I misunderstood your purpose in studying and discussing Scripture. I thought you read these things for spiritual enlightenment. I see now that your reading of Scripture isn’t connected to your spirituality or to anything of non-material concern. As a historian, I can see why you might like something like the Gospel of Thomas just the way I also like to read and study the diplomatic correspondences that led to the first world war.