Area 4 of questioning
The Hebrew sacrificial system which is biblically said to facilitate reconciliation between God and humans, and which helps create the basis of the church’s present Fall/Redemption theology.
This fundamental arises directly out of the previous one and it is central to the Christian message I have been taught. The so-called gulf that exists between God and human-beings needs to be dealt with. Reconciliation needs to occur. Together with the previous three fundamentals, this fourth is crucial in presenting a unified framework to me and other church-goers, for understanding the meaning and purpose of the Cross of Jesus. The Cross has always been central to my instruction of the Christian faith. It has dwarfed all other Christian considerations.
This fourth fundamental is a little more obscure for some regular church-goers because I think many may not know a great deal about the Hebrew customs of sacrifice; certainly not the details of their observance. I think most regular church-goers might have the idea that offerings or sacrifices were made in the past to God, to thank God for God’s goodness and also made to pay compensation for wrong doing. These sacrifices prompted repentance.
In the Cruden’s Complete Bible Concordance, it gives a statement about sacrifice.
A sacrifice is - An offering of any sort to a deity with the idea of procuring favour or avoiding disaster. The idea of sacrifice is deeply rooted in the instincts of humanity; for it is found among every race at the earliest known period of its history as a well-established and thoroughly understood custom. The sacrifices were, in general, of two sorts,
1. the offering of the first fruits, or of incense, to show the dependence of man on his deity, and to thank him for his benefits;
2. the burnt offering, to appease an angry God when displeased and ready to bring distress upon him. ……
The Book of Hebrews shows how Jesus Christ, in becoming a sacrifice for man, made further sacrifices unnecessary.[1]
This Hebrew sacrificial system, I believe, forms part of the church-accepted theological basis for not only harmonising, to some extent, the Old and the New Testaments in the evolution of its religious thought, but also it has created an historical basis, essential for the way most church-goers enter into the personal significance of the sacrament of Holy Communion - the Mass.
All this has been encapsulated for me, in the word ‘atonement’. My understanding of the church teaching I received regarding the ‘atoning’ work of Christ Jesus, is that Jesus freely offered himself as the sacrifice for sin; my sin.
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sin to deliver us from the present evil age… (Galatians 1:3-4.)
And this was initiated and accomplished by God.
What shall we then say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all… (Romans 8:31-32.)
God so loved the world that he gave…. (John 3:16.)
These Bible verses, as well as many others, point to God’s initiative.
This, as I remember it, is the teaching I received from the church, or at least this is how I understood it.
Importantly, I have never been instructed that there is any difference between deliberate sin and accidental or unintentional sin, regarding atonement.
God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8.)
This Bible verse was given to me as a cover-all statement regarding my sin. Subconsciously, I probably thought that my deliberate sin was the more important sin that was covered. The teachings of the lyrics of popular hymns we still sing in church, I think, point us in this direction. There are no limits to the sins that are forgiven. However, this is not the teaching of the book of Hebrews.
For if we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgement, and the fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27.)
Is there some contradiction here? Certainly a bit scary for those who take notice of this text. Maybe also confusing. How deliberate does ‘deliberate’ have to be?
For me, as I have said, a major theme running through the whole of the Bible is identifying wrong doing, human sin, and how it has to be dealt with. There are different ways the God of the Bible deals with it. Early in the Old Testament it appears that God deals with it in a violent way, killing and destroying sinners in the stories of Noah and the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Exodus, etc., etc. Problem solved.
However, from the early beginnings of the Hebrew religion, the sacrificial system seems to have been the human involvement, necessary to enable human sin to be dealt with. Humans need to offer sacrifices to God. Expiation, atonement is necessary and humans can be involved in the process by offering these sacrifices, usually burnt offerings. The Book of Leviticus, particularly chapter 16, details different sorts of sacrifices, what their purposes are, how they are to be offered; when, where and by whom. Many involved animal slaughter and directions are given as to what had to be done with the blood and dead body parts. At times the temple could become a very messy place.
I reject the Hebrew sacrificial system as having little, if anything of significance, in teaching me about my relationship with God and God’s relationship with the rest of humanity. I think this concept should be left in antiquity where it began. What good teaching might be in it, I believe can be learned from many other sources. However the church, seems to me, to have embraced this sacrificial framework of thinking, with ‘unquestioning obedience’ and, in my experience, has used it as the dominant framework for teaching its theology of the Cross and practice of the sacrament of Holy Communion, the Mass. This sacrament has been presented to me as a symbolic remembrance, a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Jesus in payment for my sin thus securing my forgiveness and reconciliation with God.
The Fall/Redemption theology I refer to, is what I understand to be the orthodox and still widely embraced and taught theology of the fallen-ness of humanity and the sacrificial, redemptive death of Jesus. My understanding of this theology is that we all are daughters and sons of Adam and Eve’s fallen race and thus estranged from God by sin. That in this continued fallen state, the only way possible for us to be reconciled with God is for God to do something. This theology teaches me that God has redeemed us by sending Jesus to Earth to die on the Cross thus paying the price for human sin, an offering/sacrifice to God. All is now well because God and human beings who believe, are again at one. It is said, Jesus died for my sins and if I believe, I am saved. This theology solves the problem of the presumed impassable gulf that separates God and humans.
I believe the link between Fall/Redemption and the Hebrew sacrificial system is well entrenched in current regular church-goers’ understanding. They may not be able to articulate it and it may not be all that obvious but I believe it is there. B. Craddock Emeritus Professor of Preaching and New Testament states in in his commentary on the book of Hebrews,
Four statements can now be made to elaborate the condensed but crucial presentation of Christ’s high priestly act:
1. Christ entered the Heavenly sanctuary, the true and perfect tabernacle, into the presence of God;
2. Christ entered once for all…
3. Christ offered his own blood, not that of goats and calves. Christ offered his own life to God on our behalf, to make atonement, to relate us fully and finally to God.
4. Christ secures redemption that is eternal; that is, it is not repeated ……..
The sacrifice of Christ is, therefore consummated in Heaven. … More appropriate to Hebrews, therefore, is the understanding that the death on the Cross, ascension, and entrance into the sanctuary of God’s presence constitute one redemptive movement.[2]
I think the teaching of the Hebrews’ passage above is unhelpful, encapsulating the Cross in terms of the Hebrew theology of sacrifice. I also think it is most likely nonsensical gobble-de-goop for people without a Christian background.
The writer of the Book of Hebrews explains the story of Jesus and particularly his Cross in the framework of the Old Testament Judaist sacrificial system. Sacrifice is necessary to make atonement, thus making forgiveness possible. Is this the only framework we can use to look at the Cross? I certainly hope not.
In the biblical context of Fall/Redemption theology, the sacrifice has to be perfect. The book of Hebrews spells out what the offering of Christ’s blood means.
..how much greater is the power of the blood of Christ; he offered himself without blemish to God, a spiritual and eternal sacrifice … etc. (Hebrews 9:14.)
Thus the sacrifice of Jesus is all the more powerful.
... because of his likeness to us, has been tested in every way only without sin. (Hebrews 4:15.)
It seems that Jesus has to be sinless in order that his sacrifice be sufficient for God to be satisfied and thus enable God to forgive human sin. Biblically speaking, it seems, human wrong-doing is so enormous and universal that it had to be given an incredibly significant punishment/sacrifice to deal with it effectively. Hence the death of Jesus, the Christ.
A story make help you understand a little better, the problem I have. It is a well-known story in Christian circles, probably one of the best Jesus told.
And he (Jesus) said, “There was a man who had two sons; and the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father give me the share of the property that falls to me. And he divided his living between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took his journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in loose living. And when he had spent everything, a great famine arose in that country, and he began to be in want. So he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have fed on the pods that the swine ate; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, "How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.” And he arose and came to his father. But while he was yet a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, "Father I have sinned against Heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son." ' (Luke 15:11-21.)
Now please continue to read on.
But the father said, “This is the best day of my life. I have been waiting for this day for so long.” They embraced further with tears of joy. Then the father said to his son, “Please son, wait here for a little. There’s something that needs to be done. It will not take long. Maybe three days.” So the father, after shutting the gate, went in and called his elder son. He came in from the field where he had been working all day.
Then his father said to him, “My beloved son; you are always with me and all that is mine is yours. I have good news. Your younger brother has come home. He was dead but he is alive again. He was lost but is found. We must all rejoice. Son, you have been my faithful son all your life. You are my first son. There is one last thing I want from you. We must cover your brother’s sins for they are great. We need to make a sacrifice for them. I need you to offer your life for his sins. Then I can forgive his sins and we can welcome him home. We can then celebrate his home-coming.”
His elder son, after a lot of thought, said to his father, “Lo, all these many years I have served you and I never disobeyed your command. My life is for doing your will. May your will be done. But Father, all things are possible for you. Do not give me this cup of woe, nevertheless not my will but yours be done.”
His father then had his first-born son killed.
After this the father went out to the gate where his younger son was still waiting. He opened the gate and he said to him, “Come in, my son. All righteousness has now been fulfilled. Your sins are forgiven and you are welcome here, at your home. Here is my best robe for you to wear and here is a special ring for your finger. Let us make a feast for we have you back safe and sound. You were lost but you are now found."
I’m sorry that with this ending, the story is changed into something horrible. For me, the story has been robbed of its love. The father’s loving action for his younger son has become handcuffed to a sacrificial system. I’m sorry if I have ruined the story for you but, for me, this is what Fall/Redemption theology does to the story of Jesus and his Cross and also the image of God which lies behind it. Just forget the different ending to the parable, I have presented. Just read and remember the story as told in Luke’s gospel.
One of the hymns still sung in churches is ‘There is a green hill far away’.
There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin;
He only could unlock the gate of Heaven and let us in.[3]
Fall/Redemption theology is encapsulated in these two lines of this popular hymn. All humanity has sinned to the extent that all are separated from God permanently. The gate is locked. Since when have the gates of Heaven been locked? The gates being locked, I suppose, may be a reference to the barring of Adam and Eve from ever returning to the Garden of Eden, Paradise, once they had been expelled. The Cross is the only way the gate can be unlocked so that humanity can re-enter God’s presence.
I utterly reject all this. I personally believe this hymn, quoted above, should be deleted from all Christian hymnbooks.
I am constantly reminded of Fall/Redemption theology nearly every time I go to church. Numerous traditional hymns, not necessarily sung at Easter, have lyrics which take me to this theology; e.g. ‘How great thou art’,
But when I think that God, his Son not sparing,
Sent him to die – I scarce can take it in
That on the Cross, our burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.[4]
I think the Fall/Redemption way of looking at Jesus’ crucifixion is nearly universally accepted by regular church-goers but unlike me, I think many have not questioned it. In my experience, we are not encouraged to do so. I believe this general acceptance is the case for a number of reasons, some of which stand out for me.
One important reason for not questioning Fall/Redemption is that it is an expression of the normal, conventional way we think how wrong doing must be dealt with. It must be punished. I believe this is the way human beings understand justice. Wrong doing must be punished. That’s how justice works. If wrong doing is not punished, it could lead to society disintegrating. It might lead to anarchy. We need limits to help condition our behaviour, and dire consequences must be in place if we don’t cease from wrong-doing. Fall/Redemption theology expresses theologically, the predicament of, and remedy for the broken relationship between God and humanity caused by human wrong-doing. Some sort of punishment is essential before reconciliation can occur; before the impassable gulf can be bridged. This punishment is understood as a sacrifice that must be paid.
I reject Fall/Redemption theology simply because it does rely, to an extent, on this conventional wisdom stated above; that wrong doing must be punished. It seems to make sense in the secular environment. It fits into how we normally think. This conventional thinking may be appropriate for the smooth working of human society but I believe it should not be the basis of theological understanding of God’s relationship with humanity. Using traditional orthodox concepts and language, “Is there any room for God’s unconditional love?” I think not. “Is there any room for grace, the unmerited forgiveness of God?” I think not. Conventional wisdom, although it may work in our secular thinking, proposing the punishment of wrong doing, it just does not work for me, regarding the God/human relationship; not even in traditional theological thinking.
For me, a second important reason for the acceptance of Fall/Redemption theology is the way it is so closely linked to the notion of vicarious suffering. We all accept as noble, the notion of vicarious suffering, suffering on behalf of another, suffering of one in order to prevent the suffering of another or others. I hear of people lying on top of others during a massacre to prevent bullets killing the person underneath. Vicarious suffering is the theme I hear at war memorial services. Absolutely noble. I hear of people who drown trying to save another, often a stranger, from drowning. I hear of policemen and policewomen who get killed in the line of duty. Absolutely noble. We often hear stories of vicarious suffering and we are inspired. Vicarious suffering is the most noble of human actions.
What I have been taught by the church about the death of Jesus fits perfectly into this concept of vicarious suffering. He died for me; I am told. He died in my place; I have been taught. He was without sin yet he took the sinner’s place and died. He need not have suffered, but he willingly did so, in place of me and all humanity. He suffered so I don’t have to. Jesus endured vicarious suffering. What could be more noble? It solicits admiration, thanksgiving, adoration.
However, I do not accept the connection of Jesus death on the Cross with the vicarious suffering.
We sometimes might ask, “Why was Jesus’ death, his vicarious suffering, necessary in the first place?” When I ask this question I am given the answer, “Because of sin.” I then ask the next question, “Why did sin make it necessary?” The only answer to this question the church has given me is, “Sin demands a sacrifice. Sin has to be expiated. There must be atonement.”
For me, God’s activity then becomes chained to this understanding, based to a large extent on the Hebrew sacrificial system. For me, if this basis of a sacrificial system is rejected, this whole theological edifice comes crashing down. If there is no need for a sacrifice, any belief in a vicarious nature of Jesus’ death is irrelevant and meaningless.
I believe that the human vicarious suffering examples mentioned previously, have nothing to do with forgiveness. They are motivated by selfless love and the intention to prevent, if possible, the suffering of others. The motive for enduring the suffering is not to facilitate forgiveness. The examples above have nothing to do with forgiveness. The motive is love and the purpose is to prevent the suffering of others.
In stark contrast, Fall/Redemption theology is all about sin and facilitating its forgiveness because of the underlying imperatives of the sacrificial system. In Fall/Redemption theology as I understand it, God requires a blood sacrifice before God can forgive sin. I think this is the way most church-goers understand the Cross, its purpose and its meaning. However, for me, this understanding does not grow out of the teachings and the behaviour of Jesus. It is an antithesis of all Jesus is about.
Another major problem I have is that I cannot accept the image of God which often lies behind this theology. I have been taught that Jesus accepted the concept of a Messiah but he understood this calling in terms of being the Suffering Servant of God. A classic statement of this image is in Isaiah chapter 53, the Song of the Suffering Servant. In many translations, God is the one whose will is done by making the servant suffer.
The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6.)
Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief. (Isaiah 53:10.)
In the Good News Bible this verse is translated as,
The Lord says, “It was my will that he should suffer; his death was a sacrifice to bring forgiveness.” (Isaiah 53:10.)
These are not the only statements in Isaiah 53, but the above are there.
I believe suffering is often what honourable, principled, selfless human beings are subjected to. This can be the way they are treated by their contemporaries and more particularly, by the power structures that cannot tolerate their rebellious behaviour. However to attribute this suffering to God’s will, to have God actively involved in inflicting the suffering, is totally unacceptable to me.
Quoting from Borg and Crossan,
Was the death of Jesus the will of God? No. It is never the will of God that a righteous man be crucified. Did it have to happen? ….. But it did happen this way. ….. and early Christian storytellers, looking back on what did happen ascribe providential meanings to Good Friday. But this does not mean Good Friday had to happen.[5]
I believe Jesus’ suffering was caused by corrupt, ignorant, fearful human beings. Not God!
Quoting again from Borg and Crossan,
But for another reason the execution of Jesus was virtually inevitable. Not because of divine necessity, but because of human inevitability – this is what domination systems do to people who publically and vigorously challenge them. It often happened in the ancient world. It has happened to countless people throughout history.[6]
From my lyrics, No. 12:
He was a Threat
Tune Maryton
The leaders of his day were right;
He was a threat. He had to die.
He caused unrest, but did not fight!
He was a threat. He had to die.
He spoke against abuse of might;
Yet Romans used it to deny
Justice and truth; the sword was right;
He was a threat. He had to die.
It was not God who planned his death;
He was a threat! He had to die!
Evil still says with every breath,
“He is a threat! He has to die!”
I do not accept a violent image of God but it seems that the above passages from Isaiah sponsor it. In my understanding of Fall/Redemption theology, it certainly embraces this image. God makes everything happen. God sent his Son to die. The biblical God has to be in control. Everything that happens must be in accordance with God’s will and plan. I do not believe this but it seems that this is how biblical theism works.
I am at a loss to grasp how killing someone can be a loving act that enables forgiveness to be given.
The sacrificial system is virtually the only framework given to me by the church in which I can approach and contemplate the Cross of Jesus. I do not believe that the Cross of Jesus made a cosmic difference to the God/human relationship. Is there an ‘unquestioning obedience’ to a modified Hebrew sacrificial system in the church-goer’s understanding of Fall/Redemption theology? I believe this is more than possible. I now believe there is another way to understand the Cross of Jesus, its power and its meaning.
I have dealt with my difficulties regarding Fall/Redemption theology using what I understand to be the orthodox theology still taught by large sections of the church. However, my real difficulties are built on far more basic differences, brought about by my beliefs as a panentheist.
I do not believe God and humanity are separate entities so I do not believe there is an impassable gulf between the two which needs to be bridged.
Thus, for me, a sacrificial system is not only totally irrelevant, but in fact, misleading.
So what more for me now?
Speaking in traditional concepts, I do not believe that the Cross has anything to do with God’s forgiveness. Believing that I ‘live and move and have my being in God’ and that ‘God has life and being in me’, I must comprehend how sin is dealt with, without a blood-sacrifice. If the Cross of Jesus has nothing to do with God’s forgiveness, how can God forgive? With my Christian upbringing I don’t find this question difficult. Personally I do not have to look very far to find a satisfying answer. I believe, with confidence, the following.
Love conquers all barriers and forgives all wrong-doing. I believe the way sin is dealt with is that it is forgiven. Love and love alone makes forgiveness possible, initiates and secures it. Love is strong enough to accomplish this and love is that which strengthens me to forgive even as I am forgiven.
From my lyrics, No. 13:
A Sacrifice?
Tune Salzburg
The tragedy of tragedies
We’re taught that violence wins -
That blood of Jesus is God’s plan
To wash away our sins.
Can we accept a world where grace
Is always freely given?
A world that Jesus dreamt about
Where sin is just forgiven.
There is no need for sacrifice
To pay a price for sin;
Forgiveness, mercy, grace occurs
When love bides within.
I am not advocating cheap grace; that we just take forgiveness for granted. God to be in me, and for me to have my life, my moving and my being in God, brings with it the most profound responsibilities of living my life so that God Within is always uncovered and expressed in love, in every circumstance. If I do not endeavour, with all my being, to uncover God Within, then my discipleship of Jesus is shallow, non-existent. I make a mockery of all Jesus’ teachings, and thus his life and his death.
So now I believe there is another way to understand the Cross of Jesus, its power and its meaning. For me, it is more positive but has nothing to do with God‘s forgiveness. It has to do with the passion, the integrity and the strength of purpose of Jesus. He was willing to die to show me and all humanity this passion, integrity and strength pf purpose.
I believe the Cross of Jesus defines him and his message. The Cross was inevitable, given the way he lived and what he taught. The possibility of suffering and conflict did not distract him from what he believed was his mission in life. Suffering and conflict were certainly not foreign experiences for him. The gospel stories tell us that Jesus struggled; he was tempted to change course; he sweated blood in his decision making; he thought at one stage that God had abandoned him. Yet, he never let go of his personal dignity, his strength of purpose, his integrity, his willingness to take responsibility for his actions, his will to love and forgive others, right to the very end.
And he did it alone! I think I might be able to be reasonably strong when standing with others of like mind, but I am nearly certain that I could not do it alone. But Jesus did.
Jesus was betrayed but he loved his betrayer.
His disciples all ran away and left him but he loved each one.
Jesus was denied but he loved his denier.
The crowds turned against him but he loved them all.
Jesus was falsely accused but he loved his accusers.
He was abused but he loved his abusers.
Jesus was cursed but he loved those who cursed him.
His mother grieved for him and he loved her.
Jesus was killed but he loved his killers.
What amazing inspiration. What intense humanity. What provocative challenge. What a man!
The gospel stories tell us that there were 7 sayings from Jesus when he was dying on his Cross. Many commentators do not believe these sayings actually came from the lips of Jesus but together, I believe they present a story that fits perfectly with what we know from the gospels, about Jesus of Nazareth. He lived with integrity and this was how he died; with unquenchable integrity. He died as he lived and faithful to what he taught.
Combining the sayings from all the gospels I have a significant picture of Jesus.
* “My God. My God; why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34.) These are the dying words of a man who was humiliated beyond reason and without legitimate cause. He had been betrayed and denied by those closest to him. All his friends had run away, leaving him without support. He felt isolated, totally alone. He was broken. Why would he not have called out to his God in such utter desperation? Was he wrong, after all?
* “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43.) These are the words of a man, even at the point of his own death, who cared for a stranger who was also dying. He gave hope to another in a hopeless, tragic situation. Love still flowed from him.
* “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46.) These are the words of a man who believed deeply; a man whose confidence in God could not be destroyed. He knew he was finished but he still trusted that God would be there for him. God would take care of him.
* “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34.) These are the words a man who forgave others who were killing him. They didn’t ask for it. They didn’t deserve it but it was still available in abundance. He had taught forgiveness and now he lived it. Forgiveness was the last thing he could give them and that’s what he did.
* “Woman behold your Son. Behold your mother.” (John 19:26-27.) These are the words a man who cared for his mother to the end. Women were there at the Cross, grieving. His mum was one of them. At his death, she was important to him. She was beginning to age and he was concerned for her. He wanted her to be cared for.
* “I thirst.” (John 19:28.) These are the words a man who was very human. His body was drying out. He was suffocating. The one who gave ‘the living water’ to so many, could give no more. Now, he needed some himself. So he cries in his own need.
* “It is finished.” (John 19:30.) These are the words of a man who endured to the end. Exhausted, weak, drained and empty. He had run his course. He had completed the task given to him. He had remained faithful. Nothing more was needed to be done. He couldn’t do any more but he knew he had done well. He had loved to the end.
He uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. (Mark 15:37.)
This crazy mixture of contradictory human emotions and deathly experiences were those of Jesus, my friend, my mentor, my guide, the One who completely exposed God within, the One who calls me to follow.
What amazing inspiration! What intense humanity! What provocative challenge! What a death! What a man!
The centurion surely had it right when he said, “Truly this man was a son of God.”
I shout “Hallelujah” and I weep with tears of sadness but also of admiration. So I shout “Hallelujah” again because in Jesus’ words are the seeds of resurrection. This man is certainly worth remembering and following.
From my lyrics, No. 14:
When Jesus Died so Long Ago
Tune Horsley
Original lyrics are from ‘There is a green hill far away’
When Jesus died so ling ago,
And shared our human fate
He did not curse his human foe,
Nor utter words of hate.
He prayed for those who drove each nail;
He comforted a thief;
He struggled to let love prevail;
He battled unbelief.
He breathes his last; he bows his head;
This is the end – but NO!
The powers that be – they think he’s dead;
They are so wrong; we know!
Jesus is crucified but he doesn’t stay dead on his Cross. God is killed but God doesn’t die. Love is murdered but it is never exterminated. Jesus, God, Love never ends! This is the wonderful news of the Gospel! This is the message I gain from the Cross of Jesus.
For me, all this more than fills the hole created by what I have rejected. The empty hole is now full to overflowing with love.
As I have now explained, the framework on which I build my understanding and approach to the Cross is totally different to that which I have been taught by the church.. It is the framework constructed on the pursuit and demonstration of universal and ultimately worthy human values, of human dignity, of the human will to forgive, of human strength of purpose and especially of divinely-human love. And it all happens in God. It is a framework of Godly actions, of Godly motives, of Godly strength, of Godly forgiveness, of Godly love. How can I do anything else but stand in silent thankfulness to Jesus?
My main question regarding Fall/Redemption theology is, “Is it compatible with the life, death and teachings of Jesus?” My emphatic answer is “No.”
Jesus is the one who continuously co-operates with God Within. Jesus is the human picture of godliness. Jesus is the one who teaches and demonstrates true humanity, the way humans can live abundantly. The work of Jesus on the Cross was the demonstration right to the end of his life, of what he taught. He died, living what he taught. He struggled desperately but he remained faithful to the end of his life. His integrity remained even in death. He did not do all this to secure my salvation or to bridge a gulf between me and God, but to demonstrate, to live out and remain faithful to God Within. Jesus was faithful to the end.
Historically, Jesus’ crucifixion was consistent with the Roman strategy of killing subversives and all those who challenged the absolute authority of the Empire. In the gospel stories, it would appear that his death was also the result of the Jewish religious leaders’ attitude; that he had to be silenced because of his dangerous, unacceptable teachings which undermined the orthodox religion they taught.
In some ways I feel the church and its teachings have betrayed Jesus and God with its Fall/Redemption theology.
Having stated my difficult situation, have I had to ‘Start all over again’? I think so. My questioning has kicked in and without, I believe, any blinkered, uncritical allegiance, ‘unquestioning obedience’ to past beliefs in what the church has taught me. If I have rejected beliefs, I have done so because they no longer work for me. I need to have a set of beliefs built on what I understand Jesus teaches me, that are relevant to me, challenging, sensible and able to prompt me to live abundantly, courageously.
I believe that if forgiveness is necessary and it very often is, then love and love alone initiates and secures it. This is the Good News from Jesus. The Cross challenges me to love with a capital L.
I find at Easter some church celebrations challenging and inspiring. Some of the Passion hymns I have been taught in church, invite me to be present at the Cross, evoke a personal response to the tragedy of it all and summon me to realise that I am a participant in the sinful structures of human society, which often bring about the execution of good innocent people who are trying to make the world a better place.
A final note. My wife and I forgive each other without any shedding of blood! We forgive each other because of the love we have for each other and it is a continuous process. End of story.
For me, Easter is the time when Jesus shows us who he really is and what he really stands for.
[1] Cruden’s Complete Concordance, 556.
[2] B. Craddock, The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 12, 107.
[3] C.F.Alexander, Together in Song, Hymn No. 350, verse 4.
[4] Carl Boberg, Together in Song, Hymn No. 155, verse 3.
[5] Borg and Crossan, The last Week, 161.
[6] Ibid, 161.