The original
meaning of the word "liberal" involved being open to a variety of
ideas and ways of thinking, to be intellectually generous. I am a liberal in this sense: I am open to
and supportive of many ways of thinking and believing. For me, when things are split into issues of
black and white, I see only division and alienation. For some, the boundaries of black and white
are comforting and necessary; the gray only clouds their thinking and causes
insecurity. Unfortunately, many in the
church hold black and white theology that cannot accept anything different from
what they believe -- even if it is proven to be ill-based or non biblical.
I've just
written this from the top of my head... no footnotes or bibliography; just a
long winded exposition on a question asked of me in an interview with a
Pastoral Search Committee with which the folks are caught up.
The Question:
"John 14:6 while Jesus was comforting his disciples he said to
them, 'I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me.' This speaks to the fact that one must
believe, and accept that God sent his only Son to die on the cross for the
forgiveness of our sins and that by believing this and by His Grace alone are
we saved. Is this belief the only way we
can be assured of an eternal home with Him?"
My initial
response in person was something to the effect that Jesus didn’t ever say he
came to die for our sins that this is a construction of Paul’s and the later
church’s. I added that Jesus was careful
to not label individuals as “sinners” when he healed them and offered them forgiveness. I went
on to say that shortly before the passage quoted is another: “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling
places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place
for you?” (John 14:2) and that in
another place Jesus says, “I have other
sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will
listen to my voice.” I went on to
say that this is good news for people who have not found hope in a particular
faith.
What some
members of the committee heard me say was that Jesus never talks of sin, and
that Jesus never called people sinners.
So, here is a full expository of response to this question.
In our time,
we have a tendency to put the words of the whole of the New Testament into the
mouth of Jesus. “This speaks to the fact” indicates that what follows is assumed in
the reading of the scripture; what follows is a theory of atonement that was
developed in the Eleventh and Fifteenth Centuries and is not based upon
Biblical texts. In fact, much of the
theology of this question arises from later theology, not the words or ministry
of Jesus.
The challenge
of the question lies in the conclusion of the second sentence. This sentence makes a conclusion about the
text of John 14:6 that is out of context with the text itself. The question starts with the context – “while Jesus was comforting his disciples,
he said to them….” The scripture in
context is part of Jesus’ response to Thomas about how they will know the way
to where Jesus is going. Jesus is
instructing the disciples on what to expect after his death and
resurrection. Jesus is giving the
disciples a pep talk, a comforting assurance that if they follow the way they
have been taught by Jesus, they will know God; that if they are faithful to
what he has been showing them, leading them, and guiding them, they will find
their way to God the Father. He says
that if we know Him, we know God the Father.
In the
context of John 14, Jesus is giving the assurance that they have learned well
what they need to know, that they know the Father already.
- I tell you, the one who believes in me will also
do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because
I am going to the Father
- If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with
you forever.
- I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to
you.
- Those who love me will keep my word, and my
Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
Then the
question deviates from that context.
Jesus is not talking about the forgiveness of sins here; he is talking
about the immediate future of the disciples and their finding their way in his
absence.
At this point
in the Gospel of John, Jesus has not yet died; he has not yet risen. There is not any talk of death, let alone a
sacrificial death, though everyone at that last meal together knew full well
that Jesus was going to die at the hands of those whose power was threatened by
his teaching of truth. Jesus is saying
that if the disciples want to know God, if they want to know where he is going,
they need to love one another the way that he has loved them (John 15:12).
Jesus is not
the author of the theory that “one must
believe, and accept that God sent his only Son to die on the cross for the
forgiveness of our sins and that by believing this and by His Grace alone are
we saved.” The seeds of this theory
originate in Paul and are germinated and harvested by Anselm of Canterbury, the
Protestant Reformers, and, later, Twentieth Century Evangelists. The theory that Jesus was sent to die for the
forgiveness of our sins is not found in the Gospels. Further, the idea that “the death of Jesus
provides forgiveness of sins” and “His Grace alone” saves us are oppositional
to one another. Payment for forgiveness
is not forgiveness; it is a transaction.
Forgiveness is indeed grace, but it cannot be bought by any means or it
ceases to be grace and forgiveness.
Okay, having
said that, I’m going to give a very long explanation.
Prior to the
Eleventh Century and based upon Jesus’ statement in Mark 6:45 that he offered
his life as a ransom for many, the (Roman)
Church taught that the ransom must have been paid to those powers that
hold us captive—namely the devil and the other fallen angels. Adam and Eve turned
the entire human race sinful when they listened to the serpent (devil), and
therefore making the devil our owner. Jesus offered himself to the devil in as
the price of our freedom from this sinful state. The devil didn’t realize that
he couldn’t hold the God’s son captive in death and was therefore tricked into
losing both us and God’s son. This is
the ransom theory of atonement. It’s not
particularly Biblical; but it’s logical for the era from which it arises.
In the
Eleventh Century, Anselm of Canterbury debunked this theory and developed the
concept of blood atonement. This theory
springs from the Old Testament concept of sacrifice. The underlying assumption of this idea is that
the moral order, God’s justice, or something about God’s nature, requires that
God punish our sin – and inflict corporal punishment upon us, classically by
sending us to hell—unless some substitute can be found to pay the penalty for
sin. Anselm stressed that there is no way
for mere humans to satisfy God’s need for punishing us so the need is satisfied
by the perfect obedience of Jesus even to the point of dying (note the words of
the Apostle’s Creed). This is the
satisfaction theory of atonement.
In the
Fifteenth Century, the Protestant Reformers took this a step further and
asserted that Jesus chose to take the death penalty in our stead as punishment for our sins (as
opposed to obedience to God). This is the punishment theory of atonement.
Either way,
satisfaction or punishment, the theories assert that violence is necessary to
please God’s need for justice.
There are two
places in the GOSPELS that are often used to support these theories of
atonement; both are problematic. In
Matthew 26:28, Jesus says “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” In the same vein (pun intended), Hebrews 9:22
says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” The
Greek word translated in these passages as “forgiveness” means release from
bondage or to free from prison. Even
when understood as “release from penalty,” it merely provides an alternative
means of fulfilling the same solution and life-giving role that the law and its
penalties were supposed to provide. Atonement
allows God to justly release us from punishment for sin. The idea that God requires a payment of some
sort is logically in conflict with God’s forgiving our sins; true forgiveness
involves relinquishing the demand that the penalty be paid.
The second is
the text from Mark that I used in the discussion of ransom atonement. The Mark text has to have a lot of
speculation or preconceived understandings thrown into the picture in order to
pull a theory of atonement from it. We
can read our concept or idea into the text and pull the meaning we desire from
it; this is eisogesis: reading our
understanding or position into the text. If instead we begin with the text from
Mark devoid of our preconceived understandings, we cannot arrive at a theory of
atonement. Solid Biblical study begins
with the text and its context, not our own theology.
Jesus said he
came to fulfill the law and the prophets; Jesus did not say that “by His Grace
alone” we are saved. Paul said this, and
we read it into the words credited to Jesus.
Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God and what we must do to bring God’s
reign to earth. Jesus showed us the way,
the truth and the life through his example, his teaching, and his willingness
to die for what he believed is God’s way, truth, and light – which the
religious and political powers of his day found threatening to their status and
power.
What Jesus
teaches is not about what is to come in the next life (again, that is Paul and
American Civil Religion’s Prosperity Gospel); what Jesus teaches, preaches, and
lives is God’s affinity for the “least of these,” the oppressed, the down
trodden, the rejected, and the powerless.
What Jesus assures us of is that God’s realm is found when all people do
justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). What Jesus assures us is that the high will
be made low, the first last, the weak strong, the hungry fed, the poor rich in
spirit.
This is what
I meant when I said that Jesus did not come (or die) to forgive our sins; he
came to show us the way to God; the way of justice; the way of peace. He certainly did offer forgiveness to people
– freedom from that which binds them -- usually the people no one else would
ever dream of unbinding, and always as a means to bring justice to the
situation at hand. But he does not
assert that he's going to die for our sins.
Does this
make sense, or am I rambling out of my physical exhaustion?
comforted by those boundaries; they
keep our world safe. As teens, we push
against them with the desire for independence from our parentally imposed
limits; we desire freedom. As adults, we
set our own boundaries when we are more confident in our identity and values;
these often reflect the lessons we learned in our youth. 
But notice how Jesus does not respond. He does not
scold the man for his doubts. He does
not tell him he will be condemned to death for questioning the ability of this
Man of God. Instead he responds to the
man’s request: “Help my unbelief.” Jesus
orders the unclean spirit, which has kept the boy from hearing and speaking,
out of the child. In doing so, Jesus has
not only placed the child back into the realm of health and well being, he has
also given the father a ladder rung toward faith in the power of God, hope in
the ability of God’s love to overcome evil, 
walking the journey called The Way; it requires us to keep our attention on
where we are being led. It does not keep
us from asking questions along the way.
Jesus asks a lot of questions! Those whom he encounters and who follow
Him ask a lot of questions as well. The
basis of a question is either to test the other or to expand one’s knowledge
and understanding; questions are the evidence of doubt. Jesus does not scold the questioner, does not
lash out defensively when faced with doubts, does not send the unbeliever
away. He embraces the other where they
are and seeks to open their eyes, ears, and hearts with understanding
recognizing that mere humans cannot possibly contain all that there is to know
about God.
