Ransomed, Atoned by Blood or Punishment? None of the Above

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 just the binary --black and white -- I see only division and alienation.  For some, these binary boundaries are comforting and necessary; the gray only clouds their thinking and causes insecurity.  Unfortunately, many in the church hold this either/or theology and cannot accept anything different from what they believe -- even if it is proven to be ill-based or non biblical.

What follows is something I wrote this from the top of my head... no footnotes or bibliography... an exposition on a question asked of me by a Pastoral Search Committee in 2013. 

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.”  And, I said 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 Mark 6:45, which 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. 

-------------------
I am not sure the member who asked this question understood my long winded explanation; I do know that she did not agree with it.  God's path for me was/is by way of another road than the one that passes that particular congregation.  And the exercise of writing out what I believe and why was excellent practice for the challenges of the place where God has called me today.  Thanks be to God.

A Faithful Church is in Business 24/7/365

"When I moved here 12 years ago, I expected that the church would be busy on Sunday mornings.... but there is something happening there every day.... that is not acceptable; it needs to be regulated."(1)

This was spoken at a  meeting of the Village Plan Commission last evening by a member of the community.  My initial reaction was anger.  

• How could someone not know that the work of the a faith based community is non-stop? 
• Where was this person in school when the Anglo settlement  of New England in the 1600's by people fleeing religious regulation was discussed? You remember them -- the Pilgrims, who established a faith based community where the work of faith and life itself were indistinguishable?  
• Was there an extended illness when the 1740's settlement of the  west coast was led by Roman Catholic Missionaries was taught?  You remember that -- the Roman Catholic missions that housed and educated the native population and established all of the oldest communities in California.   
• Surely someone taught about the founding of public education was done by churches who opened their doors to children returning from long hours of labor in factories and mines. 

How did public education fail the person who spoke this complaint?

I understand that someone who does not practice faith might think that Sunday morning is the only time a faith community is active.  Clearly the speaker had an impression of faith communities that did not match my experience. 

• But why would a church need a building if it is  a Sunday-only association?  
• Why not just meet in people's homes?   

Clearly the CHURCH has failed in its 24/7/365 practice of faith. 

I left the meeting with my blood pressure through the roof.  I took the long way home -- walking briskly in the night air five blocks out of my way so I could think and pray about the situation.  

God has a way of turning my reactions into responses if I can just keep my mouth closed long enough. My reactions are usually knee jerk responses in anger or defense; I should never be allowed to speak after 9 p.m. when my brain operates only in the brain stem and my reactions are reptilian .  Responses are the result of trying to understand the other point of view and offering a reasoned, rational reply.  Responses come from the cortex and upper brain anatomy.  I cannot be reasoned or rational if I'm angry. 

Through the cool night air and the brisk stride, God doused the anger with another possibility. In the middle of the second block it struck me that the church this person was talking about is doing faithful ministry -- if they are doing "something everyday," if their ministry is not just on Sunday morning, they are being the Church, the Body of Christ.  If that faith community feeds the hungry, offers drink to the thirsty, welcomes the stranger, clothes the naked, visits the sick and the imprisoned (Matthew 25), they are indeed being the church.  

Celebrate with this community of faith that someone is complaining that they are faithfully following Christ is providing for "one of the least of these who are members of [Christ's} family" [Matthew 25:40).  This IS the work of the church.

If our building is not used 24/7/365, we are not being faithful.  We are not being good stewards of the blessings God has given to us through our predecessors in the faith.  We are going to do better.  We need to fill our empty space with those busy going about the work of providing for the least of these.  We need to find the vision and the energy to commission those among us for ministries.  If the Kingdom is going to come "on earth as it is in heaven," we cannot sit around and wait for it to happen; we are called to use our hearts, minds, bodies, and spirits.  Let us fill the building with God's work!  Let us make busy the doors! Let us be the church to all the world. 


(1) This was the overarching complaint of a number of members of the community who stuck out the entire meeting for the purpose of voicing their concern that an amendment to the village zoning ordinances regarding the definition of "Religious Use" of buildings was removed from the agenda and not discussed.  

To the other concerns, I offer these responses:

Comment:  Churches rent their space to outside businesses and agencies so that they can increase their coffers and make their expenses.
Response:  Churches offer to share our space with agencies who are doing work that tends to "the least of these."  That may include, but is never limited to, young, aged, widowed, addicted, homeless, oppressed, unemployed, under-employed, poor, disabled, sick, naked, hungry, imprisoned or newly released, mentally ill, sinners of all sorts, immigrants and other strangers, and you.  

Sharing space is just that: space is offered so that those who are working toward the fulfillment of the Realm of God (see Matthew 25) can have a safe and secure place to do their work.  If churches make a profit of any kind, they lose their property-tax exempt status and will incur massive expenses; churches offer space at the cost of having that space -- which is far below the market rates.  Churches may recap the cost of the space, but nothing the church can do will ever re-cap the cost of building and upgrading the space; the best that can come of shared space is re-cooping the cost of heat, air conditioning, electricity, and maintenance of the space.  Churches do not make a profit at anything they do.

Comment: Not for profit is tax terminology; it does not relate to the what churches are doing.
Response:  Unlike other entities in our Capitalistic Economy, the goal of the church is NOT to make a profit or to stay "in business."  The mission of the church is to usher in the Realm of God by offering God's extravagant welcome, unbounded hope, abundant grace, and unlimited love to all who will accept it and be transformed by the realization that they are children of God. 

When this  mission is completed, the churches can and should go out of "business;" but it will never be complete in my or your lifetime.  It is ongoing and fueled by hope and the vision of a better world. The difference between the capitalist business (aka a "for profit") and a faith community rests on the benefactor of the activity: For-profits are fueled by the vision of benefit to the owner(s) (monetarily) while not-for-profits have a "benefit the other" driven vision. Not for profits "do it" at a loss -- always because we're not in it for the money; we're in it for the benefit of "the least of these." That's why we depend upon donations. 

A Newsletter Article From the Archives

I first published this here in July, 2008.  I felt it was worth bringing back to the top of the list.  

As an alternative to preaching on some Sundays, I’ve had people write anonymous questions for me to answer during worship. One of the questions submitted was this:

“…religion is something people do because that’s what is expected of them. We are told we must believe in God to go to heaven, so we do it blindly or not sincerely because we are afraid of the consequences….Is there true sincere faith?” 

Wow!  Why are we part of a faith community? What do we get out of it? What difference does faith make in our everyday lives?  Here’s a few possibilities:

• Some people attend church because they’ve always attended church. Their ancestors before them attended church, so they do too. It’s a habit and a duty.
• Some people participate in a community of faith because they are looking for answers to life’s questions. They are looking for what will fill emptiness in their lives, trying to satisfy an unidentified hunger. They shop from church to church, faith to faith, looking and looking, and moving on when something offends or challenges them.
• Some people attend church because they fear the wrath of an angry god. They’ve been told that God will judge harshly those who do not jump the hoops and submit to the anger of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present God.
• Some are part of a community of faith because it is in relationships with others that they are fed, nourished, challenged to grow, and refreshed in their whole being.
• Some people don’t attend church because they see people who do as hypocrites and judgmental, but they still have questions, are still looking to fill that emptiness. 
•  Some people don’t attend church because they can’t wrap their minds around the whole “motivation by fear” concept.
• Some people are not part of a faith community because they have no idea what goes on there but have seen and heard in the media what “Christians” are about and they don’t like it.
• Some people are not part of a faith community because they’ve never been there, their parents didn’t attend, and none of their friends attend. These are spiritual people and the consumer’s market of offerings in the Spirituality section of the bookstores and the internet communities are great places to check things out.

I would propose that participating in a faith community and having faith are not the same. One can be a “member” of a church and not “have faith.” Humans are born with a spirit, a soul that yearns to be connected to something larger and beyond themselves. That yearning is satisfied through faith, but not by faith. Faith is not a solution, but a journey. True, sincere faith is an honest and open trek through life – both the challenges and the joys – growing and reaching toward that “something” beyond and greater than us. In Christianity, that trek is guided by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and the writings of his earliest followers. And that “something” is the One Jesus called God.  With faith, we never remain the same; change is the only constant.

Yes, my friend, there is true, sincere faith. It is not found in a book or on the internet. It is not found in the media or in anything someone else can give you. It’s not even found at church!  It is found by looking within yourself, recognizing the God-shaped hole within you, and seeking honest, open, and challenging ways to fill that void. It is a journey we must share with others who feed, nourish, and challenge us. Easy answers and the status quo of life will not be a part of this journey. It is a journey that will continuously transform, change, and remold you.

Blessings on the Journey!      Carly