No shortage of proposals and plans for observing Lent exist. So why do I feel compelled to offer another? Three reasons:
1. as a psstor I know that at least in my circle of awareness few people actually use these plans and programs;
2. most that I am aware of are too "religious" or "spiritual" and fail to engage participants at the most visceral levels;
3. there remains, as far as I can tell, a genuine hunger for an authentic observance of Lent (i.e. a way to truly experience God).
I propose the following as ways toward a more fruitful experience and observance of Lent:
1. eat a pinch of dirt every day during Lent (and let the taste linger before you drink something to wash it down).
"Remember, you are dust, and to dust you shall return." This traditional Ash Wednesday" affirmation accompanies the imposition of ashes on the forehead. My proposal is a variation and extension of the intent of this liturgical action throughout the season. I'm tempted to call this "a sacrament of dirt." The handling and taste of dirt brings home in a memorably visceral way the Christian call to humility. Humility, from the Latin "humus,"ground" or "dirt," calls us remember who we are, whose we are, and from whence we come. And to thank God for being God, our Creator and Redeemer.
2. Find a replica of a skull (or the real thing if you have access to one!), place it as the centerpiece of the table you gather at to eat or the coffee table in the room your family regularly gathers. Place under the skull a symbol of your financial
life (currency, a checkbook, a bank statement, stocks, bonds, etc.). In ritual and less formal ways, train yourself to say aloud "Lord, have mercy" every time you see the skull and what lies under it. Include your children.
This is actually a variation of an early church ritual designed to confront and counter greed. In my judgment, our relation to money is and will continue to be the most potent and powerful idolatry Christians in North America have to contend with for the foreseeable future. A regualr diet of affirming again and again our vulnerability to the lures of "mammon"(our money and "stuff")and need of God's help to handle it faithfully can only be to the good. TO have the image of that skull, seared in our hearts and brains may provide the ballast we need to grow in grace in this area of our lives.
3. Watch every episode of "House" during Lent.
No show, in my judgment, better captures the dilemma and difficulties of ministry in our time. Ron Heifetz (Leadership without Easy Answers) has taught us that the challenges we face in the changed and changing world we live in are largely adaptive rather than technical. Technical challenges are life changing a light bulb. We know what the problem is and how to solve it. We just have to do it. Adaptive challenges are those for which we do not know exactly what the problem is or how to solve it; and further much of what we know, being oriented to techincal challenges, will mislead us in addressing adaptive challenges. To further complicate things, the rapid pace of change in our world means that we have to think, plan, and implement "on the run" (as it were).
"House" depicts just this challenge of adaptive change in a medical setting. The genius diagnostician, Gregory House, leads his team each week in dealing with a new adaptive challenge, i.e. a medical situation that defies traditional accepted diagnoses and procedures. House and his team are forced to think and act outside the box, fully aware that they might be wrong; and in most cases, their errors place the patient in mortal danger. Time is of the essence; a diagnosis and prescription that comes too late is of no help. This is just where we are in the church today. Attention to "House" with this in mind can be an extrememly instructuve exercise for us who care about and/or have some responsibility for leading the ministry of God's people.
4. During Lent, read and reflect on a poem (any poem) by Emily Dickinson once a week and read two (any two) short stories by Flannery O'Connor.
No poet better captures the many moods and seasons of the continual struggle between belief and unbelief than Dickinson. And no writer better shatters our easy convictions about things Christian than O'Connor. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you odd!" is one of her characteristically pungent and mind-opening deliverances!
5. Continuing with O'Connor, every time you celebrate the Eucharist (which I hope is often) during Lent, remember O'Connor's response to a dinner party discussion of the Eucharist in which some of the socialites gathered there were reflecting urbanely on the "symbolism" of the Supper. Asked what she thought, O'Connor replied, "If it's only a symbol, to hell with it!"
Enough said, I think!
6. When you retire at night, say "Good Night, God (Lord/Father/Mother/Holy One . . ) and recite the Apostles' or Nicene Creed. When you awake in the morning, say "Good morning, God (Lord/Father/Mother/Holy One . . .) and recite the Lord's Prayer.
The rhythm of "evening and morning" reflects the Jewish reckoning of time and carries with it the important truth that we began and begin our lives at rest, asleep, and inactive, trusting the providence and mercy of God to "raise" us (in every sense of the word)the morning. Our life of work and productivity is the latter part of our day, lived by the grace of daily "resurrection" and a reaffirmation of our commitment to God through the creeds.
This will be my Lenten journey this year. Perhaps it may strike others as something they might want to try.
Peace,
Lee
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Will Anything Ever Change?
As I read Brian McLaren's EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE I had a profound moment of deja vu. I felt like it was thirty or so years ago and I was reading Ron Sider's RICH CHRISTIANS IN AN AGE OF HUNGER. The similarities between the two books far outweign their differences. Though McLaren is more widely focused than Sider, Sider brings in most of the concerns Mclaren articulates through his focus on hunger. Both bemoan the insensitvity of the church to their respective concerns and provide a theolgical framework for a different approach (Sider is better on this point than McLaren). Both attempt serious analysis of the issues and provide some ways that Christians and churches can begin to respond. Both are optimistic that there is already a core of folks alert and responsive to their concerns and they form the nucleus of what can (and must) become a worldwide response of the church. All differences aside, and regardless of what you make of thier analyses and prescriptions (both have been criticized for over-simplifying and somewhat superficial analytical work, probably fairly so), both called for a "revolution" in church practice and mission.
with thirty or so years hindsight, I have to say that Sider's call has gone largely unheeded. There is a greater awareness of hunger and related issues now, due in some measure to his work, but there has been no significant revolution in church practice and mission. Many are now breathlessly embracing McLaren's book as a new revelation, however Sider teaches us that little has been learned and internalized by the North American Church in general, for McLaren says nothing really new that Sider did not say or imply about the theological and missiological aspects of his discussion. Perhaps EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE is this generation's RICH CHRISTIANS, but if so, I hope it substantially more groundlevel impact than its predecessor.
Perhaps I am simply getting older without a correlative increase in wisdom. But I cannot help but suspect that McLaren's message will have as little long-lasting impact as Sider's. One ray of hope: Sider is an academic, McLaren a pastor. Perhaps he has a bit surer sense of how to communicate with church people than Sider. I beleive the problem is more deeply rooted than just that though. Maybe Christians in other countries and parts of the world will take to his message more readily than we North Americans will. I hope and pray so. But, for us in this country, I have to confess a prevailing doubt about whether anything will ever change in our churches here.
On that cheery note,
Peace,
Lee Wyatt
with thirty or so years hindsight, I have to say that Sider's call has gone largely unheeded. There is a greater awareness of hunger and related issues now, due in some measure to his work, but there has been no significant revolution in church practice and mission. Many are now breathlessly embracing McLaren's book as a new revelation, however Sider teaches us that little has been learned and internalized by the North American Church in general, for McLaren says nothing really new that Sider did not say or imply about the theological and missiological aspects of his discussion. Perhaps EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE is this generation's RICH CHRISTIANS, but if so, I hope it substantially more groundlevel impact than its predecessor.
Perhaps I am simply getting older without a correlative increase in wisdom. But I cannot help but suspect that McLaren's message will have as little long-lasting impact as Sider's. One ray of hope: Sider is an academic, McLaren a pastor. Perhaps he has a bit surer sense of how to communicate with church people than Sider. I beleive the problem is more deeply rooted than just that though. Maybe Christians in other countries and parts of the world will take to his message more readily than we North Americans will. I hope and pray so. But, for us in this country, I have to confess a prevailing doubt about whether anything will ever change in our churches here.
On that cheery note,
Peace,
Lee Wyatt
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Whose God, Which Deity?
Perhaps it is providential that the film version of Philip Pullman's THE GOLDEN COMPASS opens during Advent. This is the time of the Church's year when the lectionary offers us a heavy dose of John the Baptist. And I suggest that John is just the figure we need to put into conversation with Pullman's story and the larger conversation about it in our culture.
The Christian Right is busy, as usual, calling for boycotts and warning parents not to let their children see the movie or read the story. Even most secualr commentators I am aware of presume Pullman's atheist agenda. But I wonder. It feels to me like there is too much passion, too much venom for a convinced atheist. Me thinks he doth protest too much! It seems as though he is enraged at the God whom he claims does not exist - which seems an inappropriate response to a non-existent being. And that raises the question for me: whose God, which deity is Pullman committing deicide on in the HIS DARK MATERIALS trilogy?
Just to say the word "God" begs this question. What God are you talking about, which deity is the one you worship or posit as true? Pulllman, it seems to me, posits the angry, vengeful, capricious deity of Old Testament caricature and, sadly, too much Christian teaching and practice as his target. And to that I think we Christians should shout AMEN! After all, we hold (or should hold) no brief for that deity either. He seems more at home among the pantheon of Greek deities on Mt. Olympus than on Mt. Zion! Good Riddance to him and thanks to Pullman for this debunking! After all, this kind of stheism, the debunking and refusal to give adherence to the putative deities of the Roman world, ironically, earned the early Christians the same charge many Christians are throwing at Pullman - atheist! More irony - the "Authority," the God-figure in the stories is revealed at the end as a false deity - a pretender who snookered all the rest of the creatures into beleiving his lie. Some other creature in some other book is also associated with similar prevarications, I believe!
In Matthias Grunewald's magnificent "Isenheim Altarpiece" John the Baptist is unforgettably pictured as pointing his long. bony finger at the agonized suffering Jesus on the cross. If we agree with Pullman's demolition of the "Angry Tyrant" deity (and God willing, we will), then we ought turn our attention to the one to whom John points. For it is that pathetic, powerless, pitiful suffering figure on the humiliating cross on whom "the hopes and fears of all the years" rest! It in in his death for us, for our well-being and flourishing, rather than our deaths for him, that we find the kind of deity who might provoke Pullman to rethinnk some of his views about God. Even if not Pullman, there remain too many still wedded to or tortured by this deity (and his hencemen, the authroitative, repressive church) who deserve to know about this one to whom John points in Grunewals's painting as in the New Testament.
Perhaps it twas this deity as well whose death Nietzsche celebrated. IF so, let's celebrate with him. Let us be proud to be atheists of this stripe. And let us be aware that we live in a world "with devil's filled" as Luther put it in his great hymn A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD - devils of finance and commerce, devils or privilege and poverty, devils of propriety and dessert, devils of oppression and ignorance, devils of education and pride, in short a demon-infested cosmos, all running around trumpeting themselves "gods" and calling humankind to give their loyalty and their lives to them! We need an even more comprehensive "atheism" than the one Pullman envisions. May we let John the Baptist point us to true deity as he directs our gaze to Jesus - "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"! (John 1:29)
Peace,
Lee
The Christian Right is busy, as usual, calling for boycotts and warning parents not to let their children see the movie or read the story. Even most secualr commentators I am aware of presume Pullman's atheist agenda. But I wonder. It feels to me like there is too much passion, too much venom for a convinced atheist. Me thinks he doth protest too much! It seems as though he is enraged at the God whom he claims does not exist - which seems an inappropriate response to a non-existent being. And that raises the question for me: whose God, which deity is Pullman committing deicide on in the HIS DARK MATERIALS trilogy?
Just to say the word "God" begs this question. What God are you talking about, which deity is the one you worship or posit as true? Pulllman, it seems to me, posits the angry, vengeful, capricious deity of Old Testament caricature and, sadly, too much Christian teaching and practice as his target. And to that I think we Christians should shout AMEN! After all, we hold (or should hold) no brief for that deity either. He seems more at home among the pantheon of Greek deities on Mt. Olympus than on Mt. Zion! Good Riddance to him and thanks to Pullman for this debunking! After all, this kind of stheism, the debunking and refusal to give adherence to the putative deities of the Roman world, ironically, earned the early Christians the same charge many Christians are throwing at Pullman - atheist! More irony - the "Authority," the God-figure in the stories is revealed at the end as a false deity - a pretender who snookered all the rest of the creatures into beleiving his lie. Some other creature in some other book is also associated with similar prevarications, I believe!
In Matthias Grunewald's magnificent "Isenheim Altarpiece" John the Baptist is unforgettably pictured as pointing his long. bony finger at the agonized suffering Jesus on the cross. If we agree with Pullman's demolition of the "Angry Tyrant" deity (and God willing, we will), then we ought turn our attention to the one to whom John points. For it is that pathetic, powerless, pitiful suffering figure on the humiliating cross on whom "the hopes and fears of all the years" rest! It in in his death for us, for our well-being and flourishing, rather than our deaths for him, that we find the kind of deity who might provoke Pullman to rethinnk some of his views about God. Even if not Pullman, there remain too many still wedded to or tortured by this deity (and his hencemen, the authroitative, repressive church) who deserve to know about this one to whom John points in Grunewals's painting as in the New Testament.
Perhaps it twas this deity as well whose death Nietzsche celebrated. IF so, let's celebrate with him. Let us be proud to be atheists of this stripe. And let us be aware that we live in a world "with devil's filled" as Luther put it in his great hymn A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD - devils of finance and commerce, devils or privilege and poverty, devils of propriety and dessert, devils of oppression and ignorance, devils of education and pride, in short a demon-infested cosmos, all running around trumpeting themselves "gods" and calling humankind to give their loyalty and their lives to them! We need an even more comprehensive "atheism" than the one Pullman envisions. May we let John the Baptist point us to true deity as he directs our gaze to Jesus - "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"! (John 1:29)
Peace,
Lee
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Daily Sabbath
I watched a gorgeous sunset this evening in Corsicana, TX where I am interim pastor at Westminster Presbyterian Church. God's creational palette made dusk exquisite. It moved me to prayer and what came out of my mouth surprised me and sparked some reflection on the rythm of God's time and sabbath.
The prayer I uttered was "Bring on the evening, God, the beginning of a new day." I started to think about this and about how according to Genesis 1 the structure of the day is "there was morning and there was evening." That means the rythm of our creaturely day begins with evening, with rest, with sabbath. Not only do we "stop" (lit. meaning of "sabbath") but we "worship" by entrusting ourselves to God in sleep ("give your angels charge over those who sleep" from daily office of compline). Not only does sabbath structure our week, then, but each day bears its imprint as well.
What difference might it make if I were to internalize such a rythm for each day? It might give me a way to more clearlt identify the "sabbath-busters" in my life. whatever chronically robs me of sleep, the night terrors and phantoms that seek to break the sabbath of my slumber, might well repay reflection and pray on the assumption that these things are indeed matters of spiritual significance.
It might also suggest that in addition to being physically restorative, an adequate amount of sleep may have spiritual "gravitas" too. Perhaps this puts our workaholism or whatever keeps us up late into the night into fresh perspective. Doubtless there is more here and I will return to these reflections from time to time. But this is enough for now.
Peace,
Lee
The prayer I uttered was "Bring on the evening, God, the beginning of a new day." I started to think about this and about how according to Genesis 1 the structure of the day is "there was morning and there was evening." That means the rythm of our creaturely day begins with evening, with rest, with sabbath. Not only do we "stop" (lit. meaning of "sabbath") but we "worship" by entrusting ourselves to God in sleep ("give your angels charge over those who sleep" from daily office of compline). Not only does sabbath structure our week, then, but each day bears its imprint as well.
What difference might it make if I were to internalize such a rythm for each day? It might give me a way to more clearlt identify the "sabbath-busters" in my life. whatever chronically robs me of sleep, the night terrors and phantoms that seek to break the sabbath of my slumber, might well repay reflection and pray on the assumption that these things are indeed matters of spiritual significance.
It might also suggest that in addition to being physically restorative, an adequate amount of sleep may have spiritual "gravitas" too. Perhaps this puts our workaholism or whatever keeps us up late into the night into fresh perspective. Doubtless there is more here and I will return to these reflections from time to time. But this is enough for now.
Peace,
Lee
Thursday, November 29, 2007
"W" is Right; "W" is Wrong!
George W. Bush, our current (but not for too much longer!) President, is a case study in how to/not to be a Christian in the workplace. In order to pursue this thesis I will set aside the questioon of whether it is even possible or appropriate for a Christian to be the President of a nation-state. That is an even more crucial question but it will have to wait for consideration.
"W" is certainly the most forthright and demonstrative about his faith of any President in my lifetime. He clearly intends to allow Jesus to help hium shape his policies and the way he fulfills his duty as President. His affirmation that "Jesus is my favorite political philosopher" is, I believe, sincerely intended rather than (as some have suggested)a cynical stratagem to deflect atention from how little "W" actually knows about political philosophy. I, at least, propose to take him seriously.
And in taking "W" seriously on this point, I mean to affirm his conviction and commitment that Jesus should be Lord in the workplsce as well as elsewhere. Such commitment in service of a "theology" hitched to wagon of the Religious Right horrifies most other Christians and obscures the reality that we have a President who is resoluitely Christian and intends his faith to inform his work life. And too oftenm I fear, a "theology" such as his causes the rest of us to back off and not want to bring our faith in our workplaces for fear of being tarred with the that same theological brush ourselves. Or else we jujst in general feel it is not in good taste to wear one's faith on one's shoulder like "W" does.
I think that is to confuse the nature of the commitment "W" exhibits with the "theology" that informs it. In our postmodern world, where religion and spirituality are back "in" the cultural "zeitgeist" and which is mandadated to tolerate eeveryone's point of view (except perhaps that of the Religious Right!), is seems to me both appropriate and necessary for us to throuw our commitment to Jesus into the mix of commitmnets and opinions that form the culture of your workplace. There is no longer any reason to feel bashful about sharing who you are and how that impacts your worklife or that is sharing your commitment that you are somehow thereby "imposing" your views on someone else. Now, inherent in my affirmation of "W"'s open faith stance is the caveat that such sharing of one's commitment to Jesus ought to be done in the wisest and most winsome way possible. We should choose our spots carefully and share with an openness to others and to conversation with them (when appropriate) about these commitments. "W" may not quite stand up to scrutiny on these latter points but his willingness to make the stand is, in my judgment, a (or "the") commendable feature of his Presidency. So, "W" is right on this score.
"W" is wrong, however, at most other points. The "theology" that informs his commitment is wretched. If one applies the "What would Jesus do?" criterion to his policies, one would (or, at least, I do) have a hard time seeing how Jesus has substantively informed them. His "theology" appears to be "Americanism" with a thin veneer of Christianity, a veneer that gives way any time something less than Christian needs to be done. In short, if we affirm "W"'s commitment to Jesus in the office of President, we must also disavow the substance of what he thinks "theology" is and many of the policies that flow from it in the strongest way.
To sum up, "W" has in a dramatic way subverted the modernist premise that faith is a private, inner matter that should not be allowed to "bleed" out (pun intended) into public life and one's respoonsibilities there. But he has "deconstructed" himself by the "theology" he embraces which seems intent on others' "bleeding" rather than our own and on them serving our needs and wants rather than vice versa, as Jesus would have it.
May we have the courage to stand for JEsus in our workplaces, as "W" does, but may our theology be advocated and embodied in such a way that it participates in the "deconstruction" of "W"'s theology and presents to the watching world an authentic and compelling vision of the "servant"-gospel lived and taught by Jesus, who is indeed "Lord of All"!
Peace,
Lee
"W" is certainly the most forthright and demonstrative about his faith of any President in my lifetime. He clearly intends to allow Jesus to help hium shape his policies and the way he fulfills his duty as President. His affirmation that "Jesus is my favorite political philosopher" is, I believe, sincerely intended rather than (as some have suggested)a cynical stratagem to deflect atention from how little "W" actually knows about political philosophy. I, at least, propose to take him seriously.
And in taking "W" seriously on this point, I mean to affirm his conviction and commitment that Jesus should be Lord in the workplsce as well as elsewhere. Such commitment in service of a "theology" hitched to wagon of the Religious Right horrifies most other Christians and obscures the reality that we have a President who is resoluitely Christian and intends his faith to inform his work life. And too oftenm I fear, a "theology" such as his causes the rest of us to back off and not want to bring our faith in our workplaces for fear of being tarred with the that same theological brush ourselves. Or else we jujst in general feel it is not in good taste to wear one's faith on one's shoulder like "W" does.
I think that is to confuse the nature of the commitment "W" exhibits with the "theology" that informs it. In our postmodern world, where religion and spirituality are back "in" the cultural "zeitgeist" and which is mandadated to tolerate eeveryone's point of view (except perhaps that of the Religious Right!), is seems to me both appropriate and necessary for us to throuw our commitment to Jesus into the mix of commitmnets and opinions that form the culture of your workplace. There is no longer any reason to feel bashful about sharing who you are and how that impacts your worklife or that is sharing your commitment that you are somehow thereby "imposing" your views on someone else. Now, inherent in my affirmation of "W"'s open faith stance is the caveat that such sharing of one's commitment to Jesus ought to be done in the wisest and most winsome way possible. We should choose our spots carefully and share with an openness to others and to conversation with them (when appropriate) about these commitments. "W" may not quite stand up to scrutiny on these latter points but his willingness to make the stand is, in my judgment, a (or "the") commendable feature of his Presidency. So, "W" is right on this score.
"W" is wrong, however, at most other points. The "theology" that informs his commitment is wretched. If one applies the "What would Jesus do?" criterion to his policies, one would (or, at least, I do) have a hard time seeing how Jesus has substantively informed them. His "theology" appears to be "Americanism" with a thin veneer of Christianity, a veneer that gives way any time something less than Christian needs to be done. In short, if we affirm "W"'s commitment to Jesus in the office of President, we must also disavow the substance of what he thinks "theology" is and many of the policies that flow from it in the strongest way.
To sum up, "W" has in a dramatic way subverted the modernist premise that faith is a private, inner matter that should not be allowed to "bleed" out (pun intended) into public life and one's respoonsibilities there. But he has "deconstructed" himself by the "theology" he embraces which seems intent on others' "bleeding" rather than our own and on them serving our needs and wants rather than vice versa, as Jesus would have it.
May we have the courage to stand for JEsus in our workplaces, as "W" does, but may our theology be advocated and embodied in such a way that it participates in the "deconstruction" of "W"'s theology and presents to the watching world an authentic and compelling vision of the "servant"-gospel lived and taught by Jesus, who is indeed "Lord of All"!
Peace,
Lee
Monday, October 8, 2007
Review of Scot McKnight's A COMMUNITY CALLED ATONEMENT 2
Reflections on McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement (2)
Chs. 2-4 comprise McKnight’s answers to the first of his atonement questions: “Where to begin? His answers are: with Jesus (ch.2), with God, Eikons and Sin (ch.3), and with eternity, ecclesial community and praxis (ch.4)
Beginning a study of atonement with Jesus brings in the kingdom of God with him. This kingdom “is the society in which the will of God is established to transform all of life” (9). As too often has happened in theology, reflection on atonement has neglected this essential biblical starting point, or rather, ending point. The kingdom of God points to what God intends to achieve, that is, the restoration of human beings to the society of those who live as God intends and reflect his image. Thus, McKnight claims, any theory of atonement that does not feature this societal, or ecclesial component, is inadequate.
He then traces what he calls the “Lukan thread” to make this point. In a crisp survey of Luke and Acts, McKnight takes us through the Magnificat (Luke 1:46—5), the Benedictus (1:67-79), Jesus’ inaugural sermon in Nazareth (4:16-21), the Beatitudes (6:20-26), Jesus’ answer to John the Baptist (7:21-23), and the early church (Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35). These texts point us to an ecclesial rather than individualistic focus for atonement. Jesus’ kingdom message is about a covenant community in which God’s will for his creation is lived out, including “healing justice, the ending of disease, dislocation, and oppression. Thus, if atonement is aimed at accomplishing God’s purposes, then a communal/ecclesial focus inheres in such a project.
Ch.3 broadens out the focus to take us back to the beginning and beyond. Noting that where one begins determines where one ends up, McKnight traces a number of different places where others have started their study of atonement, and reminds us that he will start with the kingdom of God, and –surprise – at six other places as well in order to weave a theory supple enough to handle the reality of atonement!
God, according to Christian understanding, is a triune being involved in a eternal dance of love. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit give and receive love from other throughout all eternity. The intricate and inexhaustible patterns of this dance show us not simply “who” God is but “how” God is as well. This God is an eternally relational deity. The nature of love is to extend itself to others; thus in creation God imprints this relationality on everything he makes. All God’s creatures, then are designed for relationship with God and one another, as the Gospel of John in particular makes inescapably clear. Atonement, then, has centrally to do with reweaving the broken threads of all these relationships into a united whole again.
Human beings, created in “God’s image” (Gen.1:26) are “Eikons” of God (Greek word for “image”). That means we are to represent God in the world; we are God’s image throughout all creation. That means we are beings oriented to union with God and with others and created to participate in God’s ruling, caring, protecting, nurturing of creation (i.e., missional beings).
Sadly and tragically, we have become “cracked” Eikons by turning away from that relationship to God. And in so doing we have spoiled our relationships with each other, and the creation as well. Atonement will have as one of its tasks to repair us “cracked” Eikons so we can begin to take up our creational responsibilities and opportunities anew.
Responding to this tragic “crack-up,” the Bible turns toward highlighting the redemptive, atoning nature of God’s image as it focuses on Jesus Christ, the Perfect Eikon.
Next comes “hyperrelational” sin. “Hyperrelational” is a postmodern equivalent for multi-relational and means that sin has damaged and disordered every sphere of life – frontally and primarily with God but catching up everything else in its wake. Sin is our choice to go it alone and live in absolute freedom from God and others. To try to live this way, though, cuts against the grain of our created being. We cannot do it. This is a self-diminishing and destructive way to be. When such cracked Eikons try to live together in society, their inability to live in community as designed results in larger and larger patterns of distortion and deformation, what we call “structural” or “systemic” injustice. Such sin must be dealt with and atonement is God’s means of healing this breach and opening again the possibility of hyperrelational obedience for the creature.
In ch.4 McKnight fills out the last three of his seven starting points for reflecting on atonement: eternity, ecclesial community, and praxis. Biblical imagery for eternity pictures a community or fellowship at worship with God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son at the center receiving the praise and worship. This is another way of beginning at the end and deducing the nature of atonement from the effect it is designed to produce. If these visions of the future are to come to pass, the God’s atoning work will have to focused on the re-creation of just this kind of community.
Likewise, the historical unfolding of God’s plan has always entailed unveiling a further dimension of community. In Israel, the Kingdom announced and inaugurated by Jesus, and the church following his resurrection, covenant community has always been at the heart of God’s purposes. So also God’s atoning work.
Atonement, for McKnight, has both objective and subjective poles. Objectively, what God has done for us; subjectively, what we do in response. God’s atoning work on our behalf calls for reciprocal acts of atonement by us on others’ behalf. This “reciprocal performance” on our part is “praxis.”
“Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” says the Lord’s Prayer. This is praxis. To be called to participate in the “ministry of reconciliation“ (2 Corinthians 5:18-20), this too is praxis.
“To be forgiven, to be atoned for, to be reconciled – syn-
onymous expressions – is to be granted a mission to
become a reciprocal performer of the same: to forgive,
to work atonement, and to be an agent of reconciliation.
Thus, atonement is not just something done to us and for
us, it is something we participate in – in this world – in
the here and now. It is not just something done, but
something that is being done and something we do as
we join God in the missio Dei.” (30, emphasis author’s)
Thus we discover that, at every turn thus far, God’s atoning work is resolutely focused on the rescue, restoration, and renewing of an ecclesial missional community.
Chs. 2-4 comprise McKnight’s answers to the first of his atonement questions: “Where to begin? His answers are: with Jesus (ch.2), with God, Eikons and Sin (ch.3), and with eternity, ecclesial community and praxis (ch.4)
Beginning a study of atonement with Jesus brings in the kingdom of God with him. This kingdom “is the society in which the will of God is established to transform all of life” (9). As too often has happened in theology, reflection on atonement has neglected this essential biblical starting point, or rather, ending point. The kingdom of God points to what God intends to achieve, that is, the restoration of human beings to the society of those who live as God intends and reflect his image. Thus, McKnight claims, any theory of atonement that does not feature this societal, or ecclesial component, is inadequate.
He then traces what he calls the “Lukan thread” to make this point. In a crisp survey of Luke and Acts, McKnight takes us through the Magnificat (Luke 1:46—5), the Benedictus (1:67-79), Jesus’ inaugural sermon in Nazareth (4:16-21), the Beatitudes (6:20-26), Jesus’ answer to John the Baptist (7:21-23), and the early church (Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35). These texts point us to an ecclesial rather than individualistic focus for atonement. Jesus’ kingdom message is about a covenant community in which God’s will for his creation is lived out, including “healing justice, the ending of disease, dislocation, and oppression. Thus, if atonement is aimed at accomplishing God’s purposes, then a communal/ecclesial focus inheres in such a project.
Ch.3 broadens out the focus to take us back to the beginning and beyond. Noting that where one begins determines where one ends up, McKnight traces a number of different places where others have started their study of atonement, and reminds us that he will start with the kingdom of God, and –surprise – at six other places as well in order to weave a theory supple enough to handle the reality of atonement!
God, according to Christian understanding, is a triune being involved in a eternal dance of love. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit give and receive love from other throughout all eternity. The intricate and inexhaustible patterns of this dance show us not simply “who” God is but “how” God is as well. This God is an eternally relational deity. The nature of love is to extend itself to others; thus in creation God imprints this relationality on everything he makes. All God’s creatures, then are designed for relationship with God and one another, as the Gospel of John in particular makes inescapably clear. Atonement, then, has centrally to do with reweaving the broken threads of all these relationships into a united whole again.
Human beings, created in “God’s image” (Gen.1:26) are “Eikons” of God (Greek word for “image”). That means we are to represent God in the world; we are God’s image throughout all creation. That means we are beings oriented to union with God and with others and created to participate in God’s ruling, caring, protecting, nurturing of creation (i.e., missional beings).
Sadly and tragically, we have become “cracked” Eikons by turning away from that relationship to God. And in so doing we have spoiled our relationships with each other, and the creation as well. Atonement will have as one of its tasks to repair us “cracked” Eikons so we can begin to take up our creational responsibilities and opportunities anew.
Responding to this tragic “crack-up,” the Bible turns toward highlighting the redemptive, atoning nature of God’s image as it focuses on Jesus Christ, the Perfect Eikon.
Next comes “hyperrelational” sin. “Hyperrelational” is a postmodern equivalent for multi-relational and means that sin has damaged and disordered every sphere of life – frontally and primarily with God but catching up everything else in its wake. Sin is our choice to go it alone and live in absolute freedom from God and others. To try to live this way, though, cuts against the grain of our created being. We cannot do it. This is a self-diminishing and destructive way to be. When such cracked Eikons try to live together in society, their inability to live in community as designed results in larger and larger patterns of distortion and deformation, what we call “structural” or “systemic” injustice. Such sin must be dealt with and atonement is God’s means of healing this breach and opening again the possibility of hyperrelational obedience for the creature.
In ch.4 McKnight fills out the last three of his seven starting points for reflecting on atonement: eternity, ecclesial community, and praxis. Biblical imagery for eternity pictures a community or fellowship at worship with God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son at the center receiving the praise and worship. This is another way of beginning at the end and deducing the nature of atonement from the effect it is designed to produce. If these visions of the future are to come to pass, the God’s atoning work will have to focused on the re-creation of just this kind of community.
Likewise, the historical unfolding of God’s plan has always entailed unveiling a further dimension of community. In Israel, the Kingdom announced and inaugurated by Jesus, and the church following his resurrection, covenant community has always been at the heart of God’s purposes. So also God’s atoning work.
Atonement, for McKnight, has both objective and subjective poles. Objectively, what God has done for us; subjectively, what we do in response. God’s atoning work on our behalf calls for reciprocal acts of atonement by us on others’ behalf. This “reciprocal performance” on our part is “praxis.”
“Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” says the Lord’s Prayer. This is praxis. To be called to participate in the “ministry of reconciliation“ (2 Corinthians 5:18-20), this too is praxis.
“To be forgiven, to be atoned for, to be reconciled – syn-
onymous expressions – is to be granted a mission to
become a reciprocal performer of the same: to forgive,
to work atonement, and to be an agent of reconciliation.
Thus, atonement is not just something done to us and for
us, it is something we participate in – in this world – in
the here and now. It is not just something done, but
something that is being done and something we do as
we join God in the missio Dei.” (30, emphasis author’s)
Thus we discover that, at every turn thus far, God’s atoning work is resolutely focused on the rescue, restoration, and renewing of an ecclesial missional community.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Review of Scot McKnight's A COMMUNITY CALLED ATONEMENT
Reflections on Scot McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement
Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, wades into what he calls the “atonement wars” with a contribution marked by the same freshness, lucidity, and insight we have come to expect from him. The title, A Community Called Atonement, grabs us right off by juxtaposing two terms, “atonement” and “community” that have not often been paired in this discussion. Following an introductory chapter setting up the question, McKnight’s argument proceeds in four Movements seeking to answer anew three perennial atonement questions – “Where to Begin?” “With Which Image?” and “Whose Story?” – before offering an fresh question for examination as well – “Who does Atonement?”
This volume is part of Abingdon Press’s “Living Theology” series, a set of brief, non-technical, accessible explorations of theology under the auspices of Emergent Village, directed by Tony Jones who is also the series editor. Whatever you make of “emergent” or “emerging” theology, this rubric at least alerts one to expect some surprises along the way; and in this, McKnight does not disappoint.
I will offer first a series of posts on the major sections of the book. Then I will close with some reflections on the argument presented.
McKnight’s basic posture on the “atonement wars” is that some of the current criticisms have points that should be heard but too often they are overdone or overheated by attention given to one-sided or incomplete expositions of various classical positions. He offers his own “embracive” formulations that seeks to include the strengths of the others without falling prey to their weaknesses.
The introductory chapter sets out the challenge that the reality of what we have come to call “atonement” poses: does it work? Are the lives of Christians different and better through their relationship to God made possible by Jesus’ death and resurrection? A second challenge that resounds throughout the book is how are we intended to appropriate “atonement”? and how wide the scope of this endeavor on God’s part. Throughout, but focally in the last section the term “missional” provides the shorthand response to this challenge. Atonement makes possible the community that knows itself engaged in God’s “mission” of reclaiming, restoring, and renewing his creatures and creatures to reflect his glory even more fully that the original pristine creation did. This “missional” focus also keep front and center McKnight’s pastoral passion for “praxis” – how does this all work out in our lived reality. The “dialectical assumption” undergirding this study is:
The gospel we preach shapes the kind of churches we create.
The kind of church we have shapes the gospel we preach.
Now we are ready to enjoy the ride through scripture and church history only to arrive back in the early 21st century with some new tools to consider in our teaching on and ministry of “atonement.”
Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, wades into what he calls the “atonement wars” with a contribution marked by the same freshness, lucidity, and insight we have come to expect from him. The title, A Community Called Atonement, grabs us right off by juxtaposing two terms, “atonement” and “community” that have not often been paired in this discussion. Following an introductory chapter setting up the question, McKnight’s argument proceeds in four Movements seeking to answer anew three perennial atonement questions – “Where to Begin?” “With Which Image?” and “Whose Story?” – before offering an fresh question for examination as well – “Who does Atonement?”
This volume is part of Abingdon Press’s “Living Theology” series, a set of brief, non-technical, accessible explorations of theology under the auspices of Emergent Village, directed by Tony Jones who is also the series editor. Whatever you make of “emergent” or “emerging” theology, this rubric at least alerts one to expect some surprises along the way; and in this, McKnight does not disappoint.
I will offer first a series of posts on the major sections of the book. Then I will close with some reflections on the argument presented.
McKnight’s basic posture on the “atonement wars” is that some of the current criticisms have points that should be heard but too often they are overdone or overheated by attention given to one-sided or incomplete expositions of various classical positions. He offers his own “embracive” formulations that seeks to include the strengths of the others without falling prey to their weaknesses.
The introductory chapter sets out the challenge that the reality of what we have come to call “atonement” poses: does it work? Are the lives of Christians different and better through their relationship to God made possible by Jesus’ death and resurrection? A second challenge that resounds throughout the book is how are we intended to appropriate “atonement”? and how wide the scope of this endeavor on God’s part. Throughout, but focally in the last section the term “missional” provides the shorthand response to this challenge. Atonement makes possible the community that knows itself engaged in God’s “mission” of reclaiming, restoring, and renewing his creatures and creatures to reflect his glory even more fully that the original pristine creation did. This “missional” focus also keep front and center McKnight’s pastoral passion for “praxis” – how does this all work out in our lived reality. The “dialectical assumption” undergirding this study is:
The gospel we preach shapes the kind of churches we create.
The kind of church we have shapes the gospel we preach.
Now we are ready to enjoy the ride through scripture and church history only to arrive back in the early 21st century with some new tools to consider in our teaching on and ministry of “atonement.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
