"But I don't believe what they believe..." redux

A little over a year ago I posted a piece about the theology of one of the local megachurches - Eternal Punishment and the Local Megachurch in which I questioned whether the member of that church really believe that their "unsaved" neighbors are all going to suffer eternal punishment in hell.

I had a vacation week this week and we were in town on Sunday and attended that church.  The church scene in greater Santa Barbara is dominated by a couple of megachurches and it seems that the individual congregations go in and out of style.  When I speak to the families whose children attend our nursery school and ask whether they're a part of a local religious community, about 1/2 say they attend whatever megachurch is in style at that time.  The church we attended this morning is the in style church now and it showed.  There was a line of cars waiting to get into the parking lot.  The average age was significantly younger than Cambridge Drive and there were scores of pregnant women, toddlers, and kids. The sanctuary was very full.

This morning's experience felt authentic.  I felt the genuineness of the worship leaders and deeply appreciated that.  Signage was poor.  A first time visitor could easily get lost in the shuffle but that is part and parcel of a megachurch.   There were bits of the service that literally made no sense (communion was just weird), but the biggest problem for me was the sermon.  The preacher spoke on John 12:27-33 and said the passage addressed two questions: why did the cross have to happen and what did the cross accomplish.  The sermon was consistent with the statement of faith I read a bit over a year ago.  The woman who spoke (yes, a woman) talked about the purity and justice of God requiring the death penalty and that Jesus "had to suffer for a day so we would not have to suffer for eternity."  I'll let the logic behind some of the arguments go but the theological underpinnings I find really problematic.

The preacher presented the defining characteristic of God as being purity... and the purity is so pure that it is literally immiscible with the sinful nature of humanity.  Why is the cross necessary according to the sermon?  Because God's purity requires wrath and justice, which in the case of human sinfulness equals death and eternal punishment.

I found myself wondering how many of those young mothers would pour out wrath on their children regardless of what they had done.  Earlier in the service, members were asked to share scripture passages that gave them comfort during difficult times and one quoted Matthew 7:9-11

⁹ Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? ¹⁰ Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? ¹¹ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

You can see the inconsistency here... especially since these words were spoken by Jesus long before the cross.

Again, I found myself wondering how many of those in the congregation actually believe in a God whose wrath is so all consuming that the only answer is the death penalty or eternal agony... and if that penalty is meted out on one who is innocent, then all the better.

Sorry... that i not the God I believe in.

I would argue that the defining characteristic of God is love and that by its very nature love is never immiscible.  Indeed, that is the very message of the incarnation.  In my theology, God's love requires forgiveness and reconciliation not punishment.  The cross is not punishment for human sin but the example of human sin and the example of love that goes so far as even to suffer.  It is God reaching out to us no matter the cost.

Just like the other local megachurch we attended a few years ago, I found myself wondering why the folk are there.  This one did feel authentic... at least it has that going for it and it is possible that much of the congregation actually agree with the theology that came from the pulpit this morning.  On the other hand, if they do not believe that message... you can draw your own conclusions.

The Wrath of God

You may have heard that the Presbyterian Church USA is releasing a new hymnal and that the committee decided not to use the popular hymn written by the Gettys and Stuart Townsend - In Christ Alone.  The popular story is that the song was rejected from the hymnal because of the lines Till on that cross as Jesus died, The wrath of God was satisfied... 


I expect there is more to the story than the simple explanation, but in any case,  it has generated a lot of discussion even in the secular press. A piece by Timothy George - No Squishy Love - went viral which does a very good job of sharing the kind of theology behind the song.  It and No Squishy Love Part 2 are worth reading to get a good understanding of that viewpoint.   

Two disclaimers before I wade in... we sing this song along with a number of other songs written by the Gettys.  I like their sense of melody and in general I appreciate the depth of their lyrics.  At the same time, they are too Calvinist for me and a lot more conservative than I am or my church is.

I'm sure there are those who would give a much more reasoned and sophisticated theological treatment of the issue, but let me share two simple reasons why I cannot accept the simplified view of a wrathful God requiring death.

My first reason is a personal one.  As a parent, there is nothing that my children could do that would ever cause me to reject them.  Certainly they could do things that would break my heart, including turning away from me, but I would always be there waiting with open arms.  If they were doing terrible things I would certainly want that to change, and wouldn't hesitate to let them know my displeasure but I would never turn away, never forsake, never stop loving.  I cannot imagine a God who is less loving than I am.  I understand those who portray a God who requires the death of his son as monstrous and abusive.  I simply do not understand holiness or justice in those terms.

Then there is a theological reason... Colossians 1 is crucial in my understanding of who God is.

15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. 

Jesus is the image of the invisible God and in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.  You want to understand God?  Look at Jesus.  You want to understand how God acts?  Watch what Jesus does.  Jesus does not require retribution, he gives himself.  Jesus does not judge, he forgives.  Jesus does not turn sinners away, he reaches out to them, embraces them, and offers them forgiveness and new life.  If, as Paul says, Jesus really is the image of God, then God does exactly the same thing.  

There are lots of different understandings of what happens on the cross, but I cannot agree that God's anger requires someone to die in order that God's wrath be satisfied.

Firing Squad

Early last Friday morning, Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad in Utah. Evidently Utah was the last state to do away with firing squads as a means of execution, going back to a Mormon theological idea that sin requires "blood atonement" for forgiveness to take place.

This is a perfect example of theology influencing behavior and even public policy. And it goes back to the earlier discussion regarding atonement, specifically penal substitutionary atonement. It is much easier to argue for such barbaric practices when one believes that God requires them.

Why Theology Is Important

One of my favorite children's books is Fables by Arnold Lobel. It is full of wonderful stories but one of my favorites is The Bad Kangaroo. In it, the child's teacher is visiting the bad kangaroo's parent to talk with them regarding the unruly behavior of their child. The teacher quickly learns that all of the child's behaviors were learned from watching the parents. While many of us would bristle at the thought, our behaviors are deeply influenced by our families of origin, sometimes because we don't want to be like them, but more often, and usually unconsciously, because we fall into long established patterns that we learned from them.

A few weeks ago, my friend Jon put a post u on his blog - Substitutionary Atonement - It's Just a Theory. I commented and said that our theory of the atonement is important because of the ways it effects our behaviors... our thoughts about discipline, child rearing, even crime and punishment. Jon asked me to follow up on that so here were are...

Let me propose that our views of and relationship to God are critical in shaping the way we live. If God is vengeful, then there is always a justification for vengeance. If God's love is always unconditional, then ours must be as well. And the list goes on. The crucifixion of Jesus is at the very center of the Christian story and how we interpret that event tells a tremendous amount regarding our image of God which, in turn, will influence the way we live our lives.

The most popular understanding among right of center American Christians is that of "substitutionary atonement," the idea that there must be a punishment for our sin and the only punishment adequate is death. So, in order that we don't have to suffer eternal death, Jesus who is without sin, dies a brutal and painful death in our place. He substitutes himself for our punishment. So what does this imply about God? God's forgiveness is overcome by the need for vengeance. God's love is never unconditional. It is OK when the innocent suffer for the guilty and that somebody has to suffer. We even have a strong argument for "the end justifies the means."

If that is our understanding of God and we learn how to behave by "watching" our heavenly Father, the results are obvious in every issue from corporal punishment of children to the death penalty to collateral damage in warfare.

But that is not my experience of God and indeed, it is not my experience either as a child or as a father. I would never makes such requirements of my children and my father never made them of me. If I truly believe, as I do, that God is a better parent than I am, that God is all loving, all forgiving, and as Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor said in A Heretics Guide to Eternity, that there are free floaties for all, then I must find a different way to understand that central event in the Christian story. If Jesus did not die as a substitute for me required by God, then why did he die?

As I said in my comments, I much prefer the moral influence and expiation theories. The moral influence theory is just that, Jesus death is a way of influencing humankind to live more closely to God. He gave himself so we might learn how far God will go to show us what we can be... and so we will give ourselves. Expiation is a term used in the Orthodox churches. In it, the act of Jesus is not a legal act but a transformative one... we are changed because he gave himself.

Now, I think we can argue backwards here and ask first, who is God and how do I understand and experience the Holy One? Then, go from there and ask, what would this lead me to think about the death of Jesus? Whatever answer we come up with, theology matters because it gives us a foundation upon which we live.