cross

The Cross: meaning, redemption and the future

April 12, 2013 by Bo Sanders 4 Comments

Guest post by Renee Axtell –
one of the stars of the Easter Call-In Challenge has sent us her thoughts from the amber waves of Kansas.

Should we stop saying that God sent Jesus to die?

My answer is yes. We should stop saying that God sent Jesus to die, because that implies that God’s intention prior to Jesus’s birth was to send Him to die, and that would be mean. A loving God doesn’t do mean things.

But… if you accept the premise that God knows everything that’s knowable, and the future isn’t knowable (because it hasn’t happened yet), then God couldn’t have known for sure that Jesus would be crucified.

It doesn’t take a Divine Mind to figure out that a person doing and thinking the things that Jesus did and said in first century Palestine was going to get crucified. I think that explains Jesus’s predictions of his own death found in the gospels. But just because you can predict something is likely to happen doesn’t make it your will or your desire.

I’ve got teenagers. I know teenagers are going to do things that are going to have painful results. That doesn’t mean that it’s my will as a parent that they do those things and experience those painful results, but it’s highly predictable.

So the Father sends the Son into a dangerous situation, the worst case scenario happens, and Jesus ends up getting crucified. God sees this and says, “I can use this for something good. In fact, since this evil thing happened to my Son, I’m going to use this to do literally The Best Thing Ever and defeat death and redeem the world.”

That’s just what God does. “We know that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28) As the Messiah, Jesus had the ultimate calling and therefore God used His death to achieve the ultimate purpose, the redemption of the world.

It wasn’t merely the disciples that ascribed meaning to Jesus’s death after the fact, it was God. Your blog post makes it sound like the disciples were making stuff up and attributing meaning to something that wasn’t really there. The meaning was there because God put it there. The disciples were engaged in the discovery of that meaning, and we continue that process of discovery today.

Thoughts?
Questions?
Concerns?
Comments?

Tripp and I loved that THAT cross had a surplus of meaning from God – the disciples only brought it out and proclaimed it.

What do you think?

Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, engaging, latest, sermon, thinking Tagged With: Bible, call in, challenge, cross, crucifixion, Easter, future, God, jesus, open, redemptions, theology

3 Days Left To Respond To The Easter Challenge!

March 28, 2013 by Bo Sanders 3 Comments

You have till Easter Sunday to CALL IN and respond to the Easter Challenge.

We will pick a selection of calls and posts to interact with on next Monday’s TNT – the day after Easter.

Here are the step-by-step instructions:

Read the challenge post below
Think about a response
Write up your thoughts
Use the speak pipe on the front page to send us an MP3 message

Here is the challenge:

Suppose I was to say:

We need to stop saying “God sent Jesus to die on the cross”. The only place the New Testament even talks about God sending Jesus is in John 3:17 – Jesus was sent into the world, not to condemn it but to save it.

The danger of saying any more than John 3:17 says itself is that it distorts our image of God and our understanding of the mission of Jesus.

What really happened is that Jesus died an unjust death. He was nailed to a cross by the Romans – as many threats to political peace and social stability were.

In the years after that weekend’s traumatic/amazing events, Jesus’ followers came to ascribe bigger and cosmic meaning to his death and their experience of his resurrection.

Believers, in those first few centuries, retro-fitted divine intention and design into Jesus’ death.

This comes down to us through the centuries and gets distilled as “God sent Jesus to die for our sins” or ,even worse, “Jesus came to die for our sins”

No – Jesus came for many reasons. He was then assassinated by an unjust regime in cahoots with a corrupt religious system.

God vindicated this injustice with the event we now call Easter. That signals God’s solidarity with those who suffer and are persecuted under unjust systems and structures.

The death of Jesus was seemingly as senseless as any victim of the powers.

It was only afterward that Jesus’ followers retroactively ascribed this kind of meaning and divine intention on his death. Doing so is:

poetics at its best – and very appropriate.
problematic at many levels including metaphysics, nature of time, and child abuse (to name just 3)

The selecting of narrative elements to illustrate a thread is a common way to give meaning and direction to a story. We do it at weddings all the time. We have this couple standing at the altar and we trace narrative threads back to show how they were ‘destined’ to be together or even ‘made’ for each other.

It’s a nice way to talk and it is poetic and beautiful. I am fine with doing it – both for a couple’s wedding and for Jesus’ death – as long we understand that this is what we are doing.

When I say that a couple was meant to bump into each other at the party/parking lot/ dating site … I am trying to ascribe an extra level of meaning or significance to their relationship.

When we say that “God sent Jesus to die for our sins” we are doing the same thing. It is our way of attempting to ascribe an extra-ordinary level of meaning or significance to his life and influence.

What would you say to that?

I look forward to your SpeakPipe calls!

Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, latest, thinking Tagged With: Bible, cross, Easter challenge, jesus, resurrection

TNT Easter-Cast with Daniel Kirk

March 28, 2013 by Bo Sanders 8 Comments

One of our favorite theology nerds – author J.R. Daniel Kirk drops by the HBC Headquarters for an Easter style Throwdown.

This was recorded last year and placed in the cellar to age. What you are about to enjoy is some vintage goodness!

Kirk is the author of Jesus have I love but Paul? and he blogs at Storied Theology.

This is his third visit to the podcast - and he talked with us at Wild Goose West.

WARNING: if you are going to call in a response to the Easter Call-In Challenge, do so before listening Kirk!

Standard Podcast [ 1:06:22 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Filed Under: bible stuff, latest, thinking, TNT Tagged With: Bible, cross, Daniel Kirk, Easter, history, Narrative, New Testament, paul, resurrection, scholarship, storied, theology

The Easter Call-In Challenge!

March 20, 2013 by Bo Sanders 66 Comments

Last year’s John 14:6 challenge was a blast – so we decided we would throw out another challenge and ask the deacons to call in. We will pick a selection of calls and posts to interact with on the next TNT.

Here are the step-by-step instructions:

Read the challenge post below
Think about a response
Write up your thoughts
Use the speak pipe on the front page to send us an MP3 message

Here is the challenge:

Suppose I was to say:

The danger of saying any more than John 3:17 says itself is that it distorts our image of God and our understanding of the mission of Jesus.

What really happened is that Jesus died an unjust death. He was nailed to a cross by the Romans – as many threats to political peace and social stability were.

In the years after that weekend’s traumatic/amazing events, Jesus’ followers came to ascribe bigger and cosmic meaning to his death and their experience of his resurrection.

Believers, in those first few centuries, retro-fitted divine intention and design into Jesus’ death.

This comes down to us through the centuries and gets distilled as “God sent Jesus to die for our sins” or ,even worse, “Jesus came to die for our sins”

No – Jesus came for many reasons. He was then assassinated by an unjust regime in cahoots with a corrupt religious system.

God vindicated this injustice with the event we now call Easter. That signals God’s solidarity with those who suffer and are persecuted under unjust systems and structures.

The death of Jesus was seemingly as senseless as any victim of the powers.

It was only afterward that Jesus’ followers retroactively ascribed this kind of meaning and divine intention on his death. Doing so is:

poetics at its best – and very appropriate.
problematic at many levels including metaphysics, nature of time, and child abuse (to name just 3)

It’s a nice way to talk and it is poetic and beautiful. I am fine with doing it – both for a couple’s wedding and for Jesus’ death – as long we understand that this is what we are doing.

When I say that a couple was meant to bump into each other at the party/parking lot/ dating site … I am trying to ascribe an extra level of meaning or significance to their relationship.

What would you say to that?

Agree, disagree?

Comments, questions, concerns?

I look forward to your SpeakPipe calls!

Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, latest, thinking Tagged With: Bible, child abuse, cross, crucified, death, divine, Easter, God, jesus, John, meaning, resurrection, Romans, unjust

Why Evangelicals Hate Lent

February 13, 2013 by Bo Sanders 21 Comments

My friend Krista Dalton tweeted yesterday morning:

Was told Lent was “stupid” by a fellow Christian at school. Good reminder why I am not evangelical!

I had to fes’ up to her that I used to say crap like that and I repented.

So what is it about Lent that evangelicals hate so much? I have a two-tiered theory.

The first involves a Theology of Glory. The second is not a cause – it is an effect – but it is born our of strangeness and suspicion.

Theology of Glory

Back in Christian history, back to the roots of evangelicalism in the Protestant Reformation, are two major approaches (if you will). The first is a Theology of the Cross held up by Luther. The second is a Theology of Glory brought forward by Calvin.

I don’t have time to get into all the sorted details, but suffice to say … that the American evangelical church has not just majored in a Theology of Glory but almost to the near neglect of a Theology of Cross.

Here is a really helpful article on the differences:

“Theologies of glory” are approaches to Christianity (and to life) that try in various ways to minimize difficult and painful things, or to move past them rather than looking them square in the face and accepting them. Theologies of glory acknowledge the cross, but view it primarily as a means to an end-an unpleasant but necessary step on the way to personal improvement, the transformation of human potential. As Luther puts it, the theologian of glory “does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil.” The theology of glory is the natural default setting for human beings addicted to control and measurement. This perspective puts us squarely in the driver’s seat, after all.

It’s not that we don’t like the cross – oh we love the Cross – we sing about it (the wonderful cross) and we wear them around our necks!

It’s so bad that Dallas Willard has coined the phrase “Vampire Christians” for us. He says that we love Jesus for his blood and little else. Ouch – that one stings.

It shows up in other ways too. We are almost completely ignorant of the apophatic tradition. We are so kataphatic (speaking of God in the positive) that we have no idea that there are other options! We have no negativa or posteri – it is all presence all time.

Look at our worship services. Just ask yourself: what would it take to lift your hands and sing “Shout to the Lord” at the top of your lungs … and then ask if that seems compatible with fasting or Lent. They are just two different muscle groups. Unfortunately, those who use the one often neglect the other and vice-versa

Strangeness and Suspicion

I’m not saying that this element causes the unfamiliarity – but once there is alienation this next element adds fuel to the fire. The suspicion is syncretism.

Think about it this way: Lent isn’t in the Bible. Historically evangelicals have been a sola scriptura bunch (don’t look into that too much) and Lent is a foreign concept. It doesn’t’ take long to dig up some dirt on Lent and find out that it has its roots in Egyptian-Pagan worship borrowed by the Roman cults. Isis lost a son for 40 days so we mourn for 40 days and then have Isis eggs that are colorfully decorated is the story that come to me.

So, I’m not saying that explains all of the animosity that evangelicals have toward Lent, but I just wanted to offer up my two-tiered theory.

It starts with neglect and ends with accusations.

It’s same reason that we kinda try on Good Friday … have NO idea what to do on Saturday … but LOVE Resurrection Sunday!

Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, latest, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, Calvin, church, cross, cult, Easter, Egyptian, evangelicals, glory, God, goddess, history, Isis, jesus, Lent, Luther, Roman, theology, vampire

The Cross, Resurrection, Blood, and Church of Jesus: TNT Crossed Out

November 28, 2011 by Bo Sanders 14 Comments

In this hour long conversation Bo and Tripp take up the question “Is too much emphasis placed on the cross?” Bo thinks that it is both out of proportion and ultimately unhelpful to place so much importance in this one symbol. Tripp think that it can be redeemed from those who have misused and misappropriated it. The debate started with [this post]

In this episode we reference (among others) books by

Andrew Sung-Park
Douglas Ottati
Elizabeth Johnson
Brian McLaren
Peter Rollins
and the famous Incarnation podcast with John Cobb

Also covered are Claremont Lincoln’s involvement in the inter-religious endeavor and their new logo – as well as re-writing some hymns and songs to better reflect what we really believe.

Standard Podcast [ 59:22 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Filed Under: bible stuff, books, church history, engaging, latest, news, podcast, politics, thinking, TNT Tagged With: andrew sung park, Blood, books, Brian McLaren, church, cross, Douglas Ottati, Elizabeth Johnson, jesus, john cobb, peter rollins, resurrection

Crossed Out – have we overdone the crucifixion?

November 15, 2011 by Bo Sanders 13 Comments

In tomorrow’s TNT I am planning to ask Tripp if he thinks that too much has been made out the the cross. “Have we over-focused on the crucifixion?” [the link to this episode is here]

I think that we may have overdone it on the cross. It is out of proportion. I want to I hear more about the empty tomb (resurrection) and the coming of Holy Spirit (pentecost).

Just this week I have run into multiple conversations on the subject. They are all good on their own – but it is the larger picture that I am concerned about. From Daniel Kirk’s fantastic post about Luke-Acts, to Kurt Willems and Tony Jones or Roger Olson. It can seem like , for Protestant Evangelicals – it’s ‘all atonement theory – all the time’.

Last week my friend A.J Swaboda said “Discipleship is photo-shopping the cross into every picture and angle of my life.” I asked him if the empty tomb wouldn’t be more appropriate. He said (wisely) that you can’t have one without the other.

So is that what we are doing? Is ‘the Cross’ shorthand for the whole story? Is it assumed that when we say ‘Cross’ we mean also Resurrection and Pentecost?

That would make me nervous.

Here is my concern: in the resurrection God spoke a new word over the world. I would like to live into that new word and participate with God’s Spirit who was given as a gift and a seal of the promise.

To obsess on the cross and related atonement theories is to live perpetually in the old word and to camp in the final thing that God said about the old situation.

It manifests in odd ways too. When my school, Claremont, was entering into a new venture of a Multi-Faith University, new logos were drawn up for each participating school. One symbol and one color for each represented religion or tradition. It is actually a cool branding that sends a message I can really get behind.

The problem is that we, as the Christian representative, got a red logo with… the Cross as our symbol. Ugh. Really? We couldn’t have gone with the Flame or the Dove or the Bible or anything else? What is the deal with the Cross obsession? Is it really the best representative for what the whole religion is about?

I know that Tripp is going to say something about “How the cross bearers became the cross-builders” which is a consistently good point about the historic shift. It has also takes on weird Colonial connotations that have compromised its essential message.

I’m just a little Crossed-out. It’s too much. It is out of proportion with the other elements of our faith and used disproportionally to the other symbols we have.

I would like to see us move into God’s new word for the world – and move out of our perpetual lingering in God’s last word over the old world.

Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, engaging, latest, post-something, thinking Tagged With: atonement, Bible, book, Claremont, cross, jesus, new word, Symbol

Empty Places and the need for prophets

November 8, 2011 by Bo Sanders 9 Comments

Last week I spoke in favor of both Peter Rollins. I really am a fan of what he is up to and what people think that he is up to.

But there is also something that concerns me. It only shows up once in a while, but when it pokes through – I really get uncomfortable.

In this latest podcast, it shows up in minute 39.

He is talking about the moment during the the crucifixion story that the curtain in the temple is torn in two. We find out what was in there … nothing. No ‘god gas’ comes out. It turns out that we are separated from nothing.

This is the moment of discomfort. I am uncomfortable with where he is going. I don’t like this at all.

I have always been led to think that in the rending of the curtain, that the Glory of God came out from containers made by men and came out into the world. This was a foretaste of what was to come in the gift of Pentecost. God’s spirit was poured out on God’s daughters and sons and the glory was no longer located in any one place but had come to the nations. God’s glory was then loose in the world and God’s glory was to be known in every place and in every nation.

I suppose that I don’t actually need the glory behind the veil in order to have that reading of Pentecost. Its just that the two have always been connected for me. The rending of the veil is the moment when God’s presence is no longer contained in one location.

What happens to the narrative if the veil is torn in two and we find out that there was nothing in there after all? Is Pentecost then a replacement of real for what was not? Is it a continuation of the imagery? Is it a succession? and if so, is it of the same type of emptiness?

Admittedly, I don’t like where this is going. But here is the thing – there is something noticeably absent from the the text of scripture. It does say that the veil was torn in two but noticeably missing is the next sentence. The one that describes the impact or implications of that event. There is no follow up. No ‘and people died’ or ‘and somebody saw this’ or ‘so God’s glory….’.

Just nothing.

So as much as I am made uncomfortable by how comfortable Peter Rollins (in his new book) is pointing this out, I have to struggle with the fact that he has pointed out something I had not seen before. Did I not see it because I already had my replacement explanation ready to plug into the gap.

This is part of the appeal of a person like Peter Rollins. He says things I have not heard before or don’t want to hear again. Those same things are observations or insights that I probably need to hear – for that very purpose.

It’s the reason that I have not heard them before that bothers me the most: I already had a prepared interpretation in place that allowed me to miss what was right there in the text – or more accurately – what is not in the text.

We need both prophets and priests, both poets and practitioners if we are going to be healthy.

Filed Under: engaging, latest, prayer, thinking Tagged With: belief, Bible, book, Christ, Christianity, cross, crucifixion, Insurrection, jesus, peter rollins, podcast, prayer

Claremont School of Theology