Atonement is political - non-violence and leadership

A famous text in Mark's gospel which is taken as a proof text in atonement theology is 10:45

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

Usually, this is wedded to penal substitutionary atonement, and so Jesus' death is seen to be a payment to ransom us from punishment. This view needs a bit of nuancing. Context will help as well will see shortly.

The word ransom is lutron, and is used in the context of slavery and ransoming or freeing a slave from the market. The most obvious source of the slavery here is to sin, but I wonder in a sense (and context might make a case) that the devil is also part of it - given the theme early of binding the strongman and robbing his house. There are echoes of this in John's gospel when Jesus says that the ruler of this world is going to be thrown down when he ascends to the cross.

We need to be careful with demonology, but the idea behind human evil, particularly that of evil structures and systems finds a good deal of resonance in the gospels. There are plenty of models of the atonement; we don't need to flatten them into one.

In the Exodus, chapter 8 and verse 23 we read:

I will put a division between My people and your people. Tomorrow this sign will occur.

However, the Hebrew has "set a ransom" instead of "put a division". The Israelites were rescued from Egypt, it's slavery, empire and gods.

Now it makes more sense of Jesus' critique of the disciple's question of who is the greatest, and his critique of the way in which Gentiles (read Rome) rule over people.

Jesus ransoms us from every evil empire, evil structure, with sin and the devil at its heart so that we can live a new life of freedom. That new life includes a new way of being in society at all levels, a new approach to leadership. Atonement is communal and political.

Fighting violence with violence means violence wins - Genesis 4

I don't suppose I am a complete pacifist; if you drew a spectrum I'm not sure where I'd sit. I do however understand that violence is a failure of peacemaking, war a failure of diplomacy. Sometimes that's because someone was not interested in peace, and sometimes that means that second best must be turned to.

But in the lives of most of us, for most of the time, violence of behaviour or rhetoric means that violence grows, violence wins. In argument, in relationships, there can be another way. And in public policy, we can lobby for better ways.

The story of Cain and Abel has a strange end - the warning that Cain would be avenged seven times if he were killed (Genesis 4:15). It is still a limit on revenge, and it is declared by God. It does stress the sanctity of life. And it is from an age of violence.

So when Lamech himself proclaims a much larger vengeance, and an unbalanced one, for it was death for a wounding and not death for death, we see how retribution can go so wrong (verses 23-24). Vengeance, not justice is in view. The image of God in chapter 1 seems not to extend to Lamech's victim. In many Ancient Near Eastern contexts, the image of God was limited to the nobility or king. In Hebrew thought, murder was denied because all are in the image of God.

Comparing Rwanda to South Africa, we see how the pursuit of truth and reconciliation trumps revenge. While due process and punishment are often appropriate, simply locking someone up or taking their life is not enough, when reconciliation and restorative justice can bring more closure, greater peace, and an end to the desire for revenge. This isn't being soft on law and order, but simply seeking a better order.

As long as there is sin there will be prisons, but for the every day of our relationships, we lock ourselves in prisons of anger and unforgiveness if we want to pursue vengeance for ourselves. God promises to repay. There are authorities to trust in. Sometimes we just let go, other times we actively seek reconciliation. But if our words and actions turn violent, it can only spiral in one direction. And Jesus died, not so individuals can wield weapons and words of anger, but so we can be agents of peace.

Keeping our brothers and sisters - Genesis 4

I've been thinking a bit about origins of late, and the whole issue of human goodness and tendency to evil. Students in a course on science and religion I tutor on answered a question about evolution and "Original Sin". The more informed students understood that this phrase is often associated with Augustine. An Irenaean approach is more compatible with evolution, where there is no perfect past, just a humanity that is created in order to grow up and aspire to fully carry out the role of bearing the image of God.

I've also started reading Reason for Hope by Jane Goodall after hearing her speak recently. She's a Christian, though these days it seems of a more universalist persuasion if I've understood her right. She obviously has some insight into human behaviour and its origins by studying chimps.

In the end, regardless of how you view our material origins, Genesis 4 shows us what history has illustrated again and again, we are capable of great violence.

Cain kills Abel out of jealousy when God sees into the heart and prefers Abel's gift. When asked where he was, Cain asks "am I my brother's keeper?" This disavowal of his role to care for another human seems to me a rejection of his brother as also bearing the image of God. It has always been the case that violence against other humans is preceded by dehumanising them. The Holocaust is a shocking example of this, but I suspect much of what is felt towards asylum seekers who come by boat in popular thought, the unemployed in conservative thought, Indigenous Australians by those who'd deny them recognition in the constitution are all symptomatic of the inability to empathise because they have been dehumanised.

In a world where the lines on maps are often drawn by us, but where trade, greenhouse gases and pollution all flow over these lines, everyone is our neighbour. Given our shared genetic origins, everyone is a brother or sister. For Christians, there is a special sense of this "in Christ", this does nothing to diminish our need to regard everyone this way, for we are all in the "image of God". This means rather than being an object of violence, other people should be the subjects of our keeping: keeping safe, keeping well, keeping in filial relationship.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

Playing God - Genesis 3

Ok, it's been a while. I've decided to push through Genesis since I've already started, but not promising it will be daily ;)

You may be familiar with the idea of playing God. It's a term reserved usually for medical science like cloning, etc. Of course, it can be seen to be a rather knee jerk reaction, but a challenge to the usual, if we can do it we should thinking is sometimes, if not always useful.

I'd suggest though, this is at the heart of what is going on in Genesis 3. Since this is a devotional blog, I'll be avoiding the various Genesis debates.

It is typical for Christianity to be seen as controlling of how we think in a pejorative sense, and atheists et al to refer to themselves as free thinkers. Of course, no one is entirely free, we are limited by finitude, biology, worldviews, etc. So when in Genesis 2:16-17 it says

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

the idea that God is some kind of spoil sport, is it because we see this in the text, or read into it because of our modern individualism? Is this thought control or something less sinister? Is what in view the wisdom to apply ethical principles, or the elevation of oneself to God to decide morality itself?

A clue is given in Genesis 3:5 "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." The grasping after absolute self-determination is not simply wanting to be knowledgeable or wise, but to be God.

But to show that God is no killjoy, see what is said of Jesus in Philippians 2:6-8

who, though he was in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
    taking the form of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form, 
     he humbled himself
    and became obedient to the point of death—
    even death on a cross.

There is a way of being like God. Not a grasping after absolute autonomy, but a freedom found in humility and service.

In the beginning - community

I've started a new bible reading plan with YouVersion, since it keeps me reading, and hence an excuse to write.

The first reading was Genesis 1-2. There is SO MUCH to say, but I decided to focus on community. There is much to draw from this, but it seems community is an important theme.

In chapter 1, it takes both male and female to bear the image of God (can't get away from God here). So bearing the image of God is communal, and indeed tied to the blessing of reproduction. Now the Earth is indeed full at 7 billion people, so thinking carefully about population is not contrary to the biblical blessing. We are not to be negative about children, just not naive about our impacts.

But back to the main point - even if one rejects this as a literal account, the biblical idea of man and woman together as image bearers is the bedrock of a theology of marriage. It is for kids, but even more so it is for serving God. Now given that singleness is promoted as a Christian lifestyle in the New Testament, we should be clear that not only marriage specifically, but community life in general is what flows from this passage - after all, lots of babies does mean community.

Genesis 2 takes a different look, but the suitable helper for man comes out of himself, not as a literal operation but as a statement of identity. Again, this speaks powerfully of marriage in the first instance, and the basis thereof. But it also tells us that animals are not us - not to denigrate them but to elevate to full humanity all other people. We become one flesh with a spouse, but we are all of one family of humans, and in faith those in Christ are one family.

Salvation and service are never solo but social.

Easter Sunday - resurrection and egalitarianism

Today's reading from John 20 was the passage I preached on this morning. The transcript is going to be published so I won't say too much. Let me select one theme.

Mary Magdalene goes on the first day of the week to the garden where Jesus is laid. Just as John 1 echoes Genesis 1, so we should see Genesis 2 and 3 here; life in the Garden of Eden. Instead of Eve being misled by the serpent and then misleading Adam (who should have known better anyway), we have God (Jesus) addressing Mary (the new Eve) to go and set the disciples straight - telling them Jesus had risen and was ascending to the Father.

Mary was the apostle to the apostles; the first apostle of the new covenant. We should also note that when Mary addresses Jesus as Rabbouni, she is saying "my teacher" and not just "teacher". Jesus had taught her as a disciple in an age where only men were taught this way.

My point is, apart from personal reconciliation with God, the curse on Eve is undone. There is no excuse for anything less than full equality in the church, as it was always intended to be - remember Eve is described as Adam's helper, a word also used of God.

This is behind what Paul says in Galatians 3 when he says there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. All barriers come down, and all are equal in Christ. Once this becomes the narrative in which you work, other texts must be understood in this light.

Christ is Risen, He is Risen indeed!

Easter Saturday - Messiah for rich and poor

One of the things that I and many others often focus on is that Jesus was and is a champion of the poor. That poor people exist is a testament in general (factors of sloth, etc notwithstanding) of systems of economic injustice. This was certainly the case in first century Palestine and it is also the case today. It is not as if being poor is more holy in and of itself - but the poor in Jesus day were more aware of their needs. Riches can act as thorns and weeds among the seeds that is the gospel.

But Paul rightly identifies that it is the love of money rather than money itself that is evil. Industry and hard work - though along side with trust, generosity and Sabbath rest, are all emphasised in the bible.

So when Jesus comes to be buried in John 19, it shouldn't be a surprise that men of influence ask for his body and arrange his burial. Joseph of Arimathea is a disciple in secret for fear of the Jews (Judeans), and Nicodemus was the one who came at night, though publicly spoke up for Jesus in the Sanhedrin. It seems to me that these comments, if they are condemnatory, are only vaguely so. There is perhaps a time to be silent, and a time to speak up. In any event, it is these two men who make provision for the body of Jesus to be laid in a tomb.

On Easter Saturday, we should not forget that we know the end of the story - even if we don't fully understand it. These people did not. We are stuck with a pregnant pause - the man who attracted men and women, rich and poor, Jew and Gentile lies dead. For those who followed him, it all seems over.