Spong's Sixth Thesis

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

Spong believes that modern science and philosophy make the crucifixion obsolete and nonsensical. The ransom Christ supposedly paid allows Christians to slide, avoiding the hard work involved in self-improvement. For Spong, Newton proved that God does not act in the world and Darwin proved the non-existence of original sin therefore there is no need for atonement. Besides, writes Spong: "I would choose to loathe rather than to worship a deity who required the sacrifice of his son" (Why Christianity Must Change or Die, p. 95). On a deeper level, Spong believes in the modern conception of redemption; that is redemption is something only humans can do for themselves. As Dallas Willard points out:

Nowadays human redemption is not thought to amount to much, and what little there is to it can be dealt with by education and counseling, and perhaps a law here and there, or some improvement in living conditions. Mel Gibson's Passion and Philosophy, p. 168.

Spong denies that sin separates humanity from God. Therefore, we do not need a redeeming or atoning act. Therefore, Christ's sacrifice is nonsensical.

I doubt anyone will argue that crucifixion is not barbaric and the idea of a god that requires a sacrifice is indeed ancient and, on the face of it, quite disturbing. Sacrifice is a theme that reaches back to the very roots of religious thinking, a theme that probably existed before people even learned to farm. These concepts of sacrifice and estrangement (through sin) are an offense to the common picture of the "nice", God of Love, the white-bearded grandfather figure who just "loves you for who you are" sort. It is also an offense to anyone who believes that God can act in history. The pure absurdity of the Passion is only obvious, as St. Paul points out:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the foolishness of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (I Corinthians 1:18-25)

I will be the first to admit, that the atoning act of Christ's crucifixion contains many serious philosophical questions. But to those of us who "get it", there are forces and profound lessons in the barbarity.

Whether Christ's crucifixion is barbaric is really not the issue, though. Even if it were, indeed, barbaric, the aesthetics of the event do not correspond to the reality, the truth and meaning behind the act. In other words, we can look at the events of the Passion with horror and revulsion, find the agony of Christ on the Cross to be simply too gory to dwell on, and, thus, miss the true meaning of the event.

The way I have always looked at this issue revolves around that simple choice. Sure, the plain absurdity and horror of Christ's last day on earth are obvious. Some people will contemplate these events and be changed . . . if they allow it. Others will dwell on the difficulties (what DID Christ's death really do for me?) and reject any meaningful lessons, truths or applications for their lives. Or we can be moved by the suffering to act in accord with the words of Christ, to follow His lead.

If Spong finds these central tenants of Christianity a stumbling block to his understanding of God, so be it. But if Christ had not gone through what he did and then be raised, the word "Christian" would be nearly meaningless. It is our faith in the miraculous acts of atonement that defines Christianity (I Corinthians 15:17). Sure, you can believe that Jesus said some good things, perhaps he was even the history’s best teacher, but does that make one a Christian?

History shows, to my satisfaction, that human beings can only go so far in improving their lives. Our relationship (as a species) with God has not grown over the centuries, as Spong implies that it should through some evolutionary means. And that God, as primitive a concept as it may seem to Spong, is still entirely holy and good. Said God requires a price we humans cannot pay, thus the need for the God-Man Jesus to go through what he did. All that is required from us is our faith in that redeeming act and an honest desire to let God change our lives for the better.

Talk about your Devotion

Man, oh man, can you imagine ACTUALLY having yourself crucified as a sign of your devotion? That's what at least 11 Filipino Christians did on this Good Friday. This was the 20th time for one of these fellows.

Jesus' Miracles Not Very Miraculous

A "new" theory explaining how Jesus might have "walked on water" is being floated by Doron Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University. Nof claims that Jesus may have been walking on ice patches. Apparently, the area around the Sea of Galilee was cold enough to freeze over between 2,500 to 1,500 years ago.

Naturalisticly, this seems to be a credible alternative to the miracles described in the Bible (Matthew 14, Mark 6, John 6). I suppose I could buy this if I could just get this ridiculous picture out of my head. Imagine Jesus, striding along the Sea, jumping from ice-flow to ice-flow, trying to keep his balance and not slip. I am also trying to ignore the fact that several of the witnesses made their living on the lake, day in and day out, summer or winter, fishing; they certainly would have been aware of these icy patches. Furthermore, at least one experienced fisherman actually followed Jesus into the water, yet failed to mention the ice. Maybe, the ice just sank under Peter's weight? Sometimes, the explanation takes more faith than accepting what the text describes.

Of course, this article has to highlight the fact that people are upset by this announcement and highlight the retarded emails from people wanting Nof to "go to hell where you [Prof. Nof] belong." Riiiight.

Mel Gibson's Passion and Philosophy

In preparation for Holy Week I have pulled out a couple of books. The first book on my pile is Mel Gibson's Passion and Philosophy: The Cross, the Questions, the Controversy edited by Jorge J. E. Gracia. The book is divided into five main sections, with three to six wonderful essays each. Each section centers on a major question (Did Christ have to suffer violently? Is The Passion anti-Semitic? What is Truth? Why was Christ killed? Who is morally responsible?). All of the essays are designed to bring you to some final questions specific to the topic at hand (which may end up being nice little blog ideas!). The tone and depth was sufficient to the task, neither burying the reader in jargon or belaboring concepts to the point of obfuscation.

Don't expect to have this book resolve the issues for you though. In a fairly balanced and open presentation, this book merely explores the surface of the issues. Most of the authors point out biblical inconsistencies and attempt to show why Gibson made some of the choices he made.

For some people, the movie was nothing more than pornographic. It perpetuated stereotypes, gloried in violence and showed an easy way toward atonement (by having Christ work at being the scapegoat and allowing us to behave any way we want because "Jesus died for me"). Others felt that is was a moving experience that changed lives; witness the restored marriages, confession of crimes, forgiveness chronicled by Jody Eldred. I found myself sort of on the fence concerning the movie, so this book allowed me more time to reflect and think about certain issues.

Obviously, the "pornographic" depictions of violence played a part in my understanding of the film, as did the occasional extra-biblical scenes and lines in the movie. Frankly, I was concerned about possible anti-Semitic reactions from the film (I honestly thought Gibson could have done better at getting inside the heads of the Jewish leaders). But all in all the movie was very moving for me.

For my part, Mel Gibson's Passion and Philosophy did help to clarify some perspectives on the meaning of Christ's death (not so much the meaning of the movie). Most importantly, I re-evaluated the meaning of Christ's death. What exactly was accomplished by His death and how does that effect me, personally, some 2000 years later? Why did have to be such a gruesome death? With most of next week "off" from work, I suppose I'll have more time to write about these things.