{"id":976,"date":"2018-03-18T16:52:25","date_gmt":"2018-03-18T16:52:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/2018\/03\/18\/expansive-based-on-luke-2332-43\/"},"modified":"2020-02-15T18:41:55","modified_gmt":"2020-02-15T18:41:55","slug":"expansive-based-on-luke-2332-43","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/2018\/03\/18\/expansive-based-on-luke-2332-43\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cExpansive\u201d based on\u00a0\u00a0Luke 23:32-43"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

I\u00a0started really struggling with \u201catonement theory\u201d at the end of high school, well before I knew what \u201catonement theory\u201d was. For the record \u201catonement theory\u201d relates to how it was that Jesus’ death on the cross united God and humanity, the way to remember it is that is about how \u201cat-one-ment\u201d happened.<\/p>\n

At that time in my life, I’d only heard of one atonement theory, \u201csacrificial atonement\u201d sometimes called \u201cblood atonement\u201d which says that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins. I was trying very hard to be a \u201cgood Christian\u201d in those days, and to comply with what I thought I was supposed to believe, but this didn’t make sense to me. I couldn’t figure out to whom was the payment made. As time went on I learned that there are various schools of thought about this. The answers can be: God, humanity, or justice.<\/p>\n

Some say that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins and the payment was made to God’s own self. But, if Jesus is God, then God required God’s self as a payment to God’s self, then…. why? Worse yet if we think of the God-Jesus relationship as Parent-Child in which case this becomes an obscenity of parental abuse and child sacrifice.<\/p>\n

Some say that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins and the payment was made to humanity. Frankly, I was always able to believe that God loved me and was willing to forgive me, so the idea that we needed this act to believe that God loves us and forgives us just didn’t hold water.<\/p>\n

Some say that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins and the payment was made to a need for balance the scales of justice in the universe. This one made less than no sense to me because if God’s actions are bound by a power that is greater than God, then God isn’t God. (To be fair, some said the payment needed to be made to the Devil, but that also implies the Devil is more powerful than God; and even as a teenager I’d foregone the assumption I had to believe in the Devil.)<\/p>\n

Twenty years after I started asking this question, no one has convinced me that an answer I can accept exists. However, my initial desire to believe in sacrificial atonement theory, because I thought I was supposed to, was based in reality!! Most Christians today believe this. Once, as a pastor, I taught a course during Lent based on a video series by Marcus Borg. In the first week’s video Borg explained many ways of understanding Easter, explaining that the metaphors of \u201clife\u201d and \u201cnew life\u201d and \u201chope to the hopeless\u201d can be understood in many ways, but in all of them the metaphor is powerful. The course participants thought that made a lot of sense. The following week Borg outlined many different theories of Good Friday, and \u201catonement\u201d, explaining that \u201csacrificial atonement theory\u201d is one among many and was not particularly evident for the first 800 years or so of Christianity. The course participants balked. The centerpiece of their faith felt under attack.<\/p>\n

Thus, I come into this sermon with some trepidation. What I intend to share is, I think, important. Yet, for some it will be inherently threatening. I speak truth as I know it, trusting that all of you are strong enough to disagree with me and to discount what you don’t find useful.<\/p>\n

When I got to college I did a research paper on atonement theory and learned that there are a LOT of them, and that they’re rich and varied, and most of them are older than the one I’d thought was \u201cnormal.\u201d I say this in case you want to know more about them, but I’m going to focus now on just one other one.<\/p>\n

During Lent we’ve been talking about God’s desire for Justice, as found in the Bible. We looked at the first creation story to see the priest’s enthusiasm for Sabbath rest for ALL of creation built into creation itself. We examined the Torah vision for a just society, one that calls upon the people to care for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger as expressions of God’s own caring. We looked together at the role of the prophet in speaking truth to power so that kings didn’t start believing God allowed them to pick on the weak. We looked, as well, at one of Jesus’ parables to find that in it Jesus told a story of how oppression works so that those victimized by it could be freed from it.<\/p>\n

Throughout these sermons we’ve been comparing and contrasting \u201cdomination systems\u201d with God’s vision for the kin-dom of God. As a reminder, \u201cDomination systems are humanly contrived legal, social, political, economic, military, and religious systems deliberately designed and built to create and maintain power by a few at the top over the many below them. They exist to perpetuate the power of dominators over those dominated, explain why it is necessary, and to transfer wealth from workers up the ladder to the few obscenely wealthy persons at the top of the pyramid.\u201d1<\/sup><\/a> God’s vision is for justice is a reflection of God’s love and care for all. This means God seeks a world that cares for ALL people, which involves access to adequate food, clothing, shelter, rest, education, and meaning, for starters \u2013 we call this the reign of God, or the kindom of God .<\/p>\n

Domination systems are supported in part by ideology, usually in the form of religion. One of the most dominate of the ideological myths that supports the violence of domination systems is <\/i>the myth of redemptive violence.<\/i> <\/b>Walter Wink was a professor at Auburn Theological Seminary and he wrote the seminal book Engaging the Powers<\/i> that I finally got around to opening this week. He says regarding the myth of redemptive violence, \u201cThe distinctive feature of this myth is the victory of order over chaos by means of violence. This myth is the original religion of the status quo, the first articulation of ‘might makes right.’ It is the basic ideology of the Domination System. The gods favor those who conquer.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a> Christianity is often<\/b><\/i> used to support the ideology of domination systems. Wink again:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe myth of redemptive violence thus uses the traditions, rites, customs, and symbols of Christianity in order to enhance the power of a wealthy elite and the goals of the nation narrowly defined. It has no interest in compassion for the poor, or for more equitable economic arrangements, or for the love of the enemies. \u00a0It merely uses the shell of religion \u2013 a shell that can be filled with the blasphemous doctrine of the national security state. Emptied of their prophetic vitality, these outer forms are then manipulated to legitimate a power system intent on the preservation of privilege at all costs.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

I think sacrificial atonement theory is one of these ways that \u201cChristian\u201d theology can be used as an ideology of redemptive violence to support Domination Systems. After all, in sacrificial atonement theory, there is a demand for a VIOLENT DEATH in order to bring resolution and peace. I think the ancient myth of redemptive violence has taken deep root in Christianity this way, and it is destructive of good living as well as good theology.<\/p>\n

So, let’s look at another option! Wink uses \u201cPowers\u201d to describe the Powers in the world that support domination systems, through violence or the threat of violence. He thinks THEY killed Jesus, and that the work of God and Jesus was in resisting and exposing them. He writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe cross also exposes the Powers as unable to make Jesus become what they wanted him to be, or to stop being who he was. Here was a person able to live out to the fullest what he felt was God’s will. He chose to die rather than compromise with violence<\/b><\/i>. The Powers threw at him every weapon in their arsenal. But they could not deflect him from the trail that he and God were blazing. Because he lived thus, we too can find our path<\/b><\/i>. Because they could not kill what was alive in him, the cross also revealed the impotence of death. Death is the Powers’ final sanction. Jesus at his crucifixion neither fights the darkness nor flees under cover of it, but goes with it, goes into it. He enters the darkness freely, voluntarily. The darkness is not dispelled or illuminated. It remains vast, untamed, void. But he somehow encompasses it. It becomes the darkness of God. It is now possible to enter any darkness and trust God to wrest from it meaning, coherence, resurrection. Jesus’ truth could not be killed.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Jesus died without being complicit in violence at all, he didn’t participate in it, sanction it, or fight it.<\/p>\n

Now, I’m going to share a very long quote from Wink about what he thinks the death of Jesus does and doesn’t mean, because I’ve thought about it, and I can’t say it better.<\/p>\n

\u201cJesus’ own view of his inevitable death at the hands of the Powers seems to have been that God’s nonviolent reign could only come in the teeth of desperate opposition and the violent recoil of the Domination System: ‘from the days of John the Baptist until now, the reign of God has suffered violence….Now, however, Christian theology argued that God<\/i> is the one who provides Jesus as a Lamb sacrificed in our stead; that God is the angry and aggrieved party who must be placated by blood sacrifice; that God is, finally both sacrificer and sacrificed.\u201d \u2026 But what is wrong with this God, that the legal ledgers can be balanced only by means of the death of an innocent victim? <\/b><\/i>Jesus simply declared people forgiven, confident that he spoke the mind of God. Why then is a sacrificial victim necessary to make forgiveness possible? Does not the death of Jesus reveal that all such sacrifices are unnecessary?<\/p>\n

The God whom Jesus revealed as no longer our rival, no longer threatening and vengeful, but unconditionally loving and forgiving, who needed no satisfaction by blood \u2013 this God of infinite mercy was metamorphosed by the church into the image of a wrathful God whose demand for blood atonement leads to God’s requiring of his own Son a death on behalf of all of us. The nonviolent God of Jesus comes to be depicted as a God of unequaled violence, since God not only allegedly demands the blood of the victim who is closest and most precious to him, but also holds the whole of humanity accountable for a death that God both anticipated and required. Against such an image of God the revolt of atheism is an act of pure religion.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Wink then summarizes what this means for us, \u201cTo be this God’s offspring requires the unconditional and unilateral renunciation of violence. <\/b><\/i>The reign of God means the complete and definitive elimination of every form of violence between individuals and nations. This is a realm and a possibility of which those imprisoned by their own espousal of violence cannot even conceive.\u201d6<\/sup><\/a> John Dominic Crossan comes to a very similar conclusion, \u201cChristians choose between the violent God of human normalcy and the nonviolent God of divine radicality, between peace through violence and peace through justice, according to which one they find incarnate in the historical Jesus\u201d.7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The question is, \u201cis our God violent?\u201d Despite very good evidence from the Bible, from humanity, and from Christianity otherwise, I don’t believe so. I believe God is nonviolent, and calls all of us to nonviolence as well. I hope the chance to consider various understandings of Jesus’ death on the cross makes space within you to consider the question, and frees you to answer it in ways that are life giving. Amen<\/p>\n

Questions for Sermon Talkback<\/b><\/p>\n

What other atonement theories have you heard? (Or other nuances of the ones mentioned)<\/p>\n

What sense can you make of the \u201cMyth of redemptive violence\u201d?<\/p>\n

Does it make sense that sacrificial atonement is part of the myth of redemptive violence?<\/p>\n

Is anything missing from our faith if we don’t accept sacrificial atonement?<\/p>\n

Does Wink’s theory of Jesus’ death make sense?<\/p>\n

How have you made sense of Jesus’ death?<\/p>\n

How do you connect Jesus’ death to Jesus’ life?<\/p>\n

For you, is there anything inherent about forgiveness in Jesus’ death? If not, do you find this in another place in your story of God\/Jesus? If not, is it important to you?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

1<\/a>Jim Jordal, \u201cWhat is a Domination System\u201d found on 2\/10\/2017 athttp:\/\/www.windsofjustice.org\/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=356<\/a> written on March 14, 2013.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World \tof Domination <\/i>(Fortress Press: 1993 it seems), 15.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>Wink, 28.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>Wink, 141.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>Wink, 148-9.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>Wink, 149.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>John Dominic Crossan God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now <\/i>(USA: HarperOne, 2007), 141.<\/p>\n

– <\/p>\n

Rev. Sara E. Baron\u00a0<\/p>\n

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady\u00a0<\/p>\n

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305\u00a0<\/p>\n

Pronouns: she\/her\/hers <\/p>\n

http:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FUMCSchenectady<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

March 18, 2018<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I\u00a0started really struggling with \u201catonement theory\u201d at the end of high school, well before I knew what \u201catonement theory\u201d was. … Continue reading \u201cExpansive\u201d based on\u00a0\u00a0Luke 23:32-43<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[34,38,28,39,33,415,414,417,418,413,140,403,419,416,56,401],"class_list":["post-976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons","tag-fumc-schenectady","tag-progressive-christianity","tag-rev-sara-e-baron","tag-thinking-church","tag-umc","tag-atonement","tag-crucifixion","tag-i-didnt-even-mention-substitutionary-atonement-because-it-isnt-worth-the-breath","tag-is-god-violent","tag-justice-for-lent","tag-kindom","tag-nonviolence","tag-nonviolent-jesus","tag-sacrificial-atonement-theory-isnt-the-only-one","tag-schenectady","tag-walter-wink"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=976"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/976\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1192,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/976\/revisions\/1192"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}